[Unions] Time to get Fired...up?

17879818384

Posts

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    Their direct manager has the role of providing context and having the employees interest in their mind

    Bad news man, managers will do whats best for them.

    Possibly, but the polite fiction we've been asked to entertain is that managers are there to help us.

    And at least so far for me, though I have not had a serious dispute, it has been true. All my managers to date have been effective firewalls from the higher ups in cases where mistakes were made or more was expected of us than what was feasible.

    The first manager I had out of college was seemingly hired, after I was, to tell me I was doing a great job while collecting surveillance and developing a case for why I shouldn't get unemployment when they fired me for poor performance.

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    He stated specifically that he had the incident on video, as well as having another manager involved who could testify on the matter. And instead of pointing this out and noting that it would make arbitration (which is already an uphill battle for unions, as arbitrators tend to favor companies for structural reasons) a much tougher road for the union, he just conceded the point and took the easy way out.

    (Also, shouldn't there have been an arrest report? An assault with a weapon should result in the assailant getting arrested.)

    Management refusing to do their job should not be respected.

    you've got our roles switched. make no mistake - the union was provided with all the evidence, as well as management's thoughts and requests on the matter. the union decided, again, i'm not sure why (out of spite?) to make me fire both employees. why would i contest that decision? we literally had one grievance up until this incident came up. i'm not going to "poison the well" by fighting for this when clearly the union wants both guys out.

    i'm not refusing to do my job. if anything, it was the union refusing to protect its members. i can't even make this shit up!

    Again, it's simple - the union demanded that you follow your code of conduct, which said that you had to fire both, because zero tolerance goosery isn't just for schools. As part of your collective bargaining agreement, the company will agree to hold to the standards and procedures for dismissal as laid out in the code of conduct (or equivalent document).

    As for why they would be so strict, it's because if they allow the company to breach the code of conduct once, then it can become impossible to enforce it from now on. If they allowed you to just fire the one employee when both are in breach of a clause requiring termination, then the company could argue in the future that they no longer have to follow the policies in the code of conduct.

    Ignoring for a moment that you have created this narrative out of whole cloth, in this case the union clearly failed in negotiations long before this incident happened.

    this is a really weird post

    like your suggestion that this policy was a result of bad negotiation on the union's part (even ignoring that, you know, management is also involved in negotiation) is just as fictive as the narrative that you're saying is fake

    At least Hedgies is based on something assumed to be truthful if you start taking the original story at face value - there is no standing the union would have to force termination unless it was spelled out in the CBA.

    And let's be real, it's probably a provision that management wanted there in the first place.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    Gnome-InterruptusCambiata
  • Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    He stated specifically that he had the incident on video, as well as having another manager involved who could testify on the matter. And instead of pointing this out and noting that it would make arbitration (which is already an uphill battle for unions, as arbitrators tend to favor companies for structural reasons) a much tougher road for the union, he just conceded the point and took the easy way out.

    (Also, shouldn't there have been an arrest report? An assault with a weapon should result in the assailant getting arrested.)

    Management refusing to do their job should not be respected.

    you've got our roles switched. make no mistake - the union was provided with all the evidence, as well as management's thoughts and requests on the matter. the union decided, again, i'm not sure why (out of spite?) to make me fire both employees. why would i contest that decision? we literally had one grievance up until this incident came up. i'm not going to "poison the well" by fighting for this when clearly the union wants both guys out.

    i'm not refusing to do my job. if anything, it was the union refusing to protect its members. i can't even make this shit up!

    Again, it's simple - the union demanded that you follow your code of conduct, which said that you had to fire both, because zero tolerance goosery isn't just for schools. As part of your collective bargaining agreement, the company will agree to hold to the standards and procedures for dismissal as laid out in the code of conduct (or equivalent document).

    As for why they would be so strict, it's because if they allow the company to breach the code of conduct once, then it can become impossible to enforce it from now on. If they allowed you to just fire the one employee when both are in breach of a clause requiring termination, then the company could argue in the future that they no longer have to follow the policies in the code of conduct.

    Ignoring for a moment that you have created this narrative out of whole cloth, in this case the union clearly failed in negotiations long before this incident happened.

    this is a really weird post

    like your suggestion that this policy was a result of bad negotiation on the union's part (even ignoring that, you know, management is also involved in negotiation) is just as fictive as the narrative that you're saying is fake

    At least Hedgies is based on something assumed to be truthful if you start taking the original story at face value - there is no standing the union would have to force termination unless it was spelled out in the CBA.

    And let's be real, it's probably a provision that management wanted there in the first place.

    This isn't how things work. If a company doesn't enforce the code of conduct, in the future, it becomes a union weapon. Every failure to enforce is another weakening of the CoC IN THE UNION'S FAVOR. If they are demanding an employee be fired, it's because they don't want him in their union, which is politics that management isn't always privy to.

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    He stated specifically that he had the incident on video, as well as having another manager involved who could testify on the matter. And instead of pointing this out and noting that it would make arbitration (which is already an uphill battle for unions, as arbitrators tend to favor companies for structural reasons) a much tougher road for the union, he just conceded the point and took the easy way out.

    (Also, shouldn't there have been an arrest report? An assault with a weapon should result in the assailant getting arrested.)

    Management refusing to do their job should not be respected.

    you've got our roles switched. make no mistake - the union was provided with all the evidence, as well as management's thoughts and requests on the matter. the union decided, again, i'm not sure why (out of spite?) to make me fire both employees. why would i contest that decision? we literally had one grievance up until this incident came up. i'm not going to "poison the well" by fighting for this when clearly the union wants both guys out.

    i'm not refusing to do my job. if anything, it was the union refusing to protect its members. i can't even make this shit up!

    Again, it's simple - the union demanded that you follow your code of conduct, which said that you had to fire both, because zero tolerance goosery isn't just for schools. As part of your collective bargaining agreement, the company will agree to hold to the standards and procedures for dismissal as laid out in the code of conduct (or equivalent document).

    As for why they would be so strict, it's because if they allow the company to breach the code of conduct once, then it can become impossible to enforce it from now on. If they allowed you to just fire the one employee when both are in breach of a clause requiring termination, then the company could argue in the future that they no longer have to follow the policies in the code of conduct.

    Ignoring for a moment that you have created this narrative out of whole cloth, in this case the union clearly failed in negotiations long before this incident happened.

    this is a really weird post

    like your suggestion that this policy was a result of bad negotiation on the union's part (even ignoring that, you know, management is also involved in negotiation) is just as fictive as the narrative that you're saying is fake

    At least Hedgies is based on something assumed to be truthful if you start taking the original story at face value - there is no standing the union would have to force termination unless it was spelled out in the CBA.

    And let's be real, it's probably a provision that management wanted there in the first place.

    This isn't how things work. If a company doesn't enforce the code of conduct, in the future, it becomes a union weapon. Every failure to enforce is another weakening of the CoC IN THE UNION'S FAVOR. If they are demanding an employee be fired, it's because they don't want him in their union, which is politics that management isn't always privy to.

    There is no earthly way a union asked for a zero tolerance policy to apply to it's membership.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    HappylilElfFencingsaxMatevdispatch.oQuidHacksawLord_AsmodeusMulysaSemproniusNartwakCambiata
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    He stated specifically that he had the incident on video, as well as having another manager involved who could testify on the matter. And instead of pointing this out and noting that it would make arbitration (which is already an uphill battle for unions, as arbitrators tend to favor companies for structural reasons) a much tougher road for the union, he just conceded the point and took the easy way out.

    (Also, shouldn't there have been an arrest report? An assault with a weapon should result in the assailant getting arrested.)

    Management refusing to do their job should not be respected.

    you've got our roles switched. make no mistake - the union was provided with all the evidence, as well as management's thoughts and requests on the matter. the union decided, again, i'm not sure why (out of spite?) to make me fire both employees. why would i contest that decision? we literally had one grievance up until this incident came up. i'm not going to "poison the well" by fighting for this when clearly the union wants both guys out.

    i'm not refusing to do my job. if anything, it was the union refusing to protect its members. i can't even make this shit up!

    Again, it's simple - the union demanded that you follow your code of conduct, which said that you had to fire both, because zero tolerance goosery isn't just for schools. As part of your collective bargaining agreement, the company will agree to hold to the standards and procedures for dismissal as laid out in the code of conduct (or equivalent document).

    As for why they would be so strict, it's because if they allow the company to breach the code of conduct once, then it can become impossible to enforce it from now on. If they allowed you to just fire the one employee when both are in breach of a clause requiring termination, then the company could argue in the future that they no longer have to follow the policies in the code of conduct.

    Ignoring for a moment that you have created this narrative out of whole cloth, in this case the union clearly failed in negotiations long before this incident happened.

    this is a really weird post

    like your suggestion that this policy was a result of bad negotiation on the union's part (even ignoring that, you know, management is also involved in negotiation) is just as fictive as the narrative that you're saying is fake

    At least Hedgies is based on something assumed to be truthful if you start taking the original story at face value - there is no standing the union would have to force termination unless it was spelled out in the CBA.

    And let's be real, it's probably a provision that management wanted there in the first place.

    This isn't how things work. If a company doesn't enforce the code of conduct, in the future, it becomes a union weapon. Every failure to enforce is another weakening of the CoC IN THE UNION'S FAVOR. If they are demanding an employee be fired, it's because they don't want him in their union, which is politics that management isn't always privy to.

    That's not how it works at all. The code of conduct and the agreement that the company abide by it is how the union defines dismissal proceedings. If the union allows the company to breach the code of conduct knowingly and without challenge, that can be later held against the union when they try to uphold the code and its procedures within.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    dispatch.oMoridin889enc0reFencingsaxHacksawLord_AsmodeusNetscapeshrykeNartwakCambiata
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited March 11
    Even ignoring the hypothetical zero tolerance policy.

    If two employees are fighting, and both claim the other initiated the violence and each claims to only be acting in self defence.

    Having management claim they know the truth and asking the union to take them at their word for who will be fired without going through formal proceedings is crazy.

    That’s like a Defense lawyer accepting the prosecutions claims and asking to having the judge/jury find them guilty with no trial

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    SleepMartini_PhilosopherQuidFencingsaxMatevpainfulPleasanceHacksawLord_AsmodeusNetscapeshrykeCambiata
  • Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    He stated specifically that he had the incident on video, as well as having another manager involved who could testify on the matter. And instead of pointing this out and noting that it would make arbitration (which is already an uphill battle for unions, as arbitrators tend to favor companies for structural reasons) a much tougher road for the union, he just conceded the point and took the easy way out.

    (Also, shouldn't there have been an arrest report? An assault with a weapon should result in the assailant getting arrested.)

    Management refusing to do their job should not be respected.

    you've got our roles switched. make no mistake - the union was provided with all the evidence, as well as management's thoughts and requests on the matter. the union decided, again, i'm not sure why (out of spite?) to make me fire both employees. why would i contest that decision? we literally had one grievance up until this incident came up. i'm not going to "poison the well" by fighting for this when clearly the union wants both guys out.

    i'm not refusing to do my job. if anything, it was the union refusing to protect its members. i can't even make this shit up!

    Again, it's simple - the union demanded that you follow your code of conduct, which said that you had to fire both, because zero tolerance goosery isn't just for schools. As part of your collective bargaining agreement, the company will agree to hold to the standards and procedures for dismissal as laid out in the code of conduct (or equivalent document).

    As for why they would be so strict, it's because if they allow the company to breach the code of conduct once, then it can become impossible to enforce it from now on. If they allowed you to just fire the one employee when both are in breach of a clause requiring termination, then the company could argue in the future that they no longer have to follow the policies in the code of conduct.

    Ignoring for a moment that you have created this narrative out of whole cloth, in this case the union clearly failed in negotiations long before this incident happened.

    this is a really weird post

    like your suggestion that this policy was a result of bad negotiation on the union's part (even ignoring that, you know, management is also involved in negotiation) is just as fictive as the narrative that you're saying is fake

    At least Hedgies is based on something assumed to be truthful if you start taking the original story at face value - there is no standing the union would have to force termination unless it was spelled out in the CBA.

    And let's be real, it's probably a provision that management wanted there in the first place.

    This isn't how things work. If a company doesn't enforce the code of conduct, in the future, it becomes a union weapon. Every failure to enforce is another weakening of the CoC IN THE UNION'S FAVOR. If they are demanding an employee be fired, it's because they don't want him in their union, which is politics that management isn't always privy to.

    That's not how it works at all. The code of conduct and the agreement that the company abide by it is how the union defines dismissal proceedings. If the union allows the company to breach the code of conduct knowingly and without challenge, that can be later held against the union when they try to uphold the code and its procedures within.

    So you think unions are going around demanding their members be written up for anything that breaches the code of conduct? I have never once seen a union demand that a member be reprimanded. It doesn't happen, a union doesn't enforce punishments on its constituents.

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    He stated specifically that he had the incident on video, as well as having another manager involved who could testify on the matter. And instead of pointing this out and noting that it would make arbitration (which is already an uphill battle for unions, as arbitrators tend to favor companies for structural reasons) a much tougher road for the union, he just conceded the point and took the easy way out.

    (Also, shouldn't there have been an arrest report? An assault with a weapon should result in the assailant getting arrested.)

    Management refusing to do their job should not be respected.

    you've got our roles switched. make no mistake - the union was provided with all the evidence, as well as management's thoughts and requests on the matter. the union decided, again, i'm not sure why (out of spite?) to make me fire both employees. why would i contest that decision? we literally had one grievance up until this incident came up. i'm not going to "poison the well" by fighting for this when clearly the union wants both guys out.

    i'm not refusing to do my job. if anything, it was the union refusing to protect its members. i can't even make this shit up!

    Again, it's simple - the union demanded that you follow your code of conduct, which said that you had to fire both, because zero tolerance goosery isn't just for schools. As part of your collective bargaining agreement, the company will agree to hold to the standards and procedures for dismissal as laid out in the code of conduct (or equivalent document).

    As for why they would be so strict, it's because if they allow the company to breach the code of conduct once, then it can become impossible to enforce it from now on. If they allowed you to just fire the one employee when both are in breach of a clause requiring termination, then the company could argue in the future that they no longer have to follow the policies in the code of conduct.

    Ignoring for a moment that you have created this narrative out of whole cloth, in this case the union clearly failed in negotiations long before this incident happened.

    this is a really weird post

    like your suggestion that this policy was a result of bad negotiation on the union's part (even ignoring that, you know, management is also involved in negotiation) is just as fictive as the narrative that you're saying is fake

    At least Hedgies is based on something assumed to be truthful if you start taking the original story at face value - there is no standing the union would have to force termination unless it was spelled out in the CBA.

    And let's be real, it's probably a provision that management wanted there in the first place.

    This isn't how things work. If a company doesn't enforce the code of conduct, in the future, it becomes a union weapon. Every failure to enforce is another weakening of the CoC IN THE UNION'S FAVOR. If they are demanding an employee be fired, it's because they don't want him in their union, which is politics that management isn't always privy to.

    That's not how it works at all. The code of conduct and the agreement that the company abide by it is how the union defines dismissal proceedings. If the union allows the company to breach the code of conduct knowingly and without challenge, that can be later held against the union when they try to uphold the code and its procedures within.

    So you think unions are going around demanding their members be written up for anything that breaches the code of conduct? I have never once seen a union demand that a member be reprimanded. It doesn't happen, a union doesn't enforce punishments on its constituents.

    I mean personally this story is being related through one level of interpretation/self bias at minimum.

    Now before that blows up I'll add this disclaimer - I am not accusing Keth of not telling the truth, but having been party to these type of things a lot of times the people at the top launder their lies through others.

    Overall something about the scenario and actions/motivations is nonsensical. Now my biases tell me that management likely lied to villify the union to it's membership, but ultimately who knows.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    Sleepenc0reGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxMan in the MistsNetscapeMoridin889Cambiata
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    He stated specifically that he had the incident on video, as well as having another manager involved who could testify on the matter. And instead of pointing this out and noting that it would make arbitration (which is already an uphill battle for unions, as arbitrators tend to favor companies for structural reasons) a much tougher road for the union, he just conceded the point and took the easy way out.

    (Also, shouldn't there have been an arrest report? An assault with a weapon should result in the assailant getting arrested.)

    Management refusing to do their job should not be respected.

    you've got our roles switched. make no mistake - the union was provided with all the evidence, as well as management's thoughts and requests on the matter. the union decided, again, i'm not sure why (out of spite?) to make me fire both employees. why would i contest that decision? we literally had one grievance up until this incident came up. i'm not going to "poison the well" by fighting for this when clearly the union wants both guys out.

    i'm not refusing to do my job. if anything, it was the union refusing to protect its members. i can't even make this shit up!

    Again, it's simple - the union demanded that you follow your code of conduct, which said that you had to fire both, because zero tolerance goosery isn't just for schools. As part of your collective bargaining agreement, the company will agree to hold to the standards and procedures for dismissal as laid out in the code of conduct (or equivalent document).

    As for why they would be so strict, it's because if they allow the company to breach the code of conduct once, then it can become impossible to enforce it from now on. If they allowed you to just fire the one employee when both are in breach of a clause requiring termination, then the company could argue in the future that they no longer have to follow the policies in the code of conduct.

    Ignoring for a moment that you have created this narrative out of whole cloth, in this case the union clearly failed in negotiations long before this incident happened.

    this is a really weird post

    like your suggestion that this policy was a result of bad negotiation on the union's part (even ignoring that, you know, management is also involved in negotiation) is just as fictive as the narrative that you're saying is fake

    At least Hedgies is based on something assumed to be truthful if you start taking the original story at face value - there is no standing the union would have to force termination unless it was spelled out in the CBA.

    And let's be real, it's probably a provision that management wanted there in the first place.

    This isn't how things work. If a company doesn't enforce the code of conduct, in the future, it becomes a union weapon. Every failure to enforce is another weakening of the CoC IN THE UNION'S FAVOR. If they are demanding an employee be fired, it's because they don't want him in their union, which is politics that management isn't always privy to.

    That's not how it works at all. The code of conduct and the agreement that the company abide by it is how the union defines dismissal proceedings. If the union allows the company to breach the code of conduct knowingly and without challenge, that can be later held against the union when they try to uphold the code and its procedures within.

    So you think unions are going around demanding their members be written up for anything that breaches the code of conduct? I have never once seen a union demand that a member be reprimanded. It doesn't happen, a union doesn't enforce punishments on its constituents.

    No, what's happening (based on the evidence given) is that the union is notified that there are two individuals in breach of the CoC, but management only wants to disipline one. Again, the union can't do that, because allowing the company out of the CoC once will make it hard to enforce later. So the union takes the position that either the company holds to its contractual obligations, or they'll file a grievance for not doing so.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    NetscapeMoridin889
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    He stated specifically that he had the incident on video, as well as having another manager involved who could testify on the matter. And instead of pointing this out and noting that it would make arbitration (which is already an uphill battle for unions, as arbitrators tend to favor companies for structural reasons) a much tougher road for the union, he just conceded the point and took the easy way out.

    (Also, shouldn't there have been an arrest report? An assault with a weapon should result in the assailant getting arrested.)

    Management refusing to do their job should not be respected.

    you've got our roles switched. make no mistake - the union was provided with all the evidence, as well as management's thoughts and requests on the matter. the union decided, again, i'm not sure why (out of spite?) to make me fire both employees. why would i contest that decision? we literally had one grievance up until this incident came up. i'm not going to "poison the well" by fighting for this when clearly the union wants both guys out.

    i'm not refusing to do my job. if anything, it was the union refusing to protect its members. i can't even make this shit up!

    Again, it's simple - the union demanded that you follow your code of conduct, which said that you had to fire both, because zero tolerance goosery isn't just for schools. As part of your collective bargaining agreement, the company will agree to hold to the standards and procedures for dismissal as laid out in the code of conduct (or equivalent document).

    As for why they would be so strict, it's because if they allow the company to breach the code of conduct once, then it can become impossible to enforce it from now on. If they allowed you to just fire the one employee when both are in breach of a clause requiring termination, then the company could argue in the future that they no longer have to follow the policies in the code of conduct.

    Ignoring for a moment that you have created this narrative out of whole cloth, in this case the union clearly failed in negotiations long before this incident happened.

    this is a really weird post

    like your suggestion that this policy was a result of bad negotiation on the union's part (even ignoring that, you know, management is also involved in negotiation) is just as fictive as the narrative that you're saying is fake

    At least Hedgies is based on something assumed to be truthful if you start taking the original story at face value - there is no standing the union would have to force termination unless it was spelled out in the CBA.

    And let's be real, it's probably a provision that management wanted there in the first place.

    This isn't how things work. If a company doesn't enforce the code of conduct, in the future, it becomes a union weapon. Every failure to enforce is another weakening of the CoC IN THE UNION'S FAVOR. If they are demanding an employee be fired, it's because they don't want him in their union, which is politics that management isn't always privy to.

    That's not how it works at all. The code of conduct and the agreement that the company abide by it is how the union defines dismissal proceedings. If the union allows the company to breach the code of conduct knowingly and without challenge, that can be later held against the union when they try to uphold the code and its procedures within.

    So you think unions are going around demanding their members be written up for anything that breaches the code of conduct? I have never once seen a union demand that a member be reprimanded. It doesn't happen, a union doesn't enforce punishments on its constituents.

    No, what's happening (based on the evidence given) is that the union is notified that there are two individuals in breach of the CoC, but management only wants to disipline one. Again, the union can't do that, because allowing the company out of the CoC once will make it hard to enforce later. So the union takes the position that either the company holds to its contractual obligations, or they'll file a grievance for not doing so.

    Option three is that no one gets fired, but that's not tenable from the companies stand point for sure.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited March 11
    Ketherial wrote: »
    He stated specifically that he had the incident on video, as well as having another manager involved who could testify on the matter. And instead of pointing this out and noting that it would make arbitration (which is already an uphill battle for unions, as arbitrators tend to favor companies for structural reasons) a much tougher road for the union, he just conceded the point and took the easy way out.

    (Also, shouldn't there have been an arrest report? An assault with a weapon should result in the assailant getting arrested.)

    Management refusing to do their job should not be respected.

    you've got our roles switched. make no mistake - the union was provided with all the evidence, as well as management's thoughts and requests on the matter. the union decided, again, i'm not sure why (out of spite?) to make me fire both employees. why would i contest that decision? we literally had one grievance up until this incident came up. i'm not going to "poison the well" by fighting for this when clearly the union wants both guys out.

    i'm not refusing to do my job. if anything, it was the union refusing to protect its members. i can't even make this shit up!

    Again, it's simple - the union demanded that you follow your code of conduct, which said that you had to fire both, because zero tolerance goosery isn't just for schools. As part of your collective bargaining agreement, the company will agree to hold to the standards and procedures for dismissal as laid out in the code of conduct (or equivalent document).

    As for why they would be so strict, it's because if they allow the company to breach the code of conduct once, then it can become impossible to enforce it from now on. If they allowed you to just fire the one employee when both are in breach of a clause requiring termination, then the company could argue in the future that they no longer have to follow the policies in the code of conduct.

    i think these are good reasons. i would have appreciated them explaining that to me.

    i also think upholding a zero tolerance policy over the livelihood of one of its members is bad practice. like i said, it's not like i'm terminating people left and right here. including this one, we've had only two termination incidents.

    but like i said, it's not on my hands. i was pontius pilate for this one.

    Ketherial on
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    That said, my overall point is true, because in the vast majority of workplaces hiring decisions are made by management, and if the hiring process fails to identify and eliminate bad apples from consideration, that's a management failure.

    yes, except, when management tries to correct its mistake by terminating a bad apple...

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    There is no earthly way a union asked for a zero tolerance policy to apply to it's membership.

    they didn't state anything in those specific terms, no.

    but they did tell me to fire both employees or else they would bring a grievance against me for treating one differently than the other. like i said, i told them i would prefer to keep the "victim" but they said i would need to undergo a grievance proceeding if i did that. i backed down.

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Ketherial wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    There is no earthly way a union asked for a zero tolerance policy to apply to it's membership.

    they didn't state anything in those specific terms, no.

    but they did tell me to fire both employees or else they would bring a grievance against me for treating one differently than the other. like i said, i told them i would prefer to keep the "victim" but they said i would need to undergo a grievance proceeding if i did that. i backed down.

    The terms of that policy are something that would have previously been agreed upon in the CBA - likely language largely inserted by your employer (Union's have no reason to seek zero tolerance policies like this, employers love them).

    Them going after you is holding the employer to the CBA and who was at fault or who is a bad guy has nothing to do with it.

    Because if they don't and they find themselves in arbitration 1, 2 or 10 years later over a wrongful termination then they can end up having this same event jammed up their ass.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    FencingsaxMoridin889
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    Ketherial wrote: »

    i think these are good reasons. i would have appreciated them explaining that to me.

    i also think upholding a zero tolerance policy over the livelihood of one of its members. like i said, it's not like i'm terminating people left and right here. including this one, we've had only two termination incidents.

    but like i said, it's not on my hands. i was pontius pilate for this one.

    I mean, first off, we're going just off what you are saying, which seems incomplete, even giving you the benefit of the doubts (for instance, did you call the cops regarding the presumed assault?). I suspect there is a bunch more here you aren't saying or you aren't aware of.
    yes, except, when management tries to correct its mistake by terminating a bad apple...

    It's still a management issue, but sure.

    Here's the thing, in the end. You are also relaying your experiences with a single union. That's anecdotal, ESPECIALLY when they are under no obligation to explain anything to you. They aren't your enemy, but they sure aren't your friend. A union's #1 priority is it's members. Leadership can fail, leadership can get corrupted, but making managements life easier when it comes to any kind of potentially adverse action towards it's employees is not even remotely on it's list of priorities. A good union will even fight you on questionable things that benefits it's members, if for no better reason than to keep you (management) honest.

    Fencingsax
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    I mean personally this story is being related through one level of interpretation/self bias at minimum.

    Now before that blows up I'll add this disclaimer - I am not accusing Keth of not telling the truth, but having been party to these type of things a lot of times the people at the top launder their lies through others.

    Overall something about the scenario and actions/motivations is nonsensical. Now my biases tell me that management likely lied to villify the union to it's membership, but ultimately who knows.

    of course i have clear biases, but there's no need for me to lie. everything was captured on our video cameras. the dude who was using the screwdriver as a weapon was denied worker's comp for his injuries from the fight because, clearly, he was an armed aggressor and his injuries were totally outside of the scope of his work. of course that judicial decision came down much, much later than me agreeing with the union to fire both employees (so the union couldn't use that decision as a reference).

    the only thing i can say is maybe the video wasn't clear enough for the union to come down on one guy and not the other? that's not totally unreasonable, but remember, the "victim" went to a manager first to try and have her de-escalate the situation (all captured on video tape).

    at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to the overall position of anyone here. i just finally feel validated that at least some people agree with me that some unions (bad ones) have lost the moral high ground. it's no longer a conflict between the working middle class and the aristocrats. in some scenarios, it feels much more like it's a battle between mobs, and the larger one often wins. our union is way larger than my little business, so they always win. it sucks to be the little guy.

  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Further evidence that unions are good: due to being Ground Zero for the American outbreak of COVID-19, a lot of Seattle's trade unions are calling in their force majeure clauses that they have with their various employers for this very sort of occasion. Since nearly all of us have to be physically present to work, and often have to do so elbow to elbow with one another, our governor's declaration of mandatory social distancing and the county executive's further directive to shutter uncontrolled workspaces has left many of us without work.

    We are not, however, necessarily going to go without payment if our respective contracts obligate employers to continue paying us in the event of work shutdowns for pandemic conditions. We wouldn't get that kind of guarantee if we hadn't baked it in to so many of our contracts, and we wouldn't even have those contracts without the power of collective bargaining.

    And don't come in here telling me that "Oh well Microsoft and Amazon are doing that very thing right now!" They are also subject to union contracts that require them to do that, so fuck off with your bullshit.

    painfulPleasanceAngelHedgiePolaritieIncenjucarJragghenShadowenI ZimbraDisruptedCapitalistGnome-InterruptusMeeqeArbitraryDescriptorPhillishereShadowfireZibblsnrtMan in the MistsHefflingWho-PsydMorganVElvenshaeSleepMvrckTNTrooperStyrofoam SammichTicaldfjamFencingsaxMartini_PhilosopherNetscapePeenshrykeMoridin889ShortyLord PalingtonForarQuidSkeithThe Cow KingCrimson Kingemp123Nartwakdurandal4532Cambiata
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Further evidence that unions are good: due to being Ground Zero for the American outbreak of COVID-19, a lot of Seattle's trade unions are calling in their force majeure clauses that they have with their various employers for this very sort of occasion. Since nearly all of us have to be physically present to work, and often have to do so elbow to elbow with one another, our governor's declaration of mandatory social distancing and the county executive's further directive to shutter uncontrolled workspaces has left many of us without work.

    We are not, however, necessarily going to go without payment if our respective contracts obligate employers to continue paying us in the event of work shutdowns for pandemic conditions. We wouldn't get that kind of guarantee if we hadn't baked it in to so many of our contracts, and we wouldn't even have those contracts without the power of collective bargaining.

    And don't come in here telling me that "Oh well Microsoft and Amazon are doing that very thing right now!" They are also subject to union contracts that require them to do that, so fuck off with your bullshit.

    Also, claiming that because a few trillion dollar companies decided to use some of their massive wealth for a bit of largesse, when most companies are going to be complete assholes about it, is like arguing that the health system is fine because sometimes people can get charitable treatment.

    So, I echo your "fuck off with your bullshit".

    HacksawTicaldfjamFencingsaxNetscapePeenHefflingShortyForarpainfulPleasanceLord_AsmodeusZibblsnrtMatevNartwak
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    This whole discussion on some sort of dispute involving the union basically illustrates the problem with so many of these kind of complaints. It's lacking in a ton of details and probably based on a bunch of policies and deals that the people actually dealing with the situation don't know. And so their reaction is to just randomly blame someone (almost always the union in my experience). It's one of the main ways unions get a bad rap. Something happens at work, it "seems wrong" to some people at face value, they decide the problem is the union. The overall context or why the situation went down the way it did, potentially based on established policies or deals with management, are never really considered. Just blame the union, move on.

    It's the same kind of impulse you see when people mutter about "damn government" or whatever. The why of the situation doesn't end up mattering for the complaints. (eg - conservative government slashes the DMV budget, the DMV is forced to cut back on how many employees they have at the front desk, people wait in longer lines and complain about how government is slow and inefficient)

    TimFijiAngelHedgiemrondeauThirithMartini_PhilosopherSleepNetscapeMan in the MistsiTunesIsEvilHacksawdispatch.opainfulPleasanceSmrtnikLord_AsmodeusHefflingIncenjucarGnome-Interruptusemp123Nartwak
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    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.

    Anti child-labour laws also made management tasks harder. What this attitude tells us is that management is clearly not acting in the best interests of the workers. I notice that you just switched from frustrating running the business to making things simpler and easier, as if anything that makes things less easy is automatically an unjust limitation on the proper functioning of a business.

    The word YOU used was hindrance. Making doing something harder and more complicated is a pretty common form of something being a hindrance. Or frustrating that thing.

    If instead of a union is was a micromanager I had to email and wait for approval before I made every decision, even if they always granted the request, it's still a hindrance to running my department.

    Right but again by that logic anti child-labour laws are a hindrance too. I assumed that you brought up the issue of a union frustrating the running of a business because it was unjustly frustrating, not that it was technically so. As I said, the presumption of innocence makes it harder for the state to throw people in jail, it frustrates it but that doesn't mean we should care. Why would you want a union as a business owner? Because it is the right thing.

    Right, so why do owners see it as a hindrance? Because it's the unions job to be one. Clearly that is "a quite telling" tautology.

    So yeah, even liberal managers and owners dont want unions-at their place-, not because they are "the overlap of wealth and immorality" but for the very simple reason that it makes their job harder and more frustrating. Something not one fucking person wants.

    You can't make "making their job harder" into some objectively bad thing as if the reason doesn't matter. What is making their job harder here is recognizing the human rights and interests of the workers.

    Netscape
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    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.

    Anti child-labour laws also made management tasks harder. What this attitude tells us is that management is clearly not acting in the best interests of the workers. I notice that you just switched from frustrating running the business to making things simpler and easier, as if anything that makes things less easy is automatically an unjust limitation on the proper functioning of a business.

    The word YOU used was hindrance. Making doing something harder and more complicated is a pretty common form of something being a hindrance. Or frustrating that thing.

    If instead of a union is was a micromanager I had to email and wait for approval before I made every decision, even if they always granted the request, it's still a hindrance to running my department.

    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.

    Yes and that is good because your case could just as easily be entirely unjustified. The job of a union is to protect the interests of its members, not to make things as easy as possible for management.

    Right, so why do owners see it as a hindrance? Because it's the unions job to be one. Clearly that is "a quite telling" tautology.

    So yeah, even liberal managers and owners dont want unions-at their place-, not because they are "the overlap of wealth and immorality" but for the very simple reason that it makes their job harder and more frustrating. Something not one fucking person wants.

    A union is only a hindrance if you're not doing your job correctly. Again, if you're properly managing your subordinates, you're already documenting their performance issues and bringing them up appropriately - a union will not stop you from firing someone as long as you are doing that.

    Careful with this language. It's not true. A union is ALWAYS a burden to management as it adds inefficiency. However, when done well, we generally believe the inefficiency is worth the trade off because it creates a better workplace, worker's rights, and therefore society.

    But it's not accurate to pretend they aren't a pain in the ass sometimes.

    Yeah a union should make the job of management more difficult. The point is that that doesn't matter. We have no reason to recognize managements interests as inherently important. It is not the job of the worker to make things as easy as possible.

    Gnome-InterruptusNetscape
  • PeenPeen tw1tch0rz occasionallyRegistered User regular
    Being a middle manager is a pain in the ass in 27 different ways, the union sticking up for their members isn't nearly the most annoying thing.

    QuidpainfulPleasanceFencingsaxHefflingAntinumericHacksawShadowfireKayne Red RobeJuliusMoridin889Stabbity StyleIncenjucarJust_Bri_ThanksLord_AsmodeusMatevForarShortyCambiata
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    National Emergency suspends my collective bargaining agreement. I'm trying to figure out exactly what that means but union isn't responding so far.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    National Emergency suspends my collective bargaining agreement. I'm trying to figure out exactly what that means but union isn't responding so far.

    I would advise to read that section of your contract. It probably lays it out.

    Unless it’s statutory and the contract doesn’t cover it. But typically even legal requirements are mirrored in a contract.

    dispatch.o
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Unions will 100% act toward their financial interests with no regards for morality. So will management. That is just how groups of people work. If you think it will be otherwise because they are composed of the virtuous proletariat I have a bridge to sell you.

    But the point of an adversarial system is that you have two sides with opposed interests and equalish power so the side with the facts on it's side will usually win.

    i 100% agree with you! there is no moral high ground anymore. both sides are greedy for power and money.

    we need to regulate both sides and address both the problems that come from unregulated corporate management as well as those that arise from corrupt union control. clearly unregulated management and unequal opportunity and distribution of wealth is the biggest problem. i don't think anyone can pretend otherwise.

    but man, unions sure are terrible (in my experience).

    Unions are good and necessary.It's just a bad idea to assume ethical behavior on their part by default. Unions are an organization designed to look after its members, which can extend to acting to the detriment of people or other organizations that aren't its members.

    sorry, disagree.

    without ethics and morality informing their behavior, unions are no different from any other senseless mob. perhaps i am so disappointed in unions because i used to believe in them, just like i used to believe in the viability of socialism / communism.

    as an attorney, i can tell you all right now that the adversarial system is terrible. to be honest, i'm not sure why we americans are so in love with it. our courts, our employer-employee relations, our democracy, our elections, etc., many, many things would be much better served by an investigative, fact-based, collaborative approach. this survival of the fittest, hyper-competition mentality is not always the best method for producing the best or most accurate answers. we end up getting to caught up in the spirit of battle and lose sight of the actual goal - reasonable compromise.

    That's right - you're the attorney who doesn't believe in things like contracts and due process when they get in the way of doing what you want to do.

    As for "why don't we use investigative systems" - have you ever played any of the Ace Attorney series? The lead developer created the series as a critique of Japan's legal system (which uses an investigative model) and how it routinely tramples over the actual goal of a legal system - justice - in pursuit of a "reasonable compromise" that has resulted in conviction rates that are ridiculous and indefensible.

    i don't know how you are coming to these conclusions about my stance, but strawmanning is foolish. if i didn't believe in contracts, i wouldn't be an attorney. anyway, just let it go and address the actual points being made.

    although i am not an expert on the japanese legal system, i would not consider ace attorney a competent or well thought out critique of that country's legal system. also it's adversarial so maybe do some research before you post.

    france and germany have inquisitorial legal systems. the supposedly "best" legal systems in the world, denmark, finland, sweden, etc., are all far more inquisitorial in nature than when compared to the us and england.

    my point still stands - the adversarial nature of employer-employee relations creates a race to the bottom. yes, corporations in general are better at being immoral, no question, but it's not clear to me that the right way to fight immorality and greed is with opposing immorality and greed.

    this is very interesting and all that but I can't be the first to bring up the obvious point. The "adversarial system" as it pertains to employer-employee relations isn't modelled on the common law system in some ideological fashion. It simply arises from the adversarial nature of the interests of the employer and the employees. A union member doesn't get a defender in their corner out of some sick cargo-culting of the US justice system, they get it because that is in the best interest of union members.

    An inquisitorial justice system may have many benefits over an adversarial system, but that relies on the fact that the state has no inherent interest in screwing over citizens and seeks to settle disputes of justice rather than disputes of contract.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    This whole discussion on some sort of dispute involving the union basically illustrates the problem with so many of these kind of complaints. It's lacking in a ton of details and probably based on a bunch of policies and deals that the people actually dealing with the situation don't know. And so their reaction is to just randomly blame someone (almost always the union in my experience). It's one of the main ways unions get a bad rap. Something happens at work, it "seems wrong" to some people at face value, they decide the problem is the union. The overall context or why the situation went down the way it did, potentially based on established policies or deals with management, are never really considered. Just blame the union, move on.

    It's the same kind of impulse you see when people mutter about "damn government" or whatever. The why of the situation doesn't end up mattering for the complaints. (eg - conservative government slashes the DMV budget, the DMV is forced to cut back on how many employees they have at the front desk, people wait in longer lines and complain about how government is slow and inefficient)

    For another example of Corporate propaganda trying and succeeding in convincing the public to side with Corporations over public interests, see the famous McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit and how it was twisted and vilified until it didn’t resemble The true facts if the case at all which was a restaurant repeatedly ignoring warnings, and when someone got hurt, they refused to cover even half of the medical bills incurred.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Martini_PhilosopherFencingsaxshrykeIncenjucarMoridin889ZibblsnrtLord_AsmodeusAistanNyysjanMatevkimeTNTrooperHacksawemp123MorganVNetscapeDavid WalgasMan in the Mistsenc0reNartwakKlytus
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    National Emergency suspends my collective bargaining agreement. I'm trying to figure out exactly what that means but union isn't responding so far.

    Are you in a medical field, by any chance? I'm not, but my boss is claiming my union contract is suspended and he can ask me to do things outside the scope of my job or the contract because of the state of emergency.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    National Emergency suspends my collective bargaining agreement. I'm trying to figure out exactly what that means but union isn't responding so far.

    Are you in a medical field, by any chance? I'm not, but my boss is claiming my union contract is suspended and he can ask me to do things outside the scope of my job or the contract because of the state of emergency.

    I'm sure you're aware, but you should talk to your union rep.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    Moridin889ElvenshaeMatevGnome-InterruptusHacksawPeenemp123NetscapeMan in the Mistsenc0reNartwakHeffling
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited March 15
    RedTide wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    There is no earthly way a union asked for a zero tolerance policy to apply to it's membership.

    they didn't state anything in those specific terms, no.

    but they did tell me to fire both employees or else they would bring a grievance against me for treating one differently than the other. like i said, i told them i would prefer to keep the "victim" but they said i would need to undergo a grievance proceeding if i did that. i backed down.

    The terms of that policy are something that would have previously been agreed upon in the CBA - likely language largely inserted by your employer (Union's have no reason to seek zero tolerance policies like this, employers love them).

    Them going after you is holding the employer to the CBA and who was at fault or who is a bad guy has nothing to do with it.

    Because if they don't and they find themselves in arbitration 1, 2 or 10 years later over a wrongful termination then they can end up having this same event jammed up their ass.

    Interpretation of CBA language is actually something that’s almost always done after the fact, and is pretty much always done on a case-by-case basis. That’s pretty much what the grievance process is, and almost always starts with the union taking a position and the company either complying or refuting it.

    EDIT: Precedence is only ever cited by either side when said precedence would benefit their position, and tends not to be an overarching theme. So ‘the union felt compelled to enforce the code of conduct despite it harming their members out of fear of it weakening them in the future’ doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    Javen on
    Atlas in Chains
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    There is no earthly way a union asked for a zero tolerance policy to apply to it's membership.

    they didn't state anything in those specific terms, no.

    but they did tell me to fire both employees or else they would bring a grievance against me for treating one differently than the other. like i said, i told them i would prefer to keep the "victim" but they said i would need to undergo a grievance proceeding if i did that. i backed down.

    The terms of that policy are something that would have previously been agreed upon in the CBA - likely language largely inserted by your employer (Union's have no reason to seek zero tolerance policies like this, employers love them).

    Them going after you is holding the employer to the CBA and who was at fault or who is a bad guy has nothing to do with it.

    Because if they don't and they find themselves in arbitration 1, 2 or 10 years later over a wrongful termination then they can end up having this same event jammed up their ass.

    Interpretation of CBA language is actually something that’s almost always done after the fact, and is pretty much always done on a case-by-case basis. That’s pretty much what the grievance process is, and almost always starts with the union taking a position and the company either complying or refuting it.

    EDIT: Precedence is only ever cited by either side when said precedence would benefit their position, and tends not to be an overarching theme. So ‘the union felt compelled to enforce the code of conduct despite it harming their members out of fear of it weakening them in the future’ doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    I've stated in other posts that there is something were missing in this scenario / that were not privy to that fills in gaps.

    Also we've had multiple occasions where management just doesn't fucking follow plain ass language and have had to aggrieve it. A lot of this is very much to do with our respective situations moreso then universal truths.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    It’s not too difficult to simply imagine an ultimatum-type situation, in hopes that the company backs down and doesn’t fire either person

  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited March 15
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    National Emergency suspends my collective bargaining agreement. I'm trying to figure out exactly what that means but union isn't responding so far.

    Are you in a medical field, by any chance? I'm not, but my boss is claiming my union contract is suspended and he can ask me to do things outside the scope of my job or the contract because of the state of emergency.

    I am in medical and work in a specialized hospital setting.

    I'm still having trouble with my union actually communicating with me. Quite frankly current leadership is terminally corrupt and there's an election going on, so all of the stewards and organizers are having difficulty getting any information to members. Essentially I've just been told, "No way, that's not true at all!" without an actual argument or reason that it would not be true, they're giving a reflexive response that's unjustified when matched to my concerns.

    It's a big problem I have always had with unions I've been in. So many of the representatives are so angry all the time they often can't articulate the contract or laws in a meaningful way I find convincing. Given how frequently they end up being wrong it's really difficult to just take them at their word. They should have lawyers on staff for this shit, but I've heard jack shit for over a week and they haven't even sent out an email or mailer about what a state of emergency means for us.

    dispatch.o on
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    National Emergency suspends my collective bargaining agreement. I'm trying to figure out exactly what that means but union isn't responding so far.

    Are you in a medical field, by any chance? I'm not, but my boss is claiming my union contract is suspended and he can ask me to do things outside the scope of my job or the contract because of the state of emergency.

    I'm sure you're aware, but you should talk to your union rep.

    Did this, union couldn't really help me, and now my boss is absolutely livid at me. The worst of all worlds.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

    dispatch.o
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    National Emergency suspends my collective bargaining agreement. I'm trying to figure out exactly what that means but union isn't responding so far.

    Are you in a medical field, by any chance? I'm not, but my boss is claiming my union contract is suspended and he can ask me to do things outside the scope of my job or the contract because of the state of emergency.

    I'm sure you're aware, but you should talk to your union rep.

    Did this, union couldn't really help me, and now my boss is absolutely livid at me. The worst of all worlds.

    Employer and union released contract specialist back to her unit because "emergency" so now I have no contact person.

  • MatevMatev Cero Miedo Registered User regular
    Not quite union action, but might be seeing the start of scattered wildcat strikes as people realize they're not getting adequately compensated to deal with a pandemic

    "Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
    Hail Hydra
    OrcaSleepIncenjucarkimeLegacyElvenshaeShortySkeithShadowenMulysaSemproniusDoodmannemp123Man in the MistsHacksawHappylilElfLord_AsmodeusMartini_PhilosopherCalicaNartwakDavid WalgasFryFencingsaxMill
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    edited March 25
    I hope this is true but having trouble finding confirmation. That post doesn't show up on the Dominos sub, at least right now.

    Edit: the user who made this post deleted their account. :eh:

    Shadowfire on
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    DisruptedCapitalist
  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Some better documented wildcat strikes:

    DMV workers at one California location arrived at work but refused to deal with the public because of the dangers of exposure.

    Workers at a Perdue chicken processing plant walk out due to lack of safety, cleanliness, and no response to possible exposure.
    "We're not getting nothing -- no type of compensation, no nothing, not even no cleanliness, no extra pay -- no nothing. We're up here risking our life for chicken,"

    Pittsburgh garbage collectors walk out demanding better equipment and protective gear (more than just hand sanitizer which is all they had received), and hazard pay.
    "We need hazard pay. Hazard pay is very important. Why? Because we have high copayments on any type of bill we get. We risk our lives every time we grab a garbage bag. "

    And there have been plenty of others. These have usually been small and only make local news, but they are happening.

    HacksawJragghenShadowenIncenjucarShadowfireMartini_PhilosopherOrcadurandal4532CalicaSkeithMoridin889emp123Gnome-InterruptusTicaldfjamNyysjan
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Good. More strikes. This is the time to do it: they'll never have leverage like they do right now.

    RedTideMayabirdI ZimbraJavenTuminShadowenOrcaPolaritieTNTrooperSleepStabbity StyleVegemyteIncenjucarStyrofoam SammichShadowfireMartini_PhilosopherPhillisheredurandal4532kimeEmperorSethCalicaAresProphetSkeithMoridin889Gnome-InterruptusTicaldfjamFencingsaxKlytusAl_watDavid WalgasDoodmannQuidNetscapeMan in the MistsRawkking Goodguy
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Good. More strikes. This is the time to do it: they'll never have leverage like they do right now.

    Nothing like reminding everyone who the actual essential workers are to get things moving.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ShadowfireMartini_PhilosopherPhillishereHacksawCalicaSkeithGnome-InterruptusTicaldfjamFencingsaxShadowenVegemytesilence1186MayabirdAl_watQuidMeeqeNetscapeMan in the MistsRawkking Goodguy
Sign In or Register to comment.