I agree with the thrust of the thread that at-will employment sucks, and that some soft regulations would be good. I'm not sure if it is strictly necessary to require just cause for all terminations, but I like the idea floated previously that all employees should get a little bit of severance except in cases of misconduct, with an implied probation period.
Anyway, I do have some disagreements about some of the discussions happening around the periphery.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I don't know what the lack of union growth and power has to do with anything, those are the realities of the world around us.
Workers should get more protections, and I think they probably will over time, all I was saying was that the world we're talking about hasn't ever existed yet. It's still something To Be.
Unions got out PR'd, especially among the working class.
I never hear about good things Unions do and routinely hear shit about stupid things Unions do. I KNOW they do lots of good things, I just never hear about it.
This is so incredibly true. Two of the people in my IT group are Union employees, and my boss and I are overtime exempt salaried employees, because that's how the job codes were set up however fuck long ago. Know what that means for us? That means when we have events that we have to start filming at 5:00am, my boss and I are showing up to set up by ourselves because the Union workers cannot start before 6:30. If we have an all day event to film, we're doing both set up and break down alone because the Union worker cannot stay more than 8 hours. We have to film on Saturday next week, and we need one of our Union members there, so he gets a day and a half off during the week since we're asking him to work a Saturday.
The problem is, that at some point, when the Unions actively work against getting the damn job done in a lot of industries, they earn a lot of negative opinions.
This is crab bucket thinking.
Shouldn't you be more upset that - as an exempt employee - you're being expected to work at least 9.5 hours (and most likely significantly more) without additional compensation? Instead of complaining about the union rules, you should be complaining about the company that is exploiting you.
Or are you being compensated for your extra time through a higher salary?
I've also never heard of a union that won't allow their members work overtime at all. I have heard of unions that won't require their members to work overtime, or unions that require fair compensation (shift premiums, actually paying overtime rather than comp time bullshit, etc) for their members to work overtime.
On the other hand, I have heard of many, many employers that simply refuse to pay their employees overtime, but failure to get work done - regardless of the workload - negatively impacts those employees.
But we're getting away from the point of the thread...we've got a dedicated labor thread for unions. The big thing is that it's easy to 'other' people. We've got an example right up the page about how a new GM 'othered' the existing employees because of her relationship to 'her' people. It negatively impacted performance evaluations, and while the GM could easily have doctored performance evaluations and cut the people she didn't like without real cause, there would at least need to be some kind of paper trail.
I'm compensated, and the long hours were clearly stated in the job description when I took it. On top of it, I enjoy the work I do, and on non event days, basically get to set my own schedule a lot of the time. It just gets to be the point of literally not being possible to properly set up and film without an extra body or two sometimes, and we are restricted from having said bodies. I'm not sure who sets the rules on whether we can let the Union guys get overtime or not, but it's not my boss, or else he would absolutely let this guy get paid time and a half to help out.
Again, I absolutely, fully support the idea that my boss can't arbitrarily make this guy work whenever he decides he wants to, with no recourse. But goddamned if the general rules don't conform at all to what we actually do. It's not a "exception", this is something we've been doing three times a month for two years now, and both of the Union people we hired came on board after we started. Doesn't matter, we couldn't alter the job descriptions of the position to include those duties or work out anything because of "reasons". Why that is, I doubt I will ever properly find out, but it definitely colors my experience.
Those reasons are "there is a collective bargaining agreement in place" and "if you want to add those duties, the the CBA needs to be renegotiated". And I would not be surprised if the case is that the CBA does allow overtime and early starts - as long as they are properly compensated. So your employer, realizing that you aren't under those rules, just expects you to pick up the slack, instead of just paying the differential.
This is why your argument is crab thinking - instead of being angry at your employer, you're angry at the union workers because they're looking out for their interests.
And to go even further, there are legitimate reasons to negotiate in "no early starts" to a contract. Being forced to work the occasional super early morning or weekend is no big deal to a young single guy. A family man/woman who has to get their kids to school, plan weekends around the family and generally manage a second life outside of work might find them to be tremendous burdens.
One of the things that unions try to do is create an atmosphere conducive to long careers. That is always going to clash when they are paired up with young workers who are willing to do whatever because the money's good and the after-work obligations light.
I don't know what the lack of union growth and power has to do with anything, those are the realities of the world around us.
Workers should get more protections, and I think they probably will over time, all I was saying was that the world we're talking about hasn't ever existed yet. It's still something To Be.
Unions got out PR'd, especially among the working class.
I never hear about good things Unions do and routinely hear shit about stupid things Unions do. I KNOW they do lots of good things, I just never hear about it.
This is so incredibly true. Two of the people in my IT group are Union employees, and my boss and I are overtime exempt salaried employees, because that's how the job codes were set up however fuck long ago. Know what that means for us? That means when we have events that we have to start filming at 5:00am, my boss and I are showing up to set up by ourselves because the Union workers cannot start before 6:30. If we have an all day event to film, we're doing both set up and break down alone because the Union worker cannot stay more than 8 hours. We have to film on Saturday next week, and we need one of our Union members there, so he gets a day and a half off during the week since we're asking him to work a Saturday.
The problem is, that at some point, when the Unions actively work against getting the damn job done in a lot of industries, they earn a lot of negative opinions.
This is crab bucket thinking.
Shouldn't you be more upset that - as an exempt employee - you're being expected to work at least 9.5 hours (and most likely significantly more) without additional compensation? Instead of complaining about the union rules, you should be complaining about the company that is exploiting you.
Or are you being compensated for your extra time through a higher salary?
I've also never heard of a union that won't allow their members work overtime at all. I have heard of unions that won't require their members to work overtime, or unions that require fair compensation (shift premiums, actually paying overtime rather than comp time bullshit, etc) for their members to work overtime.
On the other hand, I have heard of many, many employers that simply refuse to pay their employees overtime, but failure to get work done - regardless of the workload - negatively impacts those employees.
But we're getting away from the point of the thread...we've got a dedicated labor thread for unions. The big thing is that it's easy to 'other' people. We've got an example right up the page about how a new GM 'othered' the existing employees because of her relationship to 'her' people. It negatively impacted performance evaluations, and while the GM could easily have doctored performance evaluations and cut the people she didn't like without real cause, there would at least need to be some kind of paper trail.
I'm compensated, and the long hours were clearly stated in the job description when I took it. On top of it, I enjoy the work I do, and on non event days, basically get to set my own schedule a lot of the time. It just gets to be the point of literally not being possible to properly set up and film without an extra body or two sometimes, and we are restricted from having said bodies. I'm not sure who sets the rules on whether we can let the Union guys get overtime or not, but it's not my boss, or else he would absolutely let this guy get paid time and a half to help out.
Again, I absolutely, fully support the idea that my boss can't arbitrarily make this guy work whenever he decides he wants to, with no recourse. But goddamned if the general rules don't conform at all to what we actually do. It's not a "exception", this is something we've been doing three times a month for two years now, and both of the Union people we hired came on board after we started. Doesn't matter, we couldn't alter the job descriptions of the position to include those duties or work out anything because of "reasons". Why that is, I doubt I will ever properly find out, but it definitely colors my experience.
Those reasons are "there is a collective bargaining agreement in place" and "if you want to add those duties, the the CBA needs to be renegotiated". And I would not be surprised if the case is that the CBA does allow overtime and early starts - as long as they are properly compensated. So your employer, realizing that you aren't under those rules, just expects you to pick up the slack, instead of just paying the differential.
This is why your argument is crab thinking - instead of being angry at your employer, you're angry at the union workers because they're looking out for their interests.
This is where the PR thing I was talking about. Why the fuck can't either of the union workers explain it? By just saying "You're being a dick, it's your bosses fault" you're just as much ducking the issue that the employers are.
Shit, if they explained what was going on and how and why the Union is protecting them they might even convince people the Union isn't the problem.
- Employee handbooks becoming meaningless. Complying with guidelines gives an employee zero protection against being fired. An employer may even fire someone in direct violation of the policies they themselves give to their workers.
They're not entirely meaningless.
Violation of company policy may mean the difference between getting unemployment or not; or getting severance or not (with respect to the fact that severance is rare in the United States); or getting a bad employment reference or not.
If you're fired without cause, then you de facto get unemployment (all else being equal - eg, you made enough money during the preliminary period and so forth). If your prior employer complains about your performance to a job interviewer, you could sue them for libel.
If you violated your company's employee handbook policies, then they can contest your unemployment and have more protection for giving you a bad reference.
- It's legally perfectly OK for employers (in some states) to lie to attract prospective employees. Say you have a house in Washington, and you receive a job offer in New York. They want you to sell your house and move to NYC, and promise you a salary for doing so. So you sell your house and move, but then oops, they are refusing to give you the job now. Under at-will employment, there's no expectation of holding a job for even a fleeting moment, and the job therefore has no value to be vindicated through a lawsuit. You would never have given up your home and salary if you knew a company's true intentions, yet here you are holding your dick in your hand.
That's true, but only verbally. If it's in writing, you can sue. You can also get unemployment in some cases if a job offer made in writing was rescinded (I think this is highly dependent on state law, so don't take as gospel).
But, honestly, don't make any decisions about potential employment until you get an offer in writing. If it's not in writing, it doesn't exist.
- Situations can arise where an employer asks you to violate the law or a code of ethics as a requirement for continued employment. Refusing to violate the law is protected against as an exception against firing, but there's two problems. First is the "no cause at all" part of at-will employment. An employer is not required to give a reason for your dismissal, so good luck showing a court that they fired you for the reason you say they did. Which brings me to the second problem: the burden of proving the request for illegal or immoral conduct is on you, not your employer. Unless you have a recording device in your pocket on at all times, it's highly unlikely you even have sufficient evidence to bring your case to trial. And even if you did...
I habitually ask for confirmation for things via email. I try to make it just look like I'm managing expectations. "I just want to make sure I understand the project. You need me to do X to Y, right?" But I recognize that there are lots of workers out there, particularly in blue/grey collar positions, for whom this is not an option.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I don't know what the lack of union growth and power has to do with anything, those are the realities of the world around us.
Workers should get more protections, and I think they probably will over time, all I was saying was that the world we're talking about hasn't ever existed yet. It's still something To Be.
Unions got out PR'd, especially among the working class.
I never hear about good things Unions do and routinely hear shit about stupid things Unions do. I KNOW they do lots of good things, I just never hear about it.
This is so incredibly true. Two of the people in my IT group are Union employees, and my boss and I are overtime exempt salaried employees, because that's how the job codes were set up however fuck long ago. Know what that means for us? That means when we have events that we have to start filming at 5:00am, my boss and I are showing up to set up by ourselves because the Union workers cannot start before 6:30. If we have an all day event to film, we're doing both set up and break down alone because the Union worker cannot stay more than 8 hours. We have to film on Saturday next week, and we need one of our Union members there, so he gets a day and a half off during the week since we're asking him to work a Saturday.
The problem is, that at some point, when the Unions actively work against getting the damn job done in a lot of industries, they earn a lot of negative opinions.
This is crab bucket thinking.
Shouldn't you be more upset that - as an exempt employee - you're being expected to work at least 9.5 hours (and most likely significantly more) without additional compensation? Instead of complaining about the union rules, you should be complaining about the company that is exploiting you.
Or are you being compensated for your extra time through a higher salary?
I've also never heard of a union that won't allow their members work overtime at all. I have heard of unions that won't require their members to work overtime, or unions that require fair compensation (shift premiums, actually paying overtime rather than comp time bullshit, etc) for their members to work overtime.
On the other hand, I have heard of many, many employers that simply refuse to pay their employees overtime, but failure to get work done - regardless of the workload - negatively impacts those employees.
But we're getting away from the point of the thread...we've got a dedicated labor thread for unions. The big thing is that it's easy to 'other' people. We've got an example right up the page about how a new GM 'othered' the existing employees because of her relationship to 'her' people. It negatively impacted performance evaluations, and while the GM could easily have doctored performance evaluations and cut the people she didn't like without real cause, there would at least need to be some kind of paper trail.
I'm compensated, and the long hours were clearly stated in the job description when I took it. On top of it, I enjoy the work I do, and on non event days, basically get to set my own schedule a lot of the time. It just gets to be the point of literally not being possible to properly set up and film without an extra body or two sometimes, and we are restricted from having said bodies. I'm not sure who sets the rules on whether we can let the Union guys get overtime or not, but it's not my boss, or else he would absolutely let this guy get paid time and a half to help out.
Again, I absolutely, fully support the idea that my boss can't arbitrarily make this guy work whenever he decides he wants to, with no recourse. But goddamned if the general rules don't conform at all to what we actually do. It's not a "exception", this is something we've been doing three times a month for two years now, and both of the Union people we hired came on board after we started. Doesn't matter, we couldn't alter the job descriptions of the position to include those duties or work out anything because of "reasons". Why that is, I doubt I will ever properly find out, but it definitely colors my experience.
Those reasons are "there is a collective bargaining agreement in place" and "if you want to add those duties, the the CBA needs to be renegotiated". And I would not be surprised if the case is that the CBA does allow overtime and early starts - as long as they are properly compensated. So your employer, realizing that you aren't under those rules, just expects you to pick up the slack, instead of just paying the differential.
This is why your argument is crab thinking - instead of being angry at your employer, you're angry at the union workers because they're looking out for their interests.
This is where the PR thing I was talking about. Why the fuck can't either of the union workers explain it? By just saying "You're being a dick, it's your bosses fault" you're just as much ducking the issue that the employers are.
Shit, if they explained what was going on and how and why the Union is protecting them they might even convince people the Union isn't the problem.
Have they ever even asked the union guys? Do the union guys even know?
Do your contracts not contain notice of termination provisions that apply regardless of reason for termination?
Certainly in the UK and NZ termination of employment contracts require notice to be served or paid.
I've noticed you've mentioned employment contracts several times.
Generally speaking, employment contracts (more typically called employment agreements) in the US contain nothing more than a vague job description, the name of the employer and employee, and the compensation.
They might include how many hours per week, whether the employee is hourly or salary, whether the employee is overtime exempt, the length of the probation period, and eligibility for any non-monetary compensation (eg, medical benefits).
And typically, the employer may change the terms of employment (within what the law allows) at any time and for any reason. Consequently, the employment 'contract' doesn't really function very much like a contract.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I don't know what the lack of union growth and power has to do with anything, those are the realities of the world around us.
Workers should get more protections, and I think they probably will over time, all I was saying was that the world we're talking about hasn't ever existed yet. It's still something To Be.
Unions got out PR'd, especially among the working class.
I never hear about good things Unions do and routinely hear shit about stupid things Unions do. I KNOW they do lots of good things, I just never hear about it.
This is so incredibly true. Two of the people in my IT group are Union employees, and my boss and I are overtime exempt salaried employees, because that's how the job codes were set up however fuck long ago. Know what that means for us? That means when we have events that we have to start filming at 5:00am, my boss and I are showing up to set up by ourselves because the Union workers cannot start before 6:30. If we have an all day event to film, we're doing both set up and break down alone because the Union worker cannot stay more than 8 hours. We have to film on Saturday next week, and we need one of our Union members there, so he gets a day and a half off during the week since we're asking him to work a Saturday.
The problem is, that at some point, when the Unions actively work against getting the damn job done in a lot of industries, they earn a lot of negative opinions.
This is crab bucket thinking.
Shouldn't you be more upset that - as an exempt employee - you're being expected to work at least 9.5 hours (and most likely significantly more) without additional compensation? Instead of complaining about the union rules, you should be complaining about the company that is exploiting you.
Or are you being compensated for your extra time through a higher salary?
I've also never heard of a union that won't allow their members work overtime at all. I have heard of unions that won't require their members to work overtime, or unions that require fair compensation (shift premiums, actually paying overtime rather than comp time bullshit, etc) for their members to work overtime.
On the other hand, I have heard of many, many employers that simply refuse to pay their employees overtime, but failure to get work done - regardless of the workload - negatively impacts those employees.
But we're getting away from the point of the thread...we've got a dedicated labor thread for unions. The big thing is that it's easy to 'other' people. We've got an example right up the page about how a new GM 'othered' the existing employees because of her relationship to 'her' people. It negatively impacted performance evaluations, and while the GM could easily have doctored performance evaluations and cut the people she didn't like without real cause, there would at least need to be some kind of paper trail.
I'm compensated, and the long hours were clearly stated in the job description when I took it. On top of it, I enjoy the work I do, and on non event days, basically get to set my own schedule a lot of the time. It just gets to be the point of literally not being possible to properly set up and film without an extra body or two sometimes, and we are restricted from having said bodies. I'm not sure who sets the rules on whether we can let the Union guys get overtime or not, but it's not my boss, or else he would absolutely let this guy get paid time and a half to help out.
Again, I absolutely, fully support the idea that my boss can't arbitrarily make this guy work whenever he decides he wants to, with no recourse. But goddamned if the general rules don't conform at all to what we actually do. It's not a "exception", this is something we've been doing three times a month for two years now, and both of the Union people we hired came on board after we started. Doesn't matter, we couldn't alter the job descriptions of the position to include those duties or work out anything because of "reasons". Why that is, I doubt I will ever properly find out, but it definitely colors my experience.
Those reasons are "there is a collective bargaining agreement in place" and "if you want to add those duties, the the CBA needs to be renegotiated". And I would not be surprised if the case is that the CBA does allow overtime and early starts - as long as they are properly compensated. So your employer, realizing that you aren't under those rules, just expects you to pick up the slack, instead of just paying the differential.
This is why your argument is crab thinking - instead of being angry at your employer, you're angry at the union workers because they're looking out for their interests.
This is where the PR thing I was talking about. Why the fuck can't either of the union workers explain it? By just saying "You're being a dick, it's your bosses fault" you're just as much ducking the issue that the employers are.
Shit, if they explained what was going on and how and why the Union is protecting them they might even convince people the Union isn't the problem.
Have they ever even asked the union guys? Do the union guys even know?
Probably not.
Usually when someone asked I would go , "yeah I have no problem working the overtime assuming I have no other obligations (school) and that I was being paid time and a half."
If I was over 30 when I was in the union I would have laughed if someone asked me to work overtime in the wee morning hours. After work is fine, since I'm already there, and I just have to alter my afterwork schedule, and I probably wouldn't have had school in the morning.
Getting up early means I have to shift how my whole fucking day works. I give my g/f a ride to school as it is, having to shift that around just isn't going to work.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
How do you feel economic issues should figure into the equation, pertaining to layoffs and the like? If I'm an employer in a non-at-will state and my sales go down, to what extent am I allowed to lay people off? Do I have to first prove my revenue is down? What if I want to upgrade my machinery in such a way that I need fewer employees to maintain productivity?
Generally this is handled with some form of severance.
I'm not sure there are any systems where employers are forced to employ people. You just have to pay them or give them some specific amount of notice.
The idea being that people shouldn't have to lose their income stream with no warning.
Seniority - and seniority based wage scales are a decent way of protecting the worker from arbitrary vs. necessary job loss.
A LIFO system means that the workers who are likely to lose their jobs are the lowest paid workers, and unnecessarily cutting jobs is only going to create a larger workload (and usually more overtime) for the higher paid senior workers. Unless demand or workload has decreased to the point that the current workforce is unnecessary and those lower paid / less senior workers aren't being utilized, cutting staff is only shooting yourself in the foot.
Yes because as if its not hard enough to enter the workforce in a meaningful way for millennials.
Seniority is a god damn nightmare, it is directly opposing any kind of meritocracy. It is the 'All animals are equal, some are just more equal' of US unions.
I'm not a fan of LIFO for this exact reason. (I'm not a fan of the word "meritocracy" either because of all the reasons others have already mentioned.)
My secondhand experience with LIFO is that it leads to an underclass of young workers with no job security, who hop from one place to the next.
It's good within reason to give middle-aged workers more security than twentysomethings - they're more likely to have kids and houses, and less mobile and less flexible - but like so many things, we've gone way too far in that direction, and young workers are getting screwed.
Seniority-based retention policies just exacerbate that.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Labor thread guys...although it does look like we're about due for a new one.
My last comment though...the passive-aggressive hatred I see for unions is frustrating, because I'm sure that if any of these concerns were actually voiced to the union people who get smeared there would be a good explanation of why the rules are in place. Work rules are rarely arbitrary or just featherbedding.
Labor thread guys...although it does look like we're about due for a new one.
My last comment though...the passive-aggressive hatred I see for unions is frustrating, because I'm sure that if any of these concerns were actually voiced to the union people who get smeared there would be a good explanation of why the rules are in place. Work rules are rarely arbitrary or just featherbedding.
And even if there is some featherbedding, who cares? We live in a society where the management class feather the fuck out of their work contracts. The terms "golden parachute" and "executive perks" exist for a reason. The idea that it is horrifying when workers collectively try to get at least a canvas parachute when they negotiate their contracts is mystifying to me.
So, you don't think this sort of gooseshit affects you? Read this.
Short version: Subway employee that was violently ill tries to report in sick, but is forced to work - which ultimately becomes a PR fiasco for not only the location but Subway as a whole. So, scumbag manager fires said employee, and tries to make it like it was the employee's fault.
I can tell you that when I worked at burger king that the shitty manager that day tried to tell some guy he had to work. He risked his job and called the regional manager of the franchise and reported the manager.
Anytime you got sick after eating fast food, someone was probably sick with the same shit when they made your stuff.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
Anyway, I do have some disagreements about some of the discussions happening around the periphery.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And to go even further, there are legitimate reasons to negotiate in "no early starts" to a contract. Being forced to work the occasional super early morning or weekend is no big deal to a young single guy. A family man/woman who has to get their kids to school, plan weekends around the family and generally manage a second life outside of work might find them to be tremendous burdens.
One of the things that unions try to do is create an atmosphere conducive to long careers. That is always going to clash when they are paired up with young workers who are willing to do whatever because the money's good and the after-work obligations light.
This is where the PR thing I was talking about. Why the fuck can't either of the union workers explain it? By just saying "You're being a dick, it's your bosses fault" you're just as much ducking the issue that the employers are.
Shit, if they explained what was going on and how and why the Union is protecting them they might even convince people the Union isn't the problem.
They're not entirely meaningless.
Violation of company policy may mean the difference between getting unemployment or not; or getting severance or not (with respect to the fact that severance is rare in the United States); or getting a bad employment reference or not.
If you're fired without cause, then you de facto get unemployment (all else being equal - eg, you made enough money during the preliminary period and so forth). If your prior employer complains about your performance to a job interviewer, you could sue them for libel.
If you violated your company's employee handbook policies, then they can contest your unemployment and have more protection for giving you a bad reference.
That's true, but only verbally. If it's in writing, you can sue. You can also get unemployment in some cases if a job offer made in writing was rescinded (I think this is highly dependent on state law, so don't take as gospel).
But, honestly, don't make any decisions about potential employment until you get an offer in writing. If it's not in writing, it doesn't exist.
I habitually ask for confirmation for things via email. I try to make it just look like I'm managing expectations. "I just want to make sure I understand the project. You need me to do X to Y, right?" But I recognize that there are lots of workers out there, particularly in blue/grey collar positions, for whom this is not an option.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Have they ever even asked the union guys? Do the union guys even know?
I've noticed you've mentioned employment contracts several times.
Generally speaking, employment contracts (more typically called employment agreements) in the US contain nothing more than a vague job description, the name of the employer and employee, and the compensation.
They might include how many hours per week, whether the employee is hourly or salary, whether the employee is overtime exempt, the length of the probation period, and eligibility for any non-monetary compensation (eg, medical benefits).
And typically, the employer may change the terms of employment (within what the law allows) at any time and for any reason. Consequently, the employment 'contract' doesn't really function very much like a contract.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Probably not.
Usually when someone asked I would go , "yeah I have no problem working the overtime assuming I have no other obligations (school) and that I was being paid time and a half."
If I was over 30 when I was in the union I would have laughed if someone asked me to work overtime in the wee morning hours. After work is fine, since I'm already there, and I just have to alter my afterwork schedule, and I probably wouldn't have had school in the morning.
Getting up early means I have to shift how my whole fucking day works. I give my g/f a ride to school as it is, having to shift that around just isn't going to work.
I'm not a fan of LIFO for this exact reason. (I'm not a fan of the word "meritocracy" either because of all the reasons others have already mentioned.)
My secondhand experience with LIFO is that it leads to an underclass of young workers with no job security, who hop from one place to the next.
It's good within reason to give middle-aged workers more security than twentysomethings - they're more likely to have kids and houses, and less mobile and less flexible - but like so many things, we've gone way too far in that direction, and young workers are getting screwed.
Seniority-based retention policies just exacerbate that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Labor thread guys...although it does look like we're about due for a new one.
My last comment though...the passive-aggressive hatred I see for unions is frustrating, because I'm sure that if any of these concerns were actually voiced to the union people who get smeared there would be a good explanation of why the rules are in place. Work rules are rarely arbitrary or just featherbedding.
And even if there is some featherbedding, who cares? We live in a society where the management class feather the fuck out of their work contracts. The terms "golden parachute" and "executive perks" exist for a reason. The idea that it is horrifying when workers collectively try to get at least a canvas parachute when they negotiate their contracts is mystifying to me.
Short version: Subway employee that was violently ill tries to report in sick, but is forced to work - which ultimately becomes a PR fiasco for not only the location but Subway as a whole. So, scumbag manager fires said employee, and tries to make it like it was the employee's fault.
I can tell you that when I worked at burger king that the shitty manager that day tried to tell some guy he had to work. He risked his job and called the regional manager of the franchise and reported the manager.
Anytime you got sick after eating fast food, someone was probably sick with the same shit when they made your stuff.