Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have mixed feeling regarding unionized labor. They work in numbers. When employers actually feel threatened by the possibility of a plant unionizing, yes, they are able to through their weight around. Today, it's very easy to disband a union. Sell the company, take your money, and invest it in another (preferably non union) business. Even if your plant is unionized, unions don't possess the power they once did. Simply tell them it's your way, or the work goes somewhere else. Yes, those workers will gladly accept a 50% cut in wages/bennies vs the alternative.
Unions benefited non union workers 20 years ago. The non union company had to at least pay you enough to keep you from drifting off. Today, the union jobs may not even pay enough to lure in the lowest paid of non union workers. I did some job searching over the past couple weeks. I was shocked at the low wages being paid for unionized general labor workers. In the neighborhood of 12-13 bucks an hour. LOL, I remember when unionized general labor workers were getting 15 bucks an hour. That was about 10 years ago! Today's union worker has lost much of their earning power, and that's not even taking into account inflation.
These days, the best form of protection comes by being the best possible worker your company could ask for. Be the guy/gal that no company wants to see walk out the door. They will treat you right, and maybe even pay you right if you're good enough. The problem rests with the average/sub par worker who can't be counted on to deliver results.
Most folks today take for granted the benefits that unionized labor have afforded us. Union bashers in particular. As unions have continued their decline, we have also seeing a corresponding decline in pay for many of these jobs. Business owners don't always treat folks well out of the goodness of their hearts. Most do it because they know folks will leave if they treat them like money making slaves. If they can find a way to pay you less, many will. And when one company starts underpaying, the others must follow suit in order to stay competitive. It's called "the race to the bottom", and we all lose when we cross the finish line.
There is nothing wrong with what you say....
I would posit part of the problem is so called "free trade" agreements, and being able to easily bring in cheap products/labor.
I've come to quickly appreciate what a popularity contest 'at will' employment jobs are and certainly see the benefit of being under union protection so I guess I've become pro-union.
We'd had a couple years of a narcissistic bully boss that brought the morale tempo way down with the exception of his clique fellowship and many of us had hoped that a new boss would come in on a permanent basis and bring back the environment that we used to have when it was actually fun to be at work. Fairly recently, there was a pretty big management shakeup that turned over most of the office except for a couple of us. This was due to numerous corporate complaints about a the bully boss department head and some inappropriate conduct between a couple of staff members that probably went on longer than it should have because the department head didn't want to believe it (i.e. affair level stuff).
In the end and as another matter from what I described above, I was termed with and because, of a supervisor who reports to me for some alleged respectful workplace treatment that he was accused of. I don't believe there were any disrespectful workplace issues and I think we have enough employee statements to support that but the company I worked for seems to have little interest in taking a second look at our cases. The supervisor who worked for me and I believe it was an effort by two of his employees that he'd had work performance discipline issues with who used the only option available to them, corporate complaint line as their effort to get back at him. In the process they made some outrageous claims against him that got the attention of top management. Important to note that there had been no warnings and good performance reviews to this point in time and I will dearly miss my $90k salary. It will be difficult for me to replace now as a 56yo cauc male. I'd spent years with this company to get where I was so am a little bitter that it could end as suddenly and the way that it did.
I don't know that I will do anything but do think about lawsuit because I feel emotionally damaged somewhat by the bully boss and also defamed by the failure to control actions of a subordinate. That compounded by the fact that there were no performance warnings given by my new temp supervisor but it seems in the world of "at will" employment, they can do pretty much anything they want at anytime so long as your civil rights aren't infringed upon.
v
Welcome to employment at Will! Enjoy your termination. Yes, at 56, it will be an uphill battle to replace your salary. But ~ don't worry! Employment at Will means you can 'quit' at any time.
So all is well.
Seriously, I would consult with an attorney who specializes in employment law. Did they violate company policy by not giving you a warning or work plan? These are things that can be used. IF you so desire, at least make them work for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
Sorry you were let go. however, terms like "bully boss" and the like aren't definitions. Just because you felt "emotionally damaged (huh?) doesn't mean you have a legal case. Heck, I feel "emotionally damaged" waiting in long lines during the holiday season.
Good luck finding another position. You need to apply now wile there isn't a gap on your resume.
FYI, didn't you now that you could be let go at anytime? I think everyone needs to be somewhat emotionally prepared for that and have adequate savings. Knowing this is one of the reasons why I don't concern myself with if my employer "values" me or other ludicrous concerns. Whatever they think doesn't matter. I can be gone tomorrow.
ETA: Were you making a side comment about being a "56yo cauc male?" since you mentioned your race, I hope you weren't implying that "cauc males" have issues getting employment because of anything involving people of color. I hope that's not what you were implying.
I think you should focus on the magic numbers. '56' means it will be hard for this individual to replace that salary - regardless of his race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
That same law protects employees who may quit at any time.
It is not equal protection. Tell it to the OP. Also tell him hard it will be, at his age, to replace that salary.
Employment at Will should just be changed to 'Fired at Will'.
And we all know it.
Last edited by Ringo1; 02-09-2014 at 07:43 AM..
Reason: Not enough caffeine yet this morning
Im a green/socialist, two pro-union organizations. But after being in two unions, I am anti-union. In short, the ones I was/am in are everything anti-union people say about them. They protect slackers. In mine, if you arent a "favorite", they will not protect you at an arbitration. Our business is a niche, educational organization. For some reason the 'testing' side is union, the 'textbook side', is not. The textbook side gets at least two dollars more an hour for the same positions and better, more flexible work time. So, our management uses the union to artificially hold down wages from what they could be without the union. Unions were once a valuable and necessary entity, but over time they have turned into anachronistic thug/bully club. We do need worker protection now, more than ever, but the unions are not the way to to it. I personally would like to see worker rights and wage issues mandated at a federal level, forcing these soul sucking corporations to comply to a universal code of ethics.
We do not "own" our jobs. We are not "owed" employment.
The strides made by unions were great but all of that large, society-affecting work is over. It's in the past. Unions aren't doing any great "society" work now.
I still don't understand the anger of "at will' employment. All it means is that no job is secure. If you know that upfront, you can plan your life around that knowledge. Do we want to force companies to keep folks they don't want?
Has anyone eery worked with someone that was fired...and everyone was happy that person was gone? Imagine if the company didn't have the right to get rid of that person?
I don't think anyone is advocating that "dead wood" needs kept at a company. The issue really revolves around what "dead wood" actually means.
Someone above 55 is dead wood? Why? Because they demand a salary commensurate with their experience? Because they have normal things like a house payment, car payment, children, etc.? Because it will cost the company a little more? I'm not an H1-B that will work for $32k a year. Oh, sorry about that, I have bills to pay and speak fluent English. You want to be able to fire me anytime and force me to sign a restrictive non-compete? Sounds great, where can I sign? Jeesh. Who would want to work at a place like yours anyway?
And companies wonder why employees aren't loyal? Ha! You HR guys are giving some great examples of why the attitude is take the money and run. It's that way because the employees have literally no choice. They could be fired next quarter for no reason or fault of their own. And if HR thinks its tough to find good employees, finding a good employer isn't exactly a cake walk.
And companies wonder why employees aren't loyal? Ha! You HR guys are giving some great examples of why the attitude is take the money and run. It's that way because the employees have literally no choice. They could be fired next quarter for no reason or fault of their own. And if HR thinks its tough to find good employees, finding a good employer isn't exactly a cake walk.
I look at interviewing as a two way street. I have outright declined job offers based off of my questions, and what interviewers inadvertently have said. If people have the ability to reject job offers and/or ask the right questions during the interview, you're holding them accountable.
For example, I was in a job interview where I was lukewarm about the job, mainly because the pay was decent and because my current employer just got bought out last week, not because of any long term mobility. In other words, I would be "stuck" in a certain division/role as long as I was at that company.
I joined the Carpenters union just when I graduated high school at 18. I worked for 33 years, and have since retired at 52. Not many stick with it that long and continuous, so a small percentage. Am I better off being union? Construction companies that are union make more money, because their profits are based on larger projects, so are they better being union? These monies are spent into an economy that is 70% consumer driven, so is it better for the economy?
At a time when it is predicted that will have a growing class of retirees in poverty wouldn't we be better off with unions? All the arguments for and against are really irrelevant if it's better for the individual.
I'm retired now but when I was working I belonged to a union if it was available. We would not have a middle class in this country were it not for the unions.
Employment at Will should just be changed to 'Fired at Will'.
The problem with separating it out as "Terminate at will" and "Quit at will" is that they then have the potential to be treated differently. In fact, it also opens the doors of one being able to be scrapped. By keeping them together as "Employment at will", it provides the same level of benefits for both employees and employers. I want to be able to quit whenever I want. I want to be able to say no to a job whenever I want.
The problem with separating it out as "Terminate at will" and "Quit at will" is that they then have the potential to be treated differently. In fact, it also opens the doors of one being able to be scrapped. By keeping them together as "Employment at will", it provides the same level of benefits for both employees and employers. I want to be able to quit whenever I want. I want to be able to say no to a job whenever I want.
You've had that ability for a long, long time. Sorry but 'Employment at Will' certainly does not provide the same level of BENEFITS for both parties.
I don't have a problem with the idea of a union to bargain for group benefits with one company. I have a problem with the forcing of employees to join a union against their will and pay dues, which largely support a corrupt political machine.
NO ONE is EVER "forced" to join a a Union, in a closed shop it is a requirement for emloyeement there, you don't want to join the Union? Find work elsewhere, Walmart is ALWAYS hiring.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
