TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Another point of view on collective bargaining from the governor of VA, a right-to-work state:
Last edited by a moderator:
Another Very Sad Day for the USA
- Thread starter Rodger Tellefson
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
I completely agree. I am a foreman in a unions shop. People get fired all of the time.
The contract stipulates the rules. You live by them. If a union employee does not work under the rules, he gets fired. A man with 40 years seniority was caught sleeping while on the clock.
He was fired on the spot and was not able to collect his pension until he reached full retirement age. the union looked at him and told him that the rules are the rules. You violated them and now you pay the penalty.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
Regarding that particular story about the 40 year veteran being fired for sleeping on the job, might I ask: Do you think that "the rules are the rules" attitude, enforced in a black and white fashion is always a good thing?
What I mean by that is, what if this particular employee just had gone through some personal tragedy that made him sleep deprived? Or, maybe he was on some medication that inadvertently made him drowsy? In other words, what if this were an otherwise model employee and one incident, and not otherwise egregious in any way? Are there any examples or situations where an employee might fall asleep on the job, and the best thing for all involved is to simply "let that one time go" and work to make sure whatever caused it doesn't happen again?
Just wondering your opinion on "rules are the rules" and their strict enforcement.
Also, regarding "rules are the rules" and the strict enforcement of them, what are your thoughts on trying to fire someone for something that there is no rule against? Do you think that every possible firing offense has to be documented with a rule in a contract?
TJR
Regarding that particular story about the 40 year veteran being fired for sleeping on the job, might I ask: Do you think that "the rules are the rules" attitude, enforced in a black and white fashion is always a good thing?
What I mean by that is, what if this particular employee just had gone through some personal tragedy that made him sleep deprived? Or, maybe he was on some medication that inadvertently made him drowsy? In other words, what if this were an otherwise model employee and one incident, and not otherwise egregious in any way? Are there any examples or situations where an employee might fall asleep on the job, and the best thing for all involved is to simply "let that one time go" and work to make sure whatever caused it doesn't happen again?
Just wondering your opinion on "rules are the rules" and their strict enforcement.
Also, regarding "rules are the rules" and the strict enforcement of them, what are your thoughts on trying to fire someone for something that there is no rule against? Do you think that every possible firing offense has to be documented with a rule in a contract?
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom, one of us is reading that wrong.
I read that as if managers <b>ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB</b>, which includes writing people up and firing them, because of collective bargaining.
If I understand your post, you are saying that managers <b>ARE DOING THEIR JOB</b>, which includes writing people up and firing them, because of collective bargaining.
I read that as if managers <b>ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB</b>, which includes writing people up and firing them, because of collective bargaining.
If I understand your post, you are saying that managers <b>ARE DOING THEIR JOB</b>, which includes writing people up and firing them, because of collective bargaining.
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you think being able to pick and choose which rules to enforce is a good thing?
If you have some tragedy, take time off of work. You have vacation time, use it. If you are on meds that make you drowsey, then you should not take it while at work.
This isn't difficult here. You sleep while on the job, you get fired. Simple fact. Don't agree with it, get more rest. You have a job to perform and you must be on your "A game". Too many lives are at stake to do a half @$$ed job.
Hugh, you read it the same as I did. Where is the confusion? I said I agreed with the statement. I also then made and example on how collective bargaining makes it easier as a boss to write people up and fire them.
We often hear the lies that it is impossible to fire a union employee. That simply is not true. I know, your cousin's nephew's sister's boyfriend's brother's neighbor knew a guy that was related somehow to some guy that was able to sleep 8 hours a day at work because he was a union employee. He killed three formen at the plant because they tried to wake him up, but he was never fired. (I am not saying you said this, but I have heard BS stories like this before and some have taken it a step further and claimed to have witnessed it with their own eyes so they quit the union because of it, yea yea...whatever)
Tom
I read it as if managers are not writing people up and/or firing them because of collective bargaining and work rules. We did not read that the same. Therefore, managers are not doing their job because of the unions.
I don't have to go that far for an understanding of how unions protect the lazy. My dad has worked at Lockheed for nearly 30 years. He sees a good portion of the workers there that absolutely refuse to do any work. They flat out tell their bosses to go talk to their union representative if they have a problem. It doesn't get that far and they just consider it a loss and let them continue to walk in, sit around and talk for 8 hours a day, and then leave to receive their welfare check every two weeks.
As the child of a parent under a union I was always aware of the possibility and sometimes the reality of the hardships brought on by a strike. Nevermind my father's responsibilities to his family, he WAS FORCED to strike and not take pay because the company didn't want to RAISE health benefits or some other trivial matter that most people resolve on their own time with their own money.
Let's also not forget the mass layoffs that become prevalent because of the outrageous demands of unions. Within my dad's 30 years of commitment to Lockheed, he went through two layoffs in the early years. Instead of allowing the market to control hiring, unions make it impossible to get rid of employees naturally and then you end up with mass layoffs all at once, severely hurting the local economy with a workforce as large as Lockheed's was in the 80s and early 90s.
So, no, I don't know of a cousin's nephew's sister's boyfriend's brother's neighbor, but I did live under the cult attitude of a union and the control they have over not only the companies that feed them but also of the membership that they pretend to represent. Big business in the guise of a caring organization is as evil as it gets, IMO.
By the way, my dad still supports his union and pays thousands in union dues every year, to hopefully save $5 on each visit to a doctor's office. We talk about this kind of bad math all the time. The indoctrination is saddening.
And is there anyway you can justify a janitor at Lockheed making $35/hr? Only a union would demand that kind of money for such a low skilled position.
I don't have to go that far for an understanding of how unions protect the lazy. My dad has worked at Lockheed for nearly 30 years. He sees a good portion of the workers there that absolutely refuse to do any work. They flat out tell their bosses to go talk to their union representative if they have a problem. It doesn't get that far and they just consider it a loss and let them continue to walk in, sit around and talk for 8 hours a day, and then leave to receive their welfare check every two weeks.
As the child of a parent under a union I was always aware of the possibility and sometimes the reality of the hardships brought on by a strike. Nevermind my father's responsibilities to his family, he WAS FORCED to strike and not take pay because the company didn't want to RAISE health benefits or some other trivial matter that most people resolve on their own time with their own money.
Let's also not forget the mass layoffs that become prevalent because of the outrageous demands of unions. Within my dad's 30 years of commitment to Lockheed, he went through two layoffs in the early years. Instead of allowing the market to control hiring, unions make it impossible to get rid of employees naturally and then you end up with mass layoffs all at once, severely hurting the local economy with a workforce as large as Lockheed's was in the 80s and early 90s.
So, no, I don't know of a cousin's nephew's sister's boyfriend's brother's neighbor, but I did live under the cult attitude of a union and the control they have over not only the companies that feed them but also of the membership that they pretend to represent. Big business in the guise of a caring organization is as evil as it gets, IMO.
By the way, my dad still supports his union and pays thousands in union dues every year, to hopefully save $5 on each visit to a doctor's office. We talk about this kind of bad math all the time. The indoctrination is saddening.
And is there anyway you can justify a janitor at Lockheed making $35/hr? Only a union would demand that kind of money for such a low skilled position.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rick Kent
Well-Known Member
Since this thread was revived, let me do my part to throw gas on the fire.
Unionized teachers 3.6% dropout rate, non unionized teachers 2.7% drop out rate.
Please feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Hugh,
That's the way I read it too. The way I read it was that because of the fact that unions and union rules will ultimately take care of the really egregious bad employees, the less than egregious cases don't get dealt with. Thereby, managers don't have to manage marginal employees and situations, and instead, just wait until things get really bad and the rules kick in and they can fire employees.
That is actually one of the concerns I have with unionized companies. I see the rules and the contracts as defining in a specific term what is expected (the minimum allowed) and what is not accepted (the boundaries), and essentially, most employees will find themselves gravitating towards somewhere in the middle. It makes little room for excellence, for the healthy competition that can occurr when people try harder, do more, rise to the top.
Caymen,
I agree with you in general about sleeping on the job. But I don't agree with rules that are enforced in a black and white fashion. As you know, I don't believe in absolutes (for the most part, lol). I think there are gray areas in most things.
I never said being able to pick and choose which rules to enforce is a good thing. I think all rules should apply to all, and should be enforced. I simply think that the rules and their enforcement should allow for exceptions. You may see that as an excuse for or an allowance for abuse; and you would be right, it could be. But with great power comes great responsibility.
Caymen also said:
Boy, you really like to throw that L word around. Impossible is one of those absolute words again. That's why I try to never use it. There aren't many things in this world that are impossible when asserted in the general case. Firing someone surely isn't impossible. However, I've heard people often say that it is "next to impossible" to fire a particular union employee. I wouldn't call that person making that claim a liar. I say I wouldn't because, for one, it is disrespectful. For two, I don't know what the person making such a claim defines as "near", as the word near is a subjective term. Anyways, it is often very difficult to fire a union employee, at least to do so without possible recourse. People exaggerate all the time. Its human nature. One of the best pieces of advice I have ever given my kids is that "liars are people that say something that they KNOW not to be true." A person that exaggerates or who states a fact incorrect is not a liar, IMHO.
Also, you didn't answer my other question. Do you think that all possible "fire-able offenses" should have rules defining them?
TJR
That's the way I read it too. The way I read it was that because of the fact that unions and union rules will ultimately take care of the really egregious bad employees, the less than egregious cases don't get dealt with. Thereby, managers don't have to manage marginal employees and situations, and instead, just wait until things get really bad and the rules kick in and they can fire employees.
That is actually one of the concerns I have with unionized companies. I see the rules and the contracts as defining in a specific term what is expected (the minimum allowed) and what is not accepted (the boundaries), and essentially, most employees will find themselves gravitating towards somewhere in the middle. It makes little room for excellence, for the healthy competition that can occurr when people try harder, do more, rise to the top.
Caymen,
I agree with you in general about sleeping on the job. But I don't agree with rules that are enforced in a black and white fashion. As you know, I don't believe in absolutes (for the most part, lol). I think there are gray areas in most things.
I never said being able to pick and choose which rules to enforce is a good thing. I think all rules should apply to all, and should be enforced. I simply think that the rules and their enforcement should allow for exceptions. You may see that as an excuse for or an allowance for abuse; and you would be right, it could be. But with great power comes great responsibility.
Caymen also said:
Boy, you really like to throw that L word around. Impossible is one of those absolute words again. That's why I try to never use it. There aren't many things in this world that are impossible when asserted in the general case. Firing someone surely isn't impossible. However, I've heard people often say that it is "next to impossible" to fire a particular union employee. I wouldn't call that person making that claim a liar. I say I wouldn't because, for one, it is disrespectful. For two, I don't know what the person making such a claim defines as "near", as the word near is a subjective term. Anyways, it is often very difficult to fire a union employee, at least to do so without possible recourse. People exaggerate all the time. Its human nature. One of the best pieces of advice I have ever given my kids is that "liars are people that say something that they KNOW not to be true." A person that exaggerates or who states a fact incorrect is not a liar, IMHO.
Also, you didn't answer my other question. Do you think that all possible "fire-able offenses" should have rules defining them?
TJR
I read it as managers are being lazy and taking the easy road by using collective bargaining as an excuse to not write people up.
Your quote sais it EXACTLY how I read it.
Managers are using collective bargaining as an excuse to not do their job when an employee is not performing.
Pretty simple statement.
Here is an example...Tom is a manager. Bill is a union employee that is a bum. Tom takes the easy route and says he can't write him up because he is union. Tom gets a promotion for taking the boss hunting. Mike replaces Tom. Mike notices Bill is not a good employee. Mike writes Bill up and fires him.
Tom was NOT doing his job, but Mike did. Tom was using the contract as an excuse to NOT perform his job. Mike knows how a union works and used it to his advantage.
This is not a union issue here, but a managment issue. If the employee does something that he deserves to be written up, then by all means, write him or her up.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
I possible, original disconnect between what you and Hugh both read (though you seem to now be saying the same thing) is that in your original response on the subject you quoted from the article, then made a point.
The article quote indicated that managers are lazy and because of the unions aren't doing their jobs and aren't dealing with employee issues. Then, you quoted that and said: "I agree. Managers fire people all the time, and here is a good example."
Those two pieces of text, those statements, don't logically go together...not bridged by an "I agree.", at least not for the casual reader.
I too took your original comment as saying: "I agree. Aren't unions great. It's easy to fire people.", which isn't what that particular quoted article text was saying."
I think that may have been the original confusion.
TJR
I possible, original disconnect between what you and Hugh both read (though you seem to now be saying the same thing) is that in your original response on the subject you quoted from the article, then made a point.
The article quote indicated that managers are lazy and because of the unions aren't doing their jobs and aren't dealing with employee issues. Then, you quoted that and said: "I agree. Managers fire people all the time, and here is a good example."
Those two pieces of text, those statements, don't logically go together...not bridged by an "I agree.", at least not for the casual reader.
I too took your original comment as saying: "I agree. Aren't unions great. It's easy to fire people.", which isn't what that particular quoted article text was saying."
I think that may have been the original confusion.
TJR
I don't see any confusion.
I quoted to article and then said I agreed with that statement.
I should have said "in my shop, managers fire people all the time".
Still, I like rules that state exactly what someone can and can not do. I like being able to enforce a work rule and getting a union rep involved. I like it when I explain to the rep why I am doing what I am doing, the rep can say, "Well, you got a point. Not much I can do here".
Pretty simple. If managers want to use the union as an excuse for not doing their job, the the issue is not about a union workforce, but a non-union workforce.
Tom
I quoted to article and then said I agreed with that statement.
I should have said "in my shop, managers fire people all the time".
Still, I like rules that state exactly what someone can and can not do. I like being able to enforce a work rule and getting a union rep involved. I like it when I explain to the rep why I am doing what I am doing, the rep can say, "Well, you got a point. Not much I can do here".
Pretty simple. If managers want to use the union as an excuse for not doing their job, the the issue is not about a union workforce, but a non-union workforce.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
I still think there might be some confusion as to the meaning of the sound bite quoted in the orginal article. I think we may be reading it differently.
The way I read it is as follows (rewritten by me with the emphasis on how I read it):
Is that the way you read that orginal statement? Is that the meaning you took from it?
If so, and if you agree with that interpretation, then I think where the disconnect lies is in the fact that it seems "awkward" that you would post that you agree with statement that essentially accuses managers of not firing people when they should and then talk about how managers fire people all the time. I say "awkward' because, the statement seems to be saying just the opposite.
Now, if you had said: "I agree that there are managers that don't deal with problem employees soon enough, but I can tell you for a fact that people DO get fired all the time...", then I think it would have been more clear.
Thanks for discussing...
TJR
I still think there might be some confusion as to the meaning of the sound bite quoted in the orginal article. I think we may be reading it differently.
The way I read it is as follows (rewritten by me with the emphasis on how I read it):
Is that the way you read that orginal statement? Is that the meaning you took from it?
If so, and if you agree with that interpretation, then I think where the disconnect lies is in the fact that it seems "awkward" that you would post that you agree with statement that essentially accuses managers of not firing people when they should and then talk about how managers fire people all the time. I say "awkward' because, the statement seems to be saying just the opposite.
Now, if you had said: "I agree that there are managers that don't deal with problem employees soon enough, but I can tell you for a fact that people DO get fired all the time...", then I think it would have been more clear.
Thanks for discussing...
TJR
Absolutly. The managers are using excuses to be a slacker.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Okay, thanks, Caymen.
That is the problem with explicit rules, and strict adherence. Until a rule is actually broken, a manager might very well get some crap for counciling an employee. Or, if counciling them on something for which there are no rules, the employee could also take offense.
So, with such rules and strict adherence, the manager waits, until the process takes care of what they see as problems, some they see coming a mile away.
I am a strict believer in "systems theory." I believe that by and large, we as humans, work within, behave within, and act within the systems we are placed and a part of. If the system provides rewards, people work to achive rewards. If the system has penalties only, they work just enough to not get penalized, but no more. If the system has penalties, and rewards, and they are both informally defined, then those that are generally good will tend to impress you, those that are generally bad will tend to dissapoint. Of course, there are exceptions (no absolutes).
TJR
That is the problem with explicit rules, and strict adherence. Until a rule is actually broken, a manager might very well get some crap for counciling an employee. Or, if counciling them on something for which there are no rules, the employee could also take offense.
So, with such rules and strict adherence, the manager waits, until the process takes care of what they see as problems, some they see coming a mile away.
I am a strict believer in "systems theory." I believe that by and large, we as humans, work within, behave within, and act within the systems we are placed and a part of. If the system provides rewards, people work to achive rewards. If the system has penalties only, they work just enough to not get penalized, but no more. If the system has penalties, and rewards, and they are both informally defined, then those that are generally good will tend to impress you, those that are generally bad will tend to dissapoint. Of course, there are exceptions (no absolutes).
TJR
For some reason we are assuming that the managers aren't doing their job or being lazy because of their own personal shortcomings.
I think it is because of the unions, not the managers' failings. When there are a million hoops to jump through and a manager must put their own job on the line to get rid of a union employee, it is easier to just let them exist and be a tiny tumor on the company. Sure, they won't take so many resources that they alone kill the host but when aggregated, once great companies like GM and Chrysler have major health issues.
I will never make the claim that it is impossible to fire a union employee but it is very difficult. And it often comes at the manager's risk, sometimes even to the point of him losing his job. Would you risk your job just because somebody doesn't perform as they should or would you just do your best to get the most out of those employees who do perform?
I think it is because of the unions, not the managers' failings. When there are a million hoops to jump through and a manager must put their own job on the line to get rid of a union employee, it is easier to just let them exist and be a tiny tumor on the company. Sure, they won't take so many resources that they alone kill the host but when aggregated, once great companies like GM and Chrysler have major health issues.
I will never make the claim that it is impossible to fire a union employee but it is very difficult. And it often comes at the manager's risk, sometimes even to the point of him losing his job. Would you risk your job just because somebody doesn't perform as they should or would you just do your best to get the most out of those employees who do perform?
You are kidding right? A million hoops to fire a union employee? An example, No sleeping while on the job. It is OK to sleep during lunch and breaks, but not while working time.
Pretty simple to understand. I see the employee sleeping. I get another salary employee, or a union rep to witness it. I walk him out and fill out a report. I give the report to labor relations. The following day the employee gets terminated.
Another example, an employee had an accident while working a job. Policy is that this employee is taken to the hospital or dispensary for a drug test. The employee refused to go. Employee is fired on the spot. Union rep can not say anything.
No hoops at all. You break the rules, you get fired. Pretty simple.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
What if a manager wants to fire someone for something not covered by a rule? Is that easy? Should it be?
TJR
What if a manager wants to fire someone for something not covered by a rule? Is that easy? Should it be?
TJR
How are the rules set up? There are many rules that will get you time off. A safety violation, for example, will get you 3 to 5 days off, depending on the severity of the infraction.
Refusing a drug test, sleeping on the job, gambling at work, fighting, and some others will result in immediate termination.
What is your point?
Aparently, you don't know as much about union work rules as you think you do.
Tom
Refusing a drug test, sleeping on the job, gambling at work, fighting, and some others will result in immediate termination.
What is your point?
Aparently, you don't know as much about union work rules as you think you do.
Tom
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Is this situation hypothetical, or are is it drawn from a real situation? Either way, are the "rules" that harsh that there aren't disciplinary procedures in place to build a paper trail prior to termination, something like a "three strikes" policy? In pretty much everywhere I've worked, including in my military career, there have been such "three strikes"-type policies in place in order to build a solid case for terminating an employee. Immediate termination usually only happens in cases involving crimes like theft or other such situations.
Based on the information in the scenario you presented, it doesn't appear to be so black and white. In our ever-litigious, "it's not my fault" society, I can even see something like this occuring as a follow-up to the employee's termination: Shortly after the employee is fired, he slaps a ginormous lawsuit on the company, the manager who fired him, and the "witness" for wrongful termination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) because he has narcolepsy or some other medical condition that caused him to fall asleep. The company, not wanting a lengthy, expensive court case, opts to settle the suit out of court. They then fire the manager and witness who caused the sleeping employee to be fired as a cost-cutting measure after having had to incur large expenses resulting from the lawsuit/settlement.
You can say that "rules are rules", and it would be ideal if that were always the case. But people will always try to find a way to break, circumvent, or twist the rules to their advantage.
