Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

An opposing and a middle of the road view of the firings

Here is the company's side of what took place:
» ··· .4537920

Here is a neutral look at it, as opposed to the union's view provided in the link in Karl's story:
» ··· sion.php
And note that the Village Voice is NOT a mouthpiece for corporate dominance.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

Looking at the bigger picture
Both of those present a similar view of the situation and is consistent with what I originally heard with the exception that the Cablevision spokesperson claimed the employees were engaging in a 'strike'.

I would be very interested to hear how long these workers were waiting before being considered 'refusing to work'. I would also be curious as to why some of the workers who left (as supposedly requested by management) were called back in and terminated.

If a vice president was at their work location, the workers requesting a short meeting would not be unreasonable to me. Being fired for this, as opposed to being suspended, does seem unreasonable though.

united state
reply to FFH5
Figures that you would be Anti-Labor.

Purcellville, VA

1 recommendation

reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

And note that the Village Voice is NOT a mouthpiece for corporate dominance.

If anything, I thought that the Village Voice's article was a bit slanted toward the union.

That said, I too am curious about how long these workers spent waiting for the Vice President. Would they be allowed to have this count against their lunch break or any other mandated break during the day? If not, why?

I don't see their request to meet with the Vice President in question as unreasonable. I also don't see the person's delaying of granting the request as unreasonable. (Heck, I wouldn't see his/her refusal to meet with the employees as unreasonable either, depending upon the explanation that could be provided.)

While firing these employees does send a message, I fear it's the wrong one. Unless these folks had other work-related problems and warnings issued which were documented in their employment files, the company just opened itself up to larger problems. If those who were fired had previously documented work-related problems, then they very well may have caused their own problems and should look for work elsewhere.

The problem in this whole thing is that one can't fully trust what the company says and certainly can't accept what the union says as gospel truth either.