Tartine co-founder Elisabeth Prueitt, for her part, tells the Chronicle that while she’s supportive of unions in other cases, she’d like to keep Tartine union-free.
NEW: In a tense all-hands meeting, Cenk Uygur urged staff at The Young Turks not to form a union, arguing the progressive network couldn't sustain one. "The reality is we're in a precarious position," Cenk told me.
choice quotes from the article:
“The reality is we’re in a precarious position,” Uygur said. “We’re in a digital media landscape where almost no one makes money or is sustainable.”
He added, “For a smaller digital media company, those are absolutely real considerations. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have a union. Everyone should know the full context ... If folks say they don’t believe we’re in a precarious position, OK. And that’s their decision to make.”
In an interview with HuffPost, Uygur said he is a strong supporter of unions, especially at large corporations that aren’t sharing profits with their workers. But he said he worries a unionized workforce would bring new legal and bureaucratic costs that TYT can’t sustain.
Uygur told HuffPost he wants a secret-ballot election because a few employees told him after the meeting that they do not support a union ― “some, not all,” he said.
What strikes me is the absolute shamelessness with which Uygur is spouting known anti-union talking points. "We will go out of business with a union" and "An election should be held because some employees said to me in private that they didn't want a union" are arguments from the 1800s. He just needs a top hat and cigar.
In follow-up, it turns out that open union busting is a good way to lose a primary as a Democrat - badly:
NEW: In a tense all-hands meeting, Cenk Uygur urged staff at The Young Turks not to form a union, arguing the progressive network couldn't sustain one. "The reality is we're in a precarious position," Cenk told me.
choice quotes from the article:
“The reality is we’re in a precarious position,” Uygur said. “We’re in a digital media landscape where almost no one makes money or is sustainable.”
He added, “For a smaller digital media company, those are absolutely real considerations. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have a union. Everyone should know the full context ... If folks say they don’t believe we’re in a precarious position, OK. And that’s their decision to make.”
In an interview with HuffPost, Uygur said he is a strong supporter of unions, especially at large corporations that aren’t sharing profits with their workers. But he said he worries a unionized workforce would bring new legal and bureaucratic costs that TYT can’t sustain.
Uygur told HuffPost he wants a secret-ballot election because a few employees told him after the meeting that they do not support a union ― “some, not all,” he said.
What strikes me is the absolute shamelessness with which Uygur is spouting known anti-union talking points. "We will go out of business with a union" and "An election should be held because some employees said to me in private that they didn't want a union" are arguments from the 1800s. He just needs a top hat and cigar.
In follow-up, it turns out that open union busting is a good way to lose a primary as a Democrat - badly:
Buried the lede. The GOP appears to have more than 50%.
That's because this isn't a primary thread. The point wasn't to show how the GOP was doing, but to illustrate that when you're running for office under the identification of a party aligned with organized labor, engaging in union busting is not a good campaign move.
Tartine co-founder Elisabeth Prueitt, for her part, tells the Chronicle that while she’s supportive of unions in other cases, she’d like to keep Tartine union-free.
Fuck. That. Noise.
Either you support unions or you don't, and "unions are great, just not at my business" falls under the latter.
Tartine co-founder Elisabeth Prueitt, for her part, tells the Chronicle that while she’s supportive of unions in other cases, she’d like to keep Tartine union-free.
Fuck. That. Noise.
Either you support unions or you don't, and "unions are great, just not at my business" falls under the latter.
Seems like she's copying her language from *checks notes* almost literally every other "liberal" organization ever. My oh my but do they show their asses when it comes to this stuff.
Tartine co-founder Elisabeth Prueitt, for her part, tells the Chronicle that while she’s supportive of unions in other cases, she’d like to keep Tartine union-free.
Not In My Backyard!
+1
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Seems like she's copying her language from *checks notes* almost literally every other "liberal" organization ever. My oh my but do they show their asses when it comes to this stuff.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has been particularly disappointing in this regard.
+2
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Seems like she's copying her language from *checks notes* almost literally every other "liberal" organization ever. My oh my but do they show their asses when it comes to this stuff.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has been particularly disappointing in this regard.
NIMBYism for Unions. It's like we found the spot where the Venn Diagram overlaps between wealth and immorality and it's basically just a circle.
I literally had to check if I'd accidentally reopened the Altered Carbon thread :P
Considering how many tech bros want to be functionally immortal, you're not far off. I say this as a union worker who has to be around high-ranking tech sector employees for work, on a regular basis. It's not great.
NIMBYism for Unions. It's like we found the spot where the Venn Diagram overlaps between wealth and immorality and it's basically just a circle.
Meh its just the same spot of overlap between "I support public transportation" and "The bus takes 40 minutes longer and is always running late, so I drive myself"
If you are running a business that is successful, why would you want to bring in a 3rd party whose primary function is to frustrate your ability to run that business. There's a reason there aren't job postings for Director of Undercutting, Assistant VP of Stifling. Hell, it adds an entire new set of time/costs just in "Deal with the Union"-negotiations/grievances/etc. Even if it was profit-neutral why would you want the hassle if you could avoid it.
NIMBYism for Unions. It's like we found the spot where the Venn Diagram overlaps between wealth and immorality and it's basically just a circle.
Meh its just the same spot of overlap between "I support public transportation" and "The bus takes 40 minutes longer and is always running late, so I drive myself"
If you are running a business that is successful, why would you want to bring in a 3rd party whose primary function is to frustrate your ability to run that business. There's a reason there aren't job postings for Director of Undercutting, Assistant VP of Stifling. Hell, it adds an entire new set of time/costs just in "Deal with the Union"-negotiations/grievances/etc. Even if it was profit-neutral why would you want the hassle if you could avoid it.
Just as you would have to deal with the terms of a vendor who supplies needed raw goods for you, the same goes with a union. And if you're saying that you support progressive values, then you need to put your money where your ideology is.
The broader issue is that no boss is actually a progressive hero. It’s inherent in the job. Even the most leftist boss needs a union keep the person in check. This is why I am such a huge proponent of graduate student unionization. I was at a conference at Harvard last weekend and sneaked in a slam on Harvard’s unionbusting and said that any professor who opposed graduate student unions was a giant hypocrite who should be ashamed of themselves. The first thing I tell graduate students who work with me is that they should be union members in case I exploit them and they need representation. This should just be basic self-awareness, but of course it is not for many, many people who are deeply invested in their own goodness.
NIMBYism for Unions. It's like we found the spot where the Venn Diagram overlaps between wealth and immorality and it's basically just a circle.
Meh its just the same spot of overlap between "I support public transportation" and "The bus takes 40 minutes longer and is always running late, so I drive myself"
If you are running a business that is successful, why would you want to bring in a 3rd party whose primary function is to frustrate your ability to run that business. There's a reason there aren't job postings for Director of Undercutting, Assistant VP of Stifling. Hell, it adds an entire new set of time/costs just in "Deal with the Union"-negotiations/grievances/etc. Even if it was profit-neutral why would you want the hassle if you could avoid it.
The primary function of a labor union isn't to frustrate running the business, it's to advocate for the interests of and defend the rights of the workers.
The fact that it is seen as a hindrance is quite telling about what business owners are actually concerned with.
+30
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
It is a strange and wonderful world, but I rather doubt that most people forming an union do so with the intention to endanger their own jobs. You and the union share the interest in running a successful business.
It is a strange and wonderful world, but I rather doubt that most people forming an union do so with the intention to endanger their own jobs. You and the union share the interest in running a successful business.
Yep, the goal of the union is to pull profits towards production, just like the goal of management is to pull profits towards ownership.
The goal of management is to put profits towards management.
Considering a good number of the managers I've had in my life, the goal of management actually seems to be "accumulate power so you can wield it with impunity against underlings," company and profits be damned. These types really, really hate unions.
+5
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
As a member of management, may I say that sometimes your goal is to improve employee morale with the aim of improving attendance and productivity, and thus profitability.
There is (local) management, and there is (corporate)management.
As local management, I would really like to see profits reinvested in the business and the employees. It makes it easier to function.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
As a member of management, may I say that sometimes your goal is to improve employee morale with the aim of improving attendance and productivity, and thus profitability.
There is (local) management, and there is (corporate)management.
As local management, I would really like to see profits reinvested in the business and the employees. It makes it easier to function.
Both types exist in both arenas. The problem is, our hyper competitive quarter by quarter look at things tends to reward the short sighted look. ESPECIALLY in areas that have "softer" results. Manager drops his help desk by 20% head count, and it only annoys customers w/o making them leave? Sweet, that's essentially a direct money savings that manager just found.
As a member of management, may I say that sometimes your goal is to improve employee morale with the aim of improving attendance and productivity, and thus profitability.
There is (local) management, and there is (corporate)management.
As local management, I would really like to see profits reinvested in the business and the employees. It makes it easier to function.
This is like saying that the goal of labor is to more efficiently make more widgets. Sure that is their job, but its not their goal.
The point is that we tend to treat management and capital as a combined group when considering labor negotiation power and income splits. This probably made sense in the early 1900s since corporations were rare and management that did exist outside of the capital class were easier to discuss as part of the capital class. But it doesnt make sense to do this anymore. Management is on its own side now.
+5
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
As a member of management, may I say that sometimes your goal is to improve employee morale with the aim of improving attendance and productivity, and thus profitability.
There is (local) management, and there is (corporate)management.
As local management, I would really like to see profits reinvested in the business and the employees. It makes it easier to function.
This is like saying that the goal of labor is to more efficiently make more widgets. Sure that is their job, but its not their goal.
The point is that we tend to treat management and capital as a combined group when considering labor negotiation power and income splits. This probably made sense in the early 1900s since corporations were rare and management that did exist outside of the capital class were easier to discuss as part of the capital class. But it doesnt make sense to do this anymore. Management is on its own side now.
And more often than you might think management is quite quietly on the side of Labor.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
As a member of management, may I say that sometimes your goal is to improve employee morale with the aim of improving attendance and productivity, and thus profitability.
There is (local) management, and there is (corporate)management.
As local management, I would really like to see profits reinvested in the business and the employees. It makes it easier to function.
This is like saying that the goal of labor is to more efficiently make more widgets. Sure that is their job, but its not their goal.
The point is that we tend to treat management and capital as a combined group when considering labor negotiation power and income splits. This probably made sense in the early 1900s since corporations were rare and management that did exist outside of the capital class were easier to discuss as part of the capital class. But it doesnt make sense to do this anymore. Management is on its own side now.
And more often than you might think management is quite quietly on the side of Labor.
Which ceases to matter once their boss hands them orders. Nobody is saying that managers are all inherently evil, but at the end of the day they are not paid to benefit those they manage.
+10
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
As a member of management, may I say that sometimes your goal is to improve employee morale with the aim of improving attendance and productivity, and thus profitability.
There is (local) management, and there is (corporate)management.
As local management, I would really like to see profits reinvested in the business and the employees. It makes it easier to function.
This is like saying that the goal of labor is to more efficiently make more widgets. Sure that is their job, but its not their goal.
The point is that we tend to treat management and capital as a combined group when considering labor negotiation power and income splits. This probably made sense in the early 1900s since corporations were rare and management that did exist outside of the capital class were easier to discuss as part of the capital class. But it doesnt make sense to do this anymore. Management is on its own side now.
And more often than you might think management is quite quietly on the side of Labor.
Which ceases to matter once their boss hands them orders. Nobody is saying that managers are all inherently evil, but at the end of the day they are not paid to benefit those they manage.
Yep.
I saw that in just about realtime this week as guidelines came down for COVID-19. The first corporate guidelines came out, he gave the WFH order/okay. Two days later updated orders came down from slightly less than "all employees", and the orders were turned into "be safe, but we still have a schedule to meet, so come in if it's not against corporate policy (and you feel safe)."
This is someone I've in the past considered a work friend. But at the end of the day, corporate is who is paying those paychecks.
Management needs to be in unions, too, so they are not constantly forced to act against the interests of their subordinates.
Even CEOs in public companies have to bow to the will of investors who never have to look anyone in the eyes when their employees' lives are being ruined.
NIMBYism for Unions. It's like we found the spot where the Venn Diagram overlaps between wealth and immorality and it's basically just a circle.
Meh its just the same spot of overlap between "I support public transportation" and "The bus takes 40 minutes longer and is always running late, so I drive myself"
If you are running a business that is successful, why would you want to bring in a 3rd party whose primary function is to frustrate your ability to run that business. There's a reason there aren't job postings for Director of Undercutting, Assistant VP of Stifling. Hell, it adds an entire new set of time/costs just in "Deal with the Union"-negotiations/grievances/etc. Even if it was profit-neutral why would you want the hassle if you could avoid it.
The primary function of a labor union isn't to frustrate running the business, it's to advocate for the interests of and defend the rights of the workers.
The fact that it is seen as a hindrance is quite telling about what business owners are actually concerned with.
It's not really telling at all. Name a management task that is simpler and easier in a union environment than in a non-union one.
I had an employee who was a poor performer, who would get off task as soon as a managers back was turned. I went over to the building he worked at and he wasn't there, he was punched in but missing. Through some investigating I found out he actually left work and went back to his house to 'get his cell phone'. He was gone for over 3 hours at that point to drive 8 miles round trip(in the country no traffic), while on the clock, without talking to a manager. When he magically reappered 10 minutes after I drove away and I went back and confronted him he didn't offer any excuse and told me "Look just fire me if you're going to fire me".
Would him having been in a union made the process of removing him less time consuming and easier for me/HR/management (a help) or slower and more cumbersome(a hindrance)? Even if the union would have agreed that terminating him was justified, they'd still be obligated to fight that termination. There would still be the how ever many steps and appeals and meetings over it after the fact.
A union would generally have a sit down with said employee to see WTF was up and try to get them back on track so they wouldn't need to be fired.
That's just our labour laws over here. There are a couple of reasons that you can be fired for on the spot, but work performance issues require some attempts at rectifying (with documentation) before you can be terminated.
A union would generally have a sit down with said employee to see WTF was up and try to get them back on track so they wouldn't need to be fired.
That's just our labour laws over here. There are a couple of reasons that you can be fired for on the spot, but work performance issues require some attempts at rectifying (with documentation) before you can be terminated.
Which is a good thing. Getting fired can tear someone's life apart, and (in our wonderful dystopian America) lead to homelessness or death. We should make every attempt to help someone not go through that. It's also hard to tell if there were mitigating circumstances (loss of a loved one? mental illness? etc) which would exacerbate everything. And in the end, if you're successful, one more contributing member to society, yay!
NIMBYism for Unions. It's like we found the spot where the Venn Diagram overlaps between wealth and immorality and it's basically just a circle.
Meh its just the same spot of overlap between "I support public transportation" and "The bus takes 40 minutes longer and is always running late, so I drive myself"
If you are running a business that is successful, why would you want to bring in a 3rd party whose primary function is to frustrate your ability to run that business. There's a reason there aren't job postings for Director of Undercutting, Assistant VP of Stifling. Hell, it adds an entire new set of time/costs just in "Deal with the Union"-negotiations/grievances/etc. Even if it was profit-neutral why would you want the hassle if you could avoid it.
The primary function of a labor union isn't to frustrate running the business, it's to advocate for the interests of and defend the rights of the workers.
The fact that it is seen as a hindrance is quite telling about what business owners are actually concerned with.
It's not really telling at all. Name a management task that is simpler and easier in a union environment than in a non-union one.
I had an employee who was a poor performer, who would get off task as soon as a managers back was turned. I went over to the building he worked at and he wasn't there, he was punched in but missing. Through some investigating I found out he actually left work and went back to his house to 'get his cell phone'. He was gone for over 3 hours at that point to drive 8 miles round trip(in the country no traffic), while on the clock, without talking to a manager. When he magically reappered 10 minutes after I drove away and I went back and confronted him he didn't offer any excuse and told me "Look just fire me if you're going to fire me".
Would him having been in a union made the process of removing him less time consuming and easier for me/HR/management (a help) or slower and more cumbersome(a hindrance)? Even if the union would have agreed that terminating him was justified, they'd still be obligated to fight that termination. There would still be the how ever many steps and appeals and meetings over it after the fact.
Did you document his poor performance?
Did you address his conduct and formally repremand him?
Did you put him on a performance improvement plan with clearly defined metrics, timelines, and consequences?
If not, the problem isn't him not doing his job, but you not doing yours. As a manager, all of those above tasks are your responsibility to perform, and being held to doing them shouldn't be an issue because you should be doing them as part of your own job. Trying to argue that you should not be held accountable for your own duties is a poor argument that deserves to be rejected.
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Unions are also great at protecting workers from managers who will pull their shifts if they don't do things outside the scope of their normal duties, like sucking them off in their office. Such was the case at a previous employer of mine who wasn't union.
+13
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
A union would generally have a sit down with said employee to see WTF was up and try to get them back on track so they wouldn't need to be fired.
That's just our labour laws over here. There are a couple of reasons that you can be fired for on the spot, but work performance issues require some attempts at rectifying (with documentation) before you can be terminated.
Which is a good thing. Getting fired can tear someone's life apart, and (in our wonderful dystopian America) lead to homelessness or death. We should make every attempt to help someone not go through that. It's also hard to tell if there were mitigating circumstances (loss of a loved one? mental illness? etc) which would exacerbate everything. And in the end, if you're successful, one more contributing member to society, yay!
The downside is that laws requiring such things need some actual teeth. Companies in the USA habitually come up with policies which make compliance impossible, specifically so they have something they can write up anybody about and then fire them at any point, because then they can hold up a paper saying "see, we documented their bad behavior!", even when the "bad behavior" is the result of some minor, unknown offense buried in labyrinthian company rules.
Unions don't generally try to fight against timecard fraud or any sort of unethical behavior unless there's some disputed point of view from the employee.
Every union I've been in has had a list of very specific things you will just get fired for. Timecard fraud, workplace violence or bullying, sexual harassment, theft or misuse of company assets and no call no shows are always termination.
+6
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The goal of management is to put profits towards management.
aside from bonuses, increased profits generally don't get directed towards management. In the Anglo-American model, the job of management is to increase shareholder value. The CEO tries to maximize profits, not line his own pockets. Which is the reason for the conflict between workers and owners and why unions are so important. Management in this model is obligated to pay workers as little as possible. Workers are not obligated to work for as little as possible, and in fact want to be compensated as much as possible. Unions benefit the workers.
The point is that we tend to treat management and capital as a combined group when considering labor negotiation power and income splits. This probably made sense in the early 1900s since corporations were rare and management that did exist outside of the capital class were easier to discuss as part of the capital class. But it doesnt make sense to do this anymore. Management is on its own side now.
Upper management knows perfectly well on which side their bread is buttered and it is silly to pretend otherwise. The CEO is employed by the shareholders, and will act in their interests. Particularly in the essentially codified Anglo-American model that most major businesses operate on. A CEO faces potential civil and criminal liability if they do not act in the best interests of the shareholders.
management is literally not allowed to be on its own side.
"CEOs are legally obligated to fuck over their employees for the sake of profit" is oft repeated but isn't really true.
They have a duty to run the company responsibly and non-fraudulently. Yes, they have a fiduciary duty, but that can be widely interpreted. If the only consideration was this quarter's profits then only action a CEO could ever take would be selling the company! Something like increasing benefits/pay or even voluntarily recognising a union (hell encouraging a union, even) is perfectly fine, as long as the intention is to create a better, more successful company. The shareholders can disagree but unless the CEO is deliberately trying to tank the company the worst that'll happen is they get fired.
Aioua on
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Posts
https://sf.eater.com/2020/3/4/21164792/tartine-bakery-union-busting
Buried the lede. The GOP appears to have more than 50%.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
That's because this isn't a primary thread. The point wasn't to show how the GOP was doing, but to illustrate that when you're running for office under the identification of a party aligned with organized labor, engaging in union busting is not a good campaign move.
Fuck. That. Noise.
Either you support unions or you don't, and "unions are great, just not at my business" falls under the latter.
Seems like she's copying her language from *checks notes* almost literally every other "liberal" organization ever. My oh my but do they show their asses when it comes to this stuff.
Not In My Backyard!
The Southern Poverty Law Center has been particularly disappointing in this regard.
ugh for real?
looking it up it seems that management actually hired a law firm that specializes in union busting. And they defended their refusal by arguing that they wanted to ensure the voices of their "mostly women of color and lower-wage workers" were heard, ignoring that those workers voted for the union.
I hate this world.
I literally had to check if I'd accidentally reopened the Altered Carbon thread :P
Considering how many tech bros want to be functionally immortal, you're not far off. I say this as a union worker who has to be around high-ranking tech sector employees for work, on a regular basis. It's not great.
Meh its just the same spot of overlap between "I support public transportation" and "The bus takes 40 minutes longer and is always running late, so I drive myself"
If you are running a business that is successful, why would you want to bring in a 3rd party whose primary function is to frustrate your ability to run that business. There's a reason there aren't job postings for Director of Undercutting, Assistant VP of Stifling. Hell, it adds an entire new set of time/costs just in "Deal with the Union"-negotiations/grievances/etc. Even if it was profit-neutral why would you want the hassle if you could avoid it.
Just as you would have to deal with the terms of a vendor who supplies needed raw goods for you, the same goes with a union. And if you're saying that you support progressive values, then you need to put your money where your ideology is.
Eh, it's got nothing to do with wealth. It is just pure NIMBYism. Even not-at-all wealthy management has these type of views frequently.
Like with all things NIMBY, people support the idea but don't want to have to deal with the "hassle" themselves.
The primary function of a labor union isn't to frustrate running the business, it's to advocate for the interests of and defend the rights of the workers.
The fact that it is seen as a hindrance is quite telling about what business owners are actually concerned with.
Yep, the goal of the union is to pull profits towards production, just like the goal of management is to pull profits towards ownership.
Both want profits to be as large as possible.
MWO: Adamski
Considering a good number of the managers I've had in my life, the goal of management actually seems to be "accumulate power so you can wield it with impunity against underlings," company and profits be damned. These types really, really hate unions.
There is (local) management, and there is (corporate)management.
As local management, I would really like to see profits reinvested in the business and the employees. It makes it easier to function.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Both types exist in both arenas. The problem is, our hyper competitive quarter by quarter look at things tends to reward the short sighted look. ESPECIALLY in areas that have "softer" results. Manager drops his help desk by 20% head count, and it only annoys customers w/o making them leave? Sweet, that's essentially a direct money savings that manager just found.
This is like saying that the goal of labor is to more efficiently make more widgets. Sure that is their job, but its not their goal.
The point is that we tend to treat management and capital as a combined group when considering labor negotiation power and income splits. This probably made sense in the early 1900s since corporations were rare and management that did exist outside of the capital class were easier to discuss as part of the capital class. But it doesnt make sense to do this anymore. Management is on its own side now.
And more often than you might think management is quite quietly on the side of Labor.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Which ceases to matter once their boss hands them orders. Nobody is saying that managers are all inherently evil, but at the end of the day they are not paid to benefit those they manage.
Yep.
I saw that in just about realtime this week as guidelines came down for COVID-19. The first corporate guidelines came out, he gave the WFH order/okay. Two days later updated orders came down from slightly less than "all employees", and the orders were turned into "be safe, but we still have a schedule to meet, so come in if it's not against corporate policy (and you feel safe)."
This is someone I've in the past considered a work friend. But at the end of the day, corporate is who is paying those paychecks.
"Being healthy is mandatory. Sickness will result in termination."
Even CEOs in public companies have to bow to the will of investors who never have to look anyone in the eyes when their employees' lives are being ruined.
It's not really telling at all. Name a management task that is simpler and easier in a union environment than in a non-union one.
I had an employee who was a poor performer, who would get off task as soon as a managers back was turned. I went over to the building he worked at and he wasn't there, he was punched in but missing. Through some investigating I found out he actually left work and went back to his house to 'get his cell phone'. He was gone for over 3 hours at that point to drive 8 miles round trip(in the country no traffic), while on the clock, without talking to a manager. When he magically reappered 10 minutes after I drove away and I went back and confronted him he didn't offer any excuse and told me "Look just fire me if you're going to fire me".
Would him having been in a union made the process of removing him less time consuming and easier for me/HR/management (a help) or slower and more cumbersome(a hindrance)? Even if the union would have agreed that terminating him was justified, they'd still be obligated to fight that termination. There would still be the how ever many steps and appeals and meetings over it after the fact.
That's just our labour laws over here. There are a couple of reasons that you can be fired for on the spot, but work performance issues require some attempts at rectifying (with documentation) before you can be terminated.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Which is a good thing. Getting fired can tear someone's life apart, and (in our wonderful dystopian America) lead to homelessness or death. We should make every attempt to help someone not go through that. It's also hard to tell if there were mitigating circumstances (loss of a loved one? mental illness? etc) which would exacerbate everything. And in the end, if you're successful, one more contributing member to society, yay!
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Did you document his poor performance?
Did you address his conduct and formally repremand him?
Did you put him on a performance improvement plan with clearly defined metrics, timelines, and consequences?
If not, the problem isn't him not doing his job, but you not doing yours. As a manager, all of those above tasks are your responsibility to perform, and being held to doing them shouldn't be an issue because you should be doing them as part of your own job. Trying to argue that you should not be held accountable for your own duties is a poor argument that deserves to be rejected.
The downside is that laws requiring such things need some actual teeth. Companies in the USA habitually come up with policies which make compliance impossible, specifically so they have something they can write up anybody about and then fire them at any point, because then they can hold up a paper saying "see, we documented their bad behavior!", even when the "bad behavior" is the result of some minor, unknown offense buried in labyrinthian company rules.
Every union I've been in has had a list of very specific things you will just get fired for. Timecard fraud, workplace violence or bullying, sexual harassment, theft or misuse of company assets and no call no shows are always termination.
aside from bonuses, increased profits generally don't get directed towards management. In the Anglo-American model, the job of management is to increase shareholder value. The CEO tries to maximize profits, not line his own pockets. Which is the reason for the conflict between workers and owners and why unions are so important. Management in this model is obligated to pay workers as little as possible. Workers are not obligated to work for as little as possible, and in fact want to be compensated as much as possible. Unions benefit the workers.
Upper management knows perfectly well on which side their bread is buttered and it is silly to pretend otherwise. The CEO is employed by the shareholders, and will act in their interests. Particularly in the essentially codified Anglo-American model that most major businesses operate on. A CEO faces potential civil and criminal liability if they do not act in the best interests of the shareholders.
management is literally not allowed to be on its own side.
They have a duty to run the company responsibly and non-fraudulently. Yes, they have a fiduciary duty, but that can be widely interpreted. If the only consideration was this quarter's profits then only action a CEO could ever take would be selling the company! Something like increasing benefits/pay or even voluntarily recognising a union (hell encouraging a union, even) is perfectly fine, as long as the intention is to create a better, more successful company. The shareholders can disagree but unless the CEO is deliberately trying to tank the company the worst that'll happen is they get fired.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies