Another Very Sad Day for the USA

[Tom Schindler]

I have an employee that has narcolepsy. He is on amphedimes. When he goes for his annual drug test, he gets 3 days off for failing a drug test until official results are in. When official results say he is not on any meth-amphedemines, he get paid for those 3 days.



If you have a disease, then get it treated. I have no sympathy for those that do not get help if they need help.



This isn't rocket science here.



Union employees get fired every day. i know it goes against the misleading propaganda that we hold so dear. You can fire a union employee as fast, if not faster, than a non-union employee.





Tom

 

[H D]

I guess your examples are more valid than those of my father. Perhaps the company you work for is run differently, but Lockheed has multi-billion dollar government contracts to vie for. They cannot afford to upset the union.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Perhaps the company you work for is run differently, but Lockheed has multi-billion dollar government contracts to vie for.

We do too. Ours are not the aircraft industry, but they are multi-billion over many years.

I guess your examples are more valid than those of my father.

My father worked in a union shop for 43 years. He bitched about so many of the stupid rules that were in place. At my place of employment, those stupid rules went away in exchange for better treatment of the employees. It used to be a slave labor camp, even with the union.



It is now a really nice place to work and I consider myself blessed to work in a union shop that I do have the power to walk someione out for insubordination. I also like it that the guys have the power to stop a job out of safety concerns.



Mind you, I come through the hourly ranks and it says something when I took the job, that the guys I worked with are happy that they now work for me, and not someone else.



Earn the hourly workers respect and you have a crew that will work their tails off. Of course, respect is given to those that show respect.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



You said:

What is your point?



Aparently, you don't know as much about union work rules as you think you do.

My point was to ask a simple question. I've actually asked it repeatedly. You seem to be dodging the question, then insulting me.



I will ask it again:



In your opinion, should all offenses that can be grounds for termination be covered by contract rules, yes or no?



My point is not about specific union work rules. I haven't been in a union for over 23 years so I won't suppose to know or debate anythinga about the rules. My point is to try to understand what your opinion is when it comes to such rules, which you say require strict adherence to.



I'll even tip my hand. For me, in the workplace that I want to work in, I want fewer rules, no more. Because, with fewer rules comes more liberties. With fewer rules comes the ability for a good working relationship between employer and employee and for individual situations to be just that, individual, and tailored for the mutual needs of the employee and employer.



So, again, in your opinion, on a union job, should someone be able to be fired for something NOT covered by a rule? Yes, or no? (another way of asking the same question)



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen also said:

Union employees get fired every day. i know it goes against the misleading propaganda that we hold so dear. You can fire a union employee as fast, if not faster, than a non-union employee.

I've been holding off on saying this, but I feel it must be said.



It seems that you (especially) and others quote quite a bit of hearsay and negative opinions held by others of unions that you tend to paint as commonplace. I simply don't see that. Take me, for example. Yes, I am critical of unions at times, but I (and TrainTrac, and others here) are reasonable, not irrational when it comes to their union criticisms. Also, I have really no bias, as I can see when unions are beneficials, and when they are not. Also, I come from a family of union members, and have been a union member, so I am somewhat educated in the values, etc.



But when you make statements above you seem to imply that there is a widespread belief out there, and it is held dear, that union employees are untouchable. I don't hear anyone saying that, not here anyway. What I do hear people saying is that there is typically a process and a set of guidelines for firing a union employee. That process and those guidelines must be adhered to. For some managers, that process, those guideliness are a burden that they just don't want to deal with. Does that mean that union employees are "impossible" to fire? Nope. More difficult to fire? Probably to many managers. Is that really an issue for the managers? Yes, but it is also an issue for us all. Again, I believe in systems dynamics. People work within the systems that are at hand. If the system is difficult, or has extra steps, many humans will avoid the difficult, extra steps and do what is easy. For some bad union employees it is just easier for a bad manager to do nothing.



As far as being able to fire union employees fast, if not faster than non-union employes, well, I have to disagree with that as a "general" comment. There is no faster way to fire someone than those that are non-union employees working in an at-will state. For them, there is no firing. You simply tell them they are no longer required. No cause, no reason for termination. To me, that HAS to be the quicker, easier of the two.



Caymen, I suspect you also don't necessarily agree with "at-will" employment.



TJR

 

[H D]

I agree with everything in that post TJR.

 

[Tom Schindler]

So, again, in your opinion, on a union job, should someone be able to be fired for something NOT covered by a rule? Yes, or no?

What type of violation is it? The rules are pretty vague, but clear at the same time. they are not, if you fart lifting your left cheek you get fired, but if you lift you right cheek, you won't.



Is it working unsafely or is it circumventing safety equipment? Did you knowingly spoil company property or did you do it by accident? Can it be proven it was by accident.



You speak of less rules, but with less rules also comes with the employers right to fire at will.

Also, I have really no bias, as I can see when unions are beneficials, and when they are not.

You say you don't have any bias, but your actions (the things you say and the comments you make) say the opposite. I agree, some industries, there is no need for a union Unfortunatly, there are many that do. I truly believe without ANY threat of a union, employers will revert back to their old ways.



You can have a peacefull society with police presence. Eliminate the police, and that peacefull society will break down. It may take a year, or maybe 10 or more years. It will go sour and it will happen so fast, it will spin your head.

I don't hear anyone saying that, not here anyway.

I hear it all the time.

Caymen, I suspect you also don't necessarily agree with "at-will" employment.

Absolutly not! Theresa was fired for doing nothing wrong. The reason? Allstate was moving the call center to India and employees with 5 and more, years of service were elegible for a severence package. Allstate systematicaly fired all employees at this call center with 5 years, or greater, of seniority.



This was not about getting rid of the slackers and it just happened to be the long term people were slackers. This was about sticking it to those that dedicated 5+ years of their life for the company.



You can support "At will" employment all you want but I will always disagree with it since I have seen the evil that this produces. Allstate Insurance can kiss my @$$ all effing day long.





Tom

 

[H D]

You seem to imply that Allstate owed your wife a job. They needed her skills and paid a set price for that skill. When that same skill was found elsewhere for a lower price, it would only make sense that they move. Unless, of course, you feel like she was owed a job.

 

[Tom Schindler]

You seem to imply that Allstate owed your wife a job.

Actually, my wife was owed to be treated with dignity and respect. She did not deserve to be fired like she did something wrong, when actually, they fired her and everyone else at her level because they were guilty of being an employee that was vested in a retirement and qualified for a severence package.



I can not believe that you see nothing wrong with what Allstate did.



I don't care that they moved to India. (Well, I do, but on other issues) I am pissed because she did nothing that deserved to be fired.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



In the past you have stated that your wife's employer fabricated a reason for firing her. Was that the case?



Are you saying that they fabricated a reason to fire her, with cause, one that would disqualify her from severance and vested benefits?



If you are saying that, then that abuse has little to do with at-will employment.



In your wife's incident, if at-will were applied properly she would have simply been told she was no longer needed and let go without cause. If they used some loophole in firing her to avoid paying pension and severance, I submit they were using the various rules that you and I have been talking about against her.



In states with at-will employment, there needs to be no rules, as there is no firing. You can have a job

one day, then not have one the next. If you are vaiuable to and needed by an employer then your job will be secure.



Severance and vested pensions are legacy benefits that have little place in today's at-will states and tend to only foster the abuses and ill-will you describe.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

In the past you have stated that your wife's employer fabricated a reason for firing her. Was that the case?

That is correct.

Are you saying that they fabricated a reason to fire her, with cause, one that would disqualify her from severance and vested benefits?

Yup! The magistrate was even shocked when the Allstate rep submited their reasoning for her being fired compared to the 5 years of documents giving Theresa full percentage raises, letters from corporate on her performance, statistics of her performance that rates her well above average and in some cases tops in her job class.



the magistrate even said, "so how many times has she been into trouble for her performance in the past?" When the rep said "Never", the magistrate said, you fired her for hanging up with a customer without any proof that she did it?". The rep said "yes". The magistrate said, "something smells fishy here. You are lucky I can not hold you liable because I would make you pay."

Severance and vested pensions are legacy benefits that have little place in today's at-will states and tend to only foster the abuses and ill-will you describe.

That is why I feel "at will" employment laws should be abolished.



I know you support at will employment laws, but there are two ways an employer can get rid of employee.



1, Fire them. If they are not performing as needed, then they are violating employment rules and they deserve to be fired.



2, Lay them off.



Not that difficult to understand.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



Or consider "at-will done right"; where there is no severance, there is no pension, there are no rules and there is no firing. Instead, there is only the equivalent of what you call a lay-off. In that situation it is the employer saying to the employee they are no longer needed.



The rules are gone under that scenario.



The rules and the out-dated severance and pension benefits are what created the adversarial system that allowed and incented the company to do exactly what it did... To come up with a bogus reason to fire with cause so that they could save money.



If there were no pension and severance, they would have just laid your wife off.



Severance and pensions are out-dated and the rules allowed Allstate to f-over their employees. It is better to not have severance, and not have a pension, and instead get those monies in active employment as a 401k match, bonus, or similar, because those monies are real, without strings, and can't be used against the employee as either golden handcuffs or as leverage when trying to exit an employee.



The systems we set up usually define easily anticipated human behavior. What Allstate did was expected given the system they were working within.



The issue in your scenario had nothing to do with at-will employment, but instead had everthing to do with some of the very things that unions have fought hard to put in place: pension programs, guaranteed severance pay, and explicit rules for termination with cause. These things are good for the employee, when done right...but can also act as a double-edged sword.



The best way to safeguard the employee is to remove the sword. Fewer rules, fewer benefits with strings attached.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Or consider "at-will done right"; where there is no severance, there is no pension, there are no rules and there is no firing. Instead, there is only the equivalent of what you call a lay-off. In that situation it is the employer saying to the employee they are no longer needed.

Here is something new. How about an employer treating their employees with dignity and respect?



Do I beleve an employer should give an employee severence if they close shop to move to China? Absolutly!



Do I believe an employer should pay an employee fairly? You betcha!



Do I believe an employee should give their employer a 2 week, minimum, notice when leaving the company? Yes I do!



Do I believe that there is a relationship between the employee and employer? Yes and both rely on each other.



Something else to consider...



The Federal Government has special provisions for employees laid off because the company moved production to China. Of these, included longer unemployment benefits and job training for another career field.



If it were available for Theresa, Alstate would have also screwed her, and numerous others, out of these benefits, if she chose to take them.



This is not about getting something for free and the assumption that we feel Allstate owed her a job. This is about the commercials that say "You are in good hands with Allstate".



If you want to take a religous view on this, the bible says those that are honest in small things are honest in large things (I am paraphrasing it, but the is the jist of the bible verse).



Allstate was not honest in small things, they will NEVER be honest in large things.



I will continue to bad mouth Allstate for as long as I live and hopefully Allstate will go out of business and all the A-Hole that were responsible for the wrongdoing will be infested by the fleas of a hundred camels.:bwahaha:





Tom

 

[H D]

Here's how I believe it should work.



You work the hours you are needed for an agreed upon salary or per hour. Period.



You go home, do some research, buy your own health insurance, life insurance, save for your own retirement, etc. Rely on yourself. It has already been proven time and again that people cannot rely on companies to make it their interest to pay you to your death and the government has proven to be a failure at this as well. So, what should the wise person do? Work for you dollars, save what is necessary, buy what you need, take care of your own. When you rely on someone or some other entity to provide for you and your family's well being, why should you be so let down when your interests don't align with the company's only reason for existence, profit?



I fully support company's doing what is in their interest. I just wish more people would take responsibility for what is in their best interest instead of passing it off on a company or the government.



This is no dig at you or your wife Tom. I don't actually even think this soapbox applies to y'alls situation, especially if she was fired unjustly. If it was at will and she was just let go, though, that would suck for the individual, but I see no wrongdoing in that. What TJR says about pensions and such makes sense to me. She became a victim of the things she demanded from her employer. Had she taken care of those things separate from work, there would have been no incentive to get rid of her and her excellent performance with the company would have been more valuable to the company that the demands they would have had to meet that were unrelated to the goals of the company.



I just can't seem to understand why it is expected of a company to provide a salary, take care of employees' health, pay for their childcare, save for their retirement for them, etc. This gets to the point of the company you work for doing your life planning. I expect a salary and nothing more. Perhaps I'm crazy.

 

[Tom Schindler]

You go home, do some research, buy your own health insurance, life insurance, save for your own retirement, etc.

What I find interesting is that people think employers should not be giving things like pensions. He are the flaws in your thinking.



Your salary is more than just your rate of pay. If my employer would like to pay me 3 times what they currently pay me, then I would go for that. Unfortunatly, that is not going to happen.



Pensions are a way to divert pay into the future with less investment than it would be to pay them now. Employers did not fulfill their part of the bargain. They chose not to invest into pension plans like they should have. I have no sympathy for those companies. You had the opportunity to invest that money, but chose not to do so. If it puts you out of business, then so be it. You are still going to pay me for my time.



You can pay me now, or pay me later. There is one thing for certain.



You are going to pay me!



My employer, for example, added 50% more responsibility to my job. I never got a raise because of it and my merit raise was an insulting $1200/year. So I have become pro-active in this. I am searching for a different job. I have made it known that I am not happy and I am doing what I have to do to make it right with me.



If it means that I am going to sever my ties with my employer, then that is what I am going to do. I refuse to continue to do what I am doing for the pay they are paying me. I know my worth and I will take it where it is appreciated.

She became a victim of the things she demanded from her employer.

She did not demand anything. Company policy stated that this is what they will do. When you hire in with an employer, a contract is set. They say the following...



Work for us and here is what we will pay you...



1, $XX.XX per hour

2, a 401(k) plan with company match of X%

3, health insurance

4, dental insurance

5, these working conditions

6, if your job center closes down, you get $XXX as a severence package

7, etc

8, etc

9, etc



Allstate DID NOT hold up their side of the bargain and Theresa did not "demand" these things. Anyone that tries to claim this is the case is only fooling themself.



I have never been to an employer and demanded anything outside of my salary/hourly rate. I have never negotiated my severence package, health benefits, or retirement package.

I just can't seem to understand why it is expected of a company to provide a salary, take care of employees' health, pay for their childcare, save for their retirement for them, etc. This gets to the point of the company you work for doing your life planning. I expect a salary and nothing more. Perhaps I'm crazy.

If a company only want to offer a salary and nothing else, that is up to them, but the salary will have to be high enough to make up for the things they are not paying you for. If all you expect from your employer, then you haven't been in the workforce long enough.



I don't know of any "good companies" that don't offer any type of health care and retirement planning.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



You changed the subject and didn't discuss or even acknowledge what I was talking about.



Yes, of course, I think that employers should treat their employees with dignity and respect. I worked for one company that I believe is second to none in that regard, IBM. They had very few rules, were very flexible, and non-unionized.



I *FIRMLY* believe that the more rules there are, the more formal and explicit the contracts, and the more that companies continue to deliver benefits that come with strings attached (severance, pension, etc) in lieu of benefits you get as you work, and that are actually yours, the MORE LIKELY and MORE PREVALENT the abuses by employers and the adverserial nature in the workplace will pervade.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

You changed the subject and didn't discuss or even acknowledge what I was talking about.

Our industries are different. you can not compare IT work and heavy manufacturing with each other.



Having a flexable work schedule just won't work in manufacturing.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



You say our industries are different, but we were not talking about either of our respective industries, but of the insurance industry and your wife's situation.



I never mentioned a flexible work schedule.



I simply suggest that "at-will" employment was not the root of your wife's situation. The root of your wife's situation was the system set up by greed, entitlement, and benefits that come with strings attached.



Corporations will be greedy, as will people, when it serves their purpose. A system that doesn't acknowledge that greed and attempt to limit the negative aspects of it is bound for abuse.



So, as I said, had there not be severance and had there not been pensions at Allstate, and instead, had Allstate simply used those same monies for funding those benefits, and instead, increase matching 401k programs to a greater degree, then there would have been a system in place that would not incent greed and abuse on the part of Allstate. Likewise, that system would have encouraged retirement savings by employees, and it would have given employees a retirement plant that is sponsored in part by the employer without any strings attached (no possibility of loss, do ability by the employer to dangle as a carrot, or to hold hostage via handcuffs).



I'll tell you a similar story.



Recently a company that I know put out a memo to all employees. The company was offering to buy-back vacation time, 80 cents on the dollar. Not a bad deal for those employees that had weeks and weeks banked up, especially for those at or near an accural cap. Anyway, several senior employs sold their vacation at 80% of its value. A week after the buy-back program ended, the company laid off a bunch of people (RIF, fire, furlough, whatever you want to call it), and paid those people any remaining accrued vacation they were owed in their final paycheck.



Now, did the company know they were going to fire people when they started the buyback plan? I have no doubt but to think they did, and used it as a cost-cutting measure. Is it right? Wrong?



Doesn't really matter. The reality is that any savvy employee that took the buy-back had to assume that a layoff (firing, furlough, whatever you want to call it) might happen. It would be naive to think it wouldn't.



The systems we work within set these things in motion.





In your wife's case, had her company not had pension and severence (something I wonder if new employees get at Allstate), I suspect she would have been exited with seemingly more dignity.



These carrots, these entitlements, are what tend to dehumanize us.



TJR

 

[H D]

If a company only want to offer a salary and nothing else, that is up to them, but the salary will have to be high enough to make up for the things they are not paying you for.

Or people could just live within their means. I know that's a novel idea in the U.S. but with the current economy, I was kind of hoping that would start to catch on. When a home mortgage is 50% or more of people's income, that is stupid. It is then no wonder that they start to look to other people to take care of them. Sorry if that offends anyone here, but it is just stupid. Heck, I actually believe it should be no more than 25% of your take home pay and I firmly believe that anything more than a 15 year mortgage is a sign that you are out of your price range. When you're trying to impress everyone else with the house you can "afford" but complain about the benefits (i.e. unions), maybe you really can't afford those things you want everyone to believe you can. If you have a mortgage and can't afford health insurance out of your salary, that is a sign to me that you value a house over your health. Sorry, but that's my unpopular view.



I use "you" in the most broad and general sense; I have no idea how much anyone here spends on anything. I am just speaking with regards to what I perceive about the general population.



I live my life based on these principles and this shapes my view on the necessity of unions as they currently operate. You would probably laugh at my current salary...unless you saw what is in my account and what I do pay for all by myself. None of it has been guaranteed from a union and none of it comes from anything other than my itty bitty salary. And trust me, I have had no head start or jumping off point.

 

[Tom Schindler]

(something I wonder if new employees get at Allstate),

As far as we know, yes, it is still in the policy.



Hugh,



You truly think someone making $12.00/hr could afford to work full time and pay for 100% of medical benefits and save for retirement out of their own pocket? Are you kidding me?



$12.00/hr will bring home about $360.00/week, or simply about $1500/month.



there is no way ANYONE could live off of that amount of pay WHILE paying for health coverage and saving for retirement.



I don't care how consertive you live, it just isn't going to happen.



Anything thinking this is possible is very naieve, IMO.



I know what I make and there is no way I could live on my salary if I had to pay 100% of my medical benefits. I only have a $500/month mortgage and I live on the fringe of the Ghetto. I have no car payments and we eat on the cheap.



If just isn't going to happen.





Tom