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 never entirely agreed with the rap the union detractors place on unions in general, many raps in fact. For one, any place worth working at usually screens and trains production employees and has a probation period. Two, any place of employment where the term 'slacker' is prevelent is usually not the best place to work. There are many stats. that prove the comparitive productivity of American workers. The strength of our country was largely built on that productivity. Three, any place where other employees are more of a boss and threat than the employer ever was are also taboo IMO.
Labor facts indicate that some unsavory companies have used labor as a scapegoat for the demise of the company or for the company fleeing. In many instances administative employees were paid exorbitantly and ceo's and other executives milked the company for all they possibly could. Couple this with failure to re-invest in equiptment and more efficient methods and training and the stage is set to blame the union for the companies ills, when ignorant management is the culprit.
You'd be surprised how well some people work during their probationary period, and then it all changes after their 91st day. I have had people tell me to my face "once my probation is over, i'm not working hard anymore". That made my blood boil!
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernnaturelover
Well, if a company can't fire their bad employees they will eventually have to lay some off (which is usually low seniority), or go out of business. No company can afford to hire 3x more employees than necessary just in hopes of getting a few good ones.
I just do not know where this whole idea of "they can't fire bad workers" comes from. It is the biggest bunch of bullcrap I have ever heard. People get fired all the time in union shops for a variety of things. The only difference is that a manager actually has to DO SOME WORK (yes I know that is a 4 letter word to most managers) and make a case for discipline against an employee. Sure the managers would rather not work and just say "you are fired" whenever they feel like it so they make up this crap about "oh the union won't let us fire anybody". It is a lie and they know it is a lie.
As for senority, yes it is not a perfect way to choose who to lay off BUT it is the fairest way as it prevents managers from being able to play favourites at lay off time. The managers would otherwise choose those who they were chummy with and throw the others under the bus.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
Interesting, we have heard rather frequently that an objection from management toward unions is the restricted ability to address under or non performers. The position of an employee towards resentment is a bit of a new angle. Does it have to do with under or non performers being paid the same as those who feel they try harder or produce more?
There is NO NO NO NO employer in the United States- union or non union that does not have productivity numbers and goals that ALL employees are expected to meet. Most of the "non performers" in my company are managers that are paid to sit around and not do much of anything at all. They cut alot of them last year but there are still too many of them. So this MYTH about how union workers just stand around all day and don't work is just that- a MYTH and a LIE.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernnaturelover
Bingo! If you were working your *ss off for $15 an hour and your coworker was standing around talking or staying 30 minutes in the bathroom and getting paid the same amount wouldn't you be mad? It also turns good employees bad because they eventually start thinking "why should I try, nobody else is". Another situation is where pay incentives are given in groups according to performance. Say for example you have a group of 15 people, if 10 of them are working hard, but 5 are not, the 5 are going to bring the whole group down. But, the union protects those 5 people from getting fired. The majority ends up suffering.
NO the unions does NOT "protect" them from getting fired. The union only represents the employee in the disciplinary process. If the manager can make his case, the firing will be upheld. But yes, the union is going to make the manager PROVE his case.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernnaturelover
You'd be surprised how well some people work during their probationary period, and then it all changes after their 91st day. I have had people tell me to my face "once my probation is over, i'm not working hard anymore". That made my blood boil!
At my company probation is 6 months and most of that is spent in training and on the job helping. Employees really do not do much until about 9 months. They spend the first few months in our "boot camp" and do not even report for duty to their supervisors for about 7 weeks. They usually do not even get vehicles for 6 months. They ride with a journeyman and learn the job. Probees are however observed for things like habits, attendance and following safety rules.
Unions are good so long as the gov't doesn't take one side or the other. That is Friedman's theory and he seems to be right on just about everything. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
I just do not know where this whole idea of "they can't fire bad workers" comes from. It is the biggest bunch of bullcrap I have ever heard. People get fired all the time in union shops for a variety of things. The only difference is that a manager actually has to DO SOME WORK (yes I know that is a 4 letter word to most managers) and make a case for discipline against an employee. Sure the managers would rather not work and just say "you are fired" whenever they feel like it so they make up this crap about "oh the union won't let us fire anybody". It is a lie and they know it is a lie.
As for senority, yes it is not a perfect way to choose who to lay off BUT it is the fairest way as it prevents managers from being able to play favourites at lay off time. The managers would otherwise choose those who they were chummy with and throw the others under the bus.
Because big unions like UNITE have lots of lawyers and the company knows it. To be frank, many times the bad workers turn the whole thing into a discrimination case when that's not what it's about. When the company pursues it, it drags on for a looong time. If it's something simple like taking too many days off or fighting, the company can fire them easily, and they have. But, when you get into job performance it's far more complicated when you're dealing with jobs that don't have set quotas.
Because big unions like UNITE have lots of lawyers and the company knows it. To be frank, many times the bad workers turn the whole thing into a discrimination case when that's not what it's about. When the company pursues it, it drags on for a looong time. If it's something simple like taking too many days off or fighting, the company can fire them easily, and they have. But, when you get into job performance it's far more complicated when you're dealing with jobs that don't have set quotas.
Yes, and many times the firing of employees are indeed discrimination issues when the details are examined.
Obviously you don't read others posts very well because you are stubbornly redundant over your firing issues. Others have rightly said that most places where the term 'slacker' is prevelant is probabbly not a very good place to work, do you see any merit at all to that statement? For one, employees who need a job, applied , were screened and hired usually try to perform if possible. If the employee is not capable, not trained or somehow not placed to their capabilities is this something the company could address and remedy? Would this not be preferrable than a authoritan view towards others and a punitive attitude?
If I worked in one of these holes and I had any authority over others, if a employee snitched on another alleging 'slacking' I would take great pains to observe the complainer. If a worker is doing their job and minding their own business how do they have the time or right to observe or judge other workers performance?
Many of your comments could be viewed as indigenous of the region your posts originate from.
Unions are good so long as the gov't doesn't take one side or the other. That is Friedman's theory and he seems to be right on just about everything. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Milton or Thomas?
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.
