 Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | reply to viperlmw
Re: CWA wants national healthcare The other workers did not get a long with her because she was being lazy. When management approached her to shape up, she filed the complaint saying that the store was not being fair to her. The were talks done between management and the Union and the store kept her to keep the Union happy. Then one day she was just gone. I guess she found another job. In the end the situation resolved itself so now there isn't an issue but, there was. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by Steve B:The other workers did not get a long with her because she was being lazy. Anyone can come up with anecdotal examples of how a union (or, lack thereof) made a certain situation better or worse.
I'm not thrilled with unions because it promotes the same adversarial, "loot it if you can" mentality that predominates the executive ranks. It doesn't seem constructive. But, it may be the only tool available. Which is the real problem.
Personally, I'd like to see something like Workplace Democracy. Where each worker has a vested interest (beyond a day-to-day "employ at will" relationship).
I believe society has a legitimate interest to promote such "next level" labor laws, primarily due to the fact that these businesses come to society to obtain a corporate charter (to shield officers and investors from their personal liability). It would be entirely consensual. If you don't want society dictating how you must treat employees (or cap executive pay, etc.), then remain a private business. Don't seek a socially-created corporate entity to make your business venture more advantagous for yourself.
I.e., society already has their hands in business through the creation of corporate charters by the State legislature. Enforcing Workplace Democracy wouldn't be something new. Just adding balance in return for what society is already doing for business.
Mark |
|
| reply to Steve B
said by Steve B:The other workers did not get a long with her because she was being lazy. When management approached her to shape up, she filed the complaint saying that the store was not being fair to her. The were talks done between management and the Union and the store kept her to keep the Union happy. Then one day she was just gone. I guess she found another job. In the end the situation resolved itself so now there isn't an issue but, there was. See you do not know what happened with the union then. That should remain private. Maybe the union fought for her because the company had not been keeping records. Maybe she was given one more chance. Maybe she knew she was messing up that chance and left. Maybe the second time there would not have been a leg to stand on.
Maybe she was fired after a second chance. Then like said the union said you did not try we can do no more. |
|
Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | Keyword in your reply is 'should'. People still talk and that is how I know. Also, please don't tell me what I do and do not know, you are not me. Also, people were told under the wire, that she quit. As you stated, most likely because still messing up. In the eyes of her co-workers, she was. Mistakes were still being made and she wasn't working hard. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Steve B:In the eyes of her co-workers, she was. Mistakes were still being made and she wasn't working hard. But, in that case, the union may have actually helped the company. As "no one" pointed out, there's no way you can know what transpired as the union stuck up for her. It may have caused management to follow the company's policies to document poor performance, escalate, enact a performance plan, and ultimately terminate her (although she quit first, perhaps seeing the writing on the wall.).
There's nothing wrong with having a counter-balance to require things be done by the book. That can actually prevent lawsuits concerning constructive termination. Even if it was an "at will" employment relationship, if a company has policies concerning terminations, that policy is the "law" to that company (not the looser "at will" requirements).
Mark |
|
