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.
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.
Do you also think that the right to an attorney and the presumption of innocence unreasonably frustrate the ability of the state to run an efficient police state?
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.
Defense attorneys also make the job of prosecutors harder. But what would we think of a district attorney that said defendants should not be allowed to have an attorney?
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.
Ideally, a union should be invested in accountability, which IMO a good manager or owner should also be. If they aren't, or if they think that accountability is a one-way road, I'd consider them lacking in terms of being good at their job. Putting this purely in terms of "hindrance" suggests to me a view of what a manager's or owner's job is that is entirely stripped of any ethical dimension.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I can't kick out anyone from my division and most definitely can't get them outright fired without a strong case with lots of documentation. It can indeed be frustrating at times with someone's who's an unrepentant screw up. But I'd rather have that requirement given I've seen other NCOs want to remove people for something as petty as not talking sports with them. That's not a hindrance to me, that's just good practice. Working with hazardous materials, wear PPE. Planning to go on vacation, inform the work space so they can prepare for your absence. Someone's not meeting expectations, work to help them improve before jumping straight to removing them.
Managers should not be entitled to immediately firing someone for any reason they like. There should absolutely be proof provided of an employee's shortcomings and attempts made to rectify them.
+23
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
In my workplace the general manager cannot fire an employee. They can partner with HR to document deficiencies, and termination is up to district/regional. This protects the employees from lower management.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I can't kick out anyone from my division and most definitely can't get them outright fired without a strong case with lots of documentation. It can indeed be frustrating at times with someone's who's an unrepentant screw up. But I'd rather have that requirement given I've seen other NCOs want to remove people for something as petty as not talking sports with them. That's not a hindrance to me, that's just good practice. Working with hazardous materials, wear PPE. Planning to go on vacation, inform the work space so they can prepare for your absence. Someone's not meeting expectations, work to help them improve before jumping straight to removing them.
Managers should not be entitled to immediately firing someone for any reason they like. There should absolutely be proof provided of an employee's shortcomings and attempts made to rectify them.
So hold up. You're now saying that the US military has socialized medicine, gets paid if they get sent home because of Covid AND has better worker protections than most Unions? Holy shit the right wing was right, Socialism really has infested our nation's institutions!
Ideally, a union should be invested in accountability, which IMO a good manager or owner should also be. If they aren't, or if they think that accountability is a one-way road, I'd consider them lacking in terms of being good at their job. Putting this purely in terms of "hindrance" suggests to me a view of what a manager's or owner's job is that is entirely stripped of any ethical dimension.
This is probably a chicken-and-egg deal, but unions aren’t really interested in accountability. Most unions act, or would prefer to act as the police union does; to prevent accountability at all costs. It’s just the most noticeable with police unions because they actually have the influence and power to be successful at this goal.
You can make the argument that this is reactionary, from the rise of at-will employment and such that has forced unions to take a polar opposite approach, instead of trying to achieve a middle ground, but at the moment, the only time a union will acquiesce to firing an employee who is grieving their separation is if they know they’ll lose.
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.
Ideally, a union should be invested in accountability, which IMO a good manager or owner should also be. If they aren't, or if they think that accountability is a one-way road, I'd consider them lacking in terms of being good at their job. Putting this purely in terms of "hindrance" suggests to me a view of what a manager's or owner's job is that is entirely stripped of any ethical dimension.
This is probably a chicken-and-egg deal, but unions aren’t really interested in accountability. Most unions act, or would prefer to act as the police union does; to prevent accountability at all costs. It’s just the most noticeable with police unions because they actually have the influence and power to be successful at this goal.
You can make the argument that this is reactionary, from the rise of at-will employment and such that has forced unions to take a polar opposite approach, instead of trying to achieve a middle ground, but at the moment, the only time a union will acquiesce to firing an employee who is grieving their separation is if they know they’ll lose.
I think you underestimate how petty most efforts to fire someone are, and how often people get fired less for their own personal failures and instead for the resultant effects of managerial failure.
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.
This is absolutely untrue. A union grievance is not a court of law; proving that the accused action(s) took place is typically not the deciding factor over whether someone is fired or not, and a union will almost always continue to fight the firing even if it's proven that the employee is guilty of what they were accused of.
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.
This is absolutely untrue. A union grievance is not a court of law; proving that the accused action(s) took place is typically not the deciding factor over whether someone is fired or not, and a union will almost always continue to fight the firing even if it's proven that the employee is guilty of what they were accused of.
This is just dumb propaganda. We have multiple people here from union shops testifying that unions don't interfere with firing for causes like failure to adhere to safety regulations, failure to show without notification or just cause, or showing up inebriated.
I wonder if a lot of people get their ideas for how unions operate by looking at how police unions operate. They're different beasts - it's easier to negotiate when you carry a gun.
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.
This is absolutely untrue. A union grievance is not a court of law; proving that the accused action(s) took place is typically not the deciding factor over whether someone is fired or not, and a union will almost always continue to fight the firing even if it's proven that the employee is guilty of what they were accused of.
This is just dumb propaganda. We have multiple people here from union shops testifying that unions don't interfere with firing for causes like failure to adhere to safety regulations, failure to show without notification or just cause, or showing up inebriated.
It's almost like Unions have been the target of forty+ years of political propaganda.
Of course a union will oppose a safety or no show termination to some degree. Management still has to prove the event happened to prevent firing for spurious reasons.
Individual unions vary but the main bargaining chip they have is members not working. If employees are not showing up or costing the company lots of money then the union loses some of that bargaining power.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
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.
This is absolutely untrue. A union grievance is not a court of law; proving that the accused action(s) took place is typically not the deciding factor over whether someone is fired or not, and a union will almost always continue to fight the firing even if it's proven that the employee is guilty of what they were accused of.
This is just dumb propaganda. We have multiple people here from union shops testifying that unions don't interfere with firing for causes like failure to adhere to safety regulations, failure to show without notification or just cause, or showing up inebriated.
Many suburban departments actually have clauses in their union contracts which prevent any kind of discipline for officers with substantial amounts of alcohol in their systems -- even those nearing the state definition of legally drunk, an investigation by the Better Government Association and NBC Chicago reveals.
...
Pulia, himself a former Westchester police officer, tried unsuccessfully to stop ratification of his department’s union contract which only allows discipline against officers when they hit an alcohol level of .05.
"I could argue that you are half drunk," Pulia said. "I still believe that police officers are held to a higher standard."
Pulia argues that no one with alcohol in their systems should be driving a squad car or carrying a gun. And he thinks it sends the wrong message to officers to set a number which could be perceived as an allowable limit.
Westchester is not alone. Police in Forest Park, Glendale Heights, and South Barrington also have a limit of .05. In Elmwood Park and Oak Park, the limit is the state definition of legally drunk: .08 or higher.
When a Michigan middle-school teacher was denied $10,000 in severance pay last month, the local teachers union filed a grievance against the school board on his behalf. Given the union's mission to defend the rights of educators, this would appear to be routine. Not so fast: The teacher is a convicted sex offender.
Neal Erickson was sentenced in July to a 15- to 30-year jail term after acknowledging that he had sexual relations with a male student beginning when the boy was 14 years old. The school board denied him severance...
Detroit — The union that represents Detroit cops has filed a grievance over how the police department is handling the case of an officer who was arrested Sunday for allegedly being a drug dealer.
The grievance, filed Thursday by the Detroit Police Officers Association, claims police Chief James Craig violated the collective bargaining agreement by firing the 29-year-old officer without a probationary evaluation board hearing. Craig insists he doesn't need to conduct the hearings to fire probationary officers.
...
"The way she was treated — to be marched into headquarters ... in handcuffs and an orange prison jumpsuit — was uncalled for," DPOA vice president Ronald Thomas said. "These are still allegations; we don't want to have a precedent set where any officer who is accused of a crime is treated that way."
Police received a tip early Sunday that the officer was a drug dealer, Craig said. They executed a search warrant hours later and found "a small amount" of heroin and "several packets of cocaine," Craig said.
The officer was arrested, along with a male companion, a felon in possession of a stolen gun, Craig said. The officer is expected to be charged with drug-dealing and making threats, the chief said.
DEERFIELD, IL — A longtime North Shore firefighter has been charged with sexually assaulting a woman in Deerfield following a nine-month investigation, according to police and court records. The firefighter denies the allegations. He has filed a union grievance over his firing and hired one of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein's lawyers to defend him in court.
Or the letters they wrote discrediting witnesses to a teacher having relations with a student.
A Concord High School guidance counselor and art teacher – in their roles as union representatives – tried to discredit and disprove three female students who reported seeing teacher Howie Leung kiss a fellow student in a car near the school in December.
Guidance counselor Karen Slick and art teacher Jeff Fullam, co-chairs of the grievance committee, wrote letters that questioned whether the girls could have seen what they reported, cited the unreliability of eyewitness accounts and suggested that the girls could have been punished for harassing their classmate by asking her about the interaction with Leung.
Yep, it's a real shame you're so invested into buying into this bullshit, but as has been said upthread, the U.S. has spent decades vilifying unions while promoting 'fired anytime for any reason is right and just, TOTES balanced by the fact an employee can quit at any time, m'kay?'
Police unions are very, very different from general labor unions.
For instance, not being labor
+14
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
police unions have very, very different contracts from basically all other labor unions, because the relationship between police and government is not the same as the relationship between, say, machinists and management
police unions have very, very different contracts from basically all other labor unions, because the relationship between police and government is not the same as the relationship between, say, machinists and management
Yes, basically every public sector union is very different than private sector ones. In part because hiring for public sector stuff is subject to a bunch of restrictions and bureaucracy, by design. Their unions reflect that. Police are like that but doubly so.
Should probably also get rid of all those defense attorneys who cause such a hindrance for prosecutors and the police. Some of their clients are even criminals!
This is absolutely untrue. A union grievance is not a court of law; proving that the accused action(s) took place is typically not the deciding factor over whether someone is fired or not, and a union will almost always continue to fight the firing even if it's proven that the employee is guilty of what they were accused of.
This is just dumb propaganda. We have multiple people here from union shops testifying that unions don't interfere with firing for causes like failure to adhere to safety regulations, failure to show without notification or just cause, or showing up inebriated.
i manage a union shop and i don't think what he's said is dumb propoganda at all. in fact, in my 10 years managing union relations, it has been 100% accurate. the union fights every termination, regardless of cause. the union fought me on terminating an employee that we caught stealing a guest's property, on video. they also fought me on a termination over an employee who was fighting in the lobby, using a screwdriver as a weapon, also caught on video. absurd!
while i understand that there are good unions and bad unions, i would contest this thread's anecdotal evidence with my own. my lengthy experience with unions has convinced me that they no longer hold the moral high ground.
and this is coming from a lifelong liberal and staunch democrat who will do everything in his power to get the republicans out of office throughout the country. i just disagree with all the liberals / dems on this issue. unions are terrible for us. police unions are the worst, definitely.
once upon a time, unions were amazing and necessary for our country. they made our country a better place. and they may still be great in other countries or other states or jurisdictions. but my experience with unions in my industry have been nothing but horrible, shortsighted and totally corrupt.
edit: i don't work in the public sector, so these comments about how public sector unions are especially shitty and private sector unions are rainbows and butterflies don't apply. there are plenty of private sector unions that are shitty and corrupt also.
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.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
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!
the secretaries and staff employed by the union i work with (work against?) are not unionized either and when asked, one of them explained to me that it was discouraged.
i guess that's why they make less and have less benefits than the union members (at my unionized business) for the same kind of work. if you are a secretary at my business, you make more than 3 times minimum wage. if you are a secretary at the union office that organized my business, you make a little over minimum wage.
i think it is disingenuous to pretend like anyone wants their workforce to be unionized. even the unions don't want their staff unionizing.
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).
When I worked at Wal-Mart managers would fire people they didn't like for the most petty bullshit. I want unions to challenge just about every termination. I just expect them to back down when someone gets fired for coming in high on meth and grabs a can of hair spray and lighter and tries to burn the store down. I also want a unicorn pony.
Defense attorneys also make the job of prosecutors harder. But what would we think of a district attorney that said defendants should not be allowed to have an attorney?
I think this is really the best analogy (although it is only an analogy and not a perfect 1:1).
Unions can make some management actions more difficult but they serve a necessary purpose and the alternative is worse.
Like, as an example, it would be nice if we didn't need formal documented procedures for firing people. It would be nice if we could trust management/companies/etc to only fire people for the right reason and we didn't need all the rigmarole. But that's not the way the world actually goes.
When I worked at Wal-Mart managers would fire people they didn't like for the most petty bullshit. I want unions to challenge just about every termination. I just expect them to back down when someone gets fired for coming in high on meth and grabs a can of hair spray and lighter and tries to burn the store down. I also want a unicorn pony.
Honestly I don't expect them to back down. I think the employer and union should get that employee detox and rehab for their meth problem, or at least explain they gotta wait till after work for the meth so they don't do that crazy shit again. If they start doing it every wednesday and refuse treatment, then maybe we can get to firing them.
These corps demand our whole lives to solve their problems, but balk at the idea that they should have to help with our problems. It's totally bullshit. Corps should have far more responsibility to their employees than they currently do.
This is absolutely untrue. A union grievance is not a court of law; proving that the accused action(s) took place is typically not the deciding factor over whether someone is fired or not, and a union will almost always continue to fight the firing even if it's proven that the employee is guilty of what they were accused of.
This is just dumb propaganda. We have multiple people here from union shops testifying that unions don't interfere with firing for causes like failure to adhere to safety regulations, failure to show without notification or just cause, or showing up inebriated.
i manage a union shop and i don't think what he's said is dumb propoganda at all. in fact, in my 10 years managing union relations, it has been 100% accurate. the union fights every termination, regardless of cause. the union fought me on terminating an employee that we caught stealing a guest's property, on video. they also fought me on a termination over an employee who was fighting in the lobby, using a screwdriver as a weapon, also caught on video. absurd!
while i understand that there are good unions and bad unions, i would contest this thread's anecdotal evidence with my own. my lengthy experience with unions has convinced me that they no longer hold the moral high ground.
and this is coming from a lifelong liberal and staunch democrat who will do everything in his power to get the republicans out of office throughout the country. i just disagree with all the liberals / dems on this issue. unions are terrible for us. police unions are the worst, definitely.
once upon a time, unions were amazing and necessary for our country. they made our country a better place. and they may still be great in other countries or other states or jurisdictions. but my experience with unions in my industry have been nothing but horrible, shortsighted and totally corrupt.
edit: i don't work in the public sector, so these comments about how public sector unions are especially shitty and private sector unions are rainbows and butterflies don't apply. there are plenty of private sector unions that are shitty and corrupt also.
So, let me get this straight - you treat unions as the enemy, yet you expect them to trust you when you want to fire a member? What have you done to give them any reason to think you are working with them in good faith? It's no surprise that they challenge you on any such decision, because you've poisoned the well so thoroughly. And this is something I see over and over - employers attack unions, treat them with contempt...and then look surprised when the favor is returned.
I work for state, one of the hardest places to get fired from, but I can be fired with cause. It just requires my supervisor to document corrective action, go through the disciplinary chain, and show that they've made a good faith effort to fix my problems and it's just not working out. If they carry through and keep records responsibly then I won't have recourse.
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.
I have also seen unions go to great lengths to protect an individual member from corrective action when that person's behavior or performance is affecting everyone else that they work with, such that the other people in the workplace have gone to the union to say please stop protecting this person who is hurting the rest of us.
That's not to say that unions are bad but if you aren't happy with how your union is working then consider getting involved. A lot of union leadership happens on a volunteer basis by those willing to show up and those people may or may not have your specific interests in mind.
When I worked at Wal-Mart managers would fire people they didn't like for the most petty bullshit. I want unions to challenge just about every termination. I just expect them to back down when someone gets fired for coming in high on meth and grabs a can of hair spray and lighter and tries to burn the store down. I also want a unicorn pony.
Honestly I don't expect them to back down. I think the employer and union should get that employee detox and rehab for their meth problem, or at least explain they gotta wait till after work for the meth so they don't do that crazy shit again. If they start doing it every wednesday and refuse treatment, then maybe we can get to firing them.
These corps demand our whole lives to solve their problems, but balk at the idea that they should have to help with our problems. It's totally bullshit. Corps should have far more responsibility to their employees than they currently do.
I wasn't making that story up. He set the cardboard waiting to be crushed on fire then ran around blasting off his homemade flamethrower. We had to evacuate the store and wait for him to get arrested and the fire department to make sure there wasn't any fires. He lost his job cause you can't work from jail when you are doing time for arson. That being said he picked a busy Saturday to this and everyone got to go home early and still get paid so he was pretty cool in the eyes of us lowly peasants.
I have also seen unions go to great lengths to protect an individual member from corrective action when that person's behavior or performance is affecting everyone else that they work with, such that the other people in the workplace have gone to the union to say please stop protecting this person who is hurting the rest of us.
That's not to say that unions are bad but if you aren't happy with how your union is working then continue getting involved. A lot of union leadership happens on a volunteer basis by those willing to show up and those people may or may not have your specific interests in mind.
Like I said earlier, since corporations have all the power, so unions are kind of forced to be more reactionary in how they handle disputes and how they set their agendas. Since companies have pretty much gone all-in on at-will employment and such, unions feel forced to basically take the exact opposite approach. If companies want to be able to fire people for no reason, unions must then defend their employees regardless of reason, even if that reason would normally be considered justified.
Sexual harassment/assault, for example, is a huge blindspot for unions RE accountability amongst its members, espeically considering how difficult it is to prove, and how often there's no paper trail.
Posts
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.
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.
Do you also think that the right to an attorney and the presumption of innocence unreasonably frustrate the ability of the state to run an efficient police state?
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, 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.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Managers should not be entitled to immediately firing someone for any reason they like. There should absolutely be proof provided of an employee's shortcomings and attempts made to rectify them.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
So hold up. You're now saying that the US military has socialized medicine, gets paid if they get sent home because of Covid AND has better worker protections than most Unions? Holy shit the right wing was right, Socialism really has infested our nation's institutions!
Please share.
This is probably a chicken-and-egg deal, but unions aren’t really interested in accountability. Most unions act, or would prefer to act as the police union does; to prevent accountability at all costs. It’s just the most noticeable with police unions because they actually have the influence and power to be successful at this goal.
You can make the argument that this is reactionary, from the rise of at-will employment and such that has forced unions to take a polar opposite approach, instead of trying to achieve a middle ground, but at the moment, the only time a union will acquiesce to firing an employee who is grieving their separation is if they know they’ll lose.
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.
I think you underestimate how petty most efforts to fire someone are, and how often people get fired less for their own personal failures and instead for the resultant effects of managerial failure.
This is absolutely untrue. A union grievance is not a court of law; proving that the accused action(s) took place is typically not the deciding factor over whether someone is fired or not, and a union will almost always continue to fight the firing even if it's proven that the employee is guilty of what they were accused of.
This is just dumb propaganda. We have multiple people here from union shops testifying that unions don't interfere with firing for causes like failure to adhere to safety regulations, failure to show without notification or just cause, or showing up inebriated.
It's almost like Unions have been the target of forty+ years of political propaganda.
Individual unions vary but the main bargaining chip they have is members not working. If employees are not showing up or costing the company lots of money then the union loses some of that bargaining power.
Yep pure propaganda right out of their contract
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/many-suburban-cops-allowed-to-work-half-drunk/2050686/
Or their own grievance filings
https://www.wsj.com/articles/keeping-sex-predators-out-of-schoolrooms-1389918249
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2019/03/29/police-union-files-grievance-over-alleged-drug-dealing-cops-treatment/3305070002/
https://patch.com/illinois/deerfield/accused-rape-fired-firefighter-hires-weinstein-defense-lawyer
Or the letters they wrote discrediting witnesses to a teacher having relations with a student.
https://www.concordmonitor.com/Concord-NH-high-school-teachers-union-representatives-objected-to-Leung-investigation-26407184
Yep, it's a real shame you're so invested into buying into this bullshit, but as has been said upthread, the U.S. has spent decades vilifying unions while promoting 'fired anytime for any reason is right and just, TOTES balanced by the fact an employee can quit at any time, m'kay?'
For instance, not being labor
Are we ... supposed to care whether that's even the case?
Yes, basically every public sector union is very different than private sector ones. In part because hiring for public sector stuff is subject to a bunch of restrictions and bureaucracy, by design. Their unions reflect that. Police are like that but doubly so.
And not policing their members.
i manage a union shop and i don't think what he's said is dumb propoganda at all. in fact, in my 10 years managing union relations, it has been 100% accurate. the union fights every termination, regardless of cause. the union fought me on terminating an employee that we caught stealing a guest's property, on video. they also fought me on a termination over an employee who was fighting in the lobby, using a screwdriver as a weapon, also caught on video. absurd!
while i understand that there are good unions and bad unions, i would contest this thread's anecdotal evidence with my own. my lengthy experience with unions has convinced me that they no longer hold the moral high ground.
and this is coming from a lifelong liberal and staunch democrat who will do everything in his power to get the republicans out of office throughout the country. i just disagree with all the liberals / dems on this issue. unions are terrible for us. police unions are the worst, definitely.
once upon a time, unions were amazing and necessary for our country. they made our country a better place. and they may still be great in other countries or other states or jurisdictions. but my experience with unions in my industry have been nothing but horrible, shortsighted and totally corrupt.
edit: i don't work in the public sector, so these comments about how public sector unions are especially shitty and private sector unions are rainbows and butterflies don't apply. there are plenty of private sector unions that are shitty and corrupt also.
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.
the secretaries and staff employed by the union i work with (work against?) are not unionized either and when asked, one of them explained to me that it was discouraged.
i guess that's why they make less and have less benefits than the union members (at my unionized business) for the same kind of work. if you are a secretary at my business, you make more than 3 times minimum wage. if you are a secretary at the union office that organized my business, you make a little over minimum wage.
i think it is disingenuous to pretend like anyone wants their workforce to be unionized. even the unions don't want their staff unionizing.
i think we just need to be honest with ourselves.
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).
I think this is really the best analogy (although it is only an analogy and not a perfect 1:1).
Unions can make some management actions more difficult but they serve a necessary purpose and the alternative is worse.
Like, as an example, it would be nice if we didn't need formal documented procedures for firing people. It would be nice if we could trust management/companies/etc to only fire people for the right reason and we didn't need all the rigmarole. But that's not the way the world actually goes.
Honestly I don't expect them to back down. I think the employer and union should get that employee detox and rehab for their meth problem, or at least explain they gotta wait till after work for the meth so they don't do that crazy shit again. If they start doing it every wednesday and refuse treatment, then maybe we can get to firing them.
These corps demand our whole lives to solve their problems, but balk at the idea that they should have to help with our problems. It's totally bullshit. Corps should have far more responsibility to their employees than they currently do.
So, let me get this straight - you treat unions as the enemy, yet you expect them to trust you when you want to fire a member? What have you done to give them any reason to think you are working with them in good faith? It's no surprise that they challenge you on any such decision, because you've poisoned the well so thoroughly. And this is something I see over and over - employers attack unions, treat them with contempt...and then look surprised when the favor is returned.
I cannot however be fired just 'cause.
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.
That's not to say that unions are bad but if you aren't happy with how your union is working then consider getting involved. A lot of union leadership happens on a volunteer basis by those willing to show up and those people may or may not have your specific interests in mind.
I wasn't making that story up. He set the cardboard waiting to be crushed on fire then ran around blasting off his homemade flamethrower. We had to evacuate the store and wait for him to get arrested and the fire department to make sure there wasn't any fires. He lost his job cause you can't work from jail when you are doing time for arson. That being said he picked a busy Saturday to this and everyone got to go home early and still get paid so he was pretty cool in the eyes of us lowly peasants.
Like I said earlier, since corporations have all the power, so unions are kind of forced to be more reactionary in how they handle disputes and how they set their agendas. Since companies have pretty much gone all-in on at-will employment and such, unions feel forced to basically take the exact opposite approach. If companies want to be able to fire people for no reason, unions must then defend their employees regardless of reason, even if that reason would normally be considered justified.
Sexual harassment/assault, for example, is a huge blindspot for unions RE accountability amongst its members, espeically considering how difficult it is to prove, and how often there's no paper trail.