4 ms·
I mean, I suppose this is better than no review process whatsoever. But the real solution is to just have a union, so that the fired worker has some representat
by elicash 8y ago
I mean, I suppose this is better than no review process whatsoever. But the real solution is to just have a union, so that the fired worker has some representation.
(For management workers, I favor a similar process but that would require some changes to labor law to be fully protected. You could still have a union without that, but it's not going to be one that has the same recognition.)
- cperciva 8y agoI would argue that a fair appeal process is much better than a process involving a union which always sides with the employee. In Canada we recently had a case where a union negotiated a glowing letter of reference and the sealing of a personnel file... for a serial killer: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/long-term-care-inquiry-elizabeth-wettlaufer-1.4717729 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/long-term-care-inquiry...
- elicash 8y agoObviously the union shouldn't have filed a grievance without investigating. Most unions wouldn't. But this adversarial system appropriately shamed the union for not investigating first and resulted in an outcome of the person being convicted. Seems quite silly to use this as an example for why those of us who are not serial killers shouldn't have unions. But I guess serial killers ruin EVERYTHING.
- lovich 8y agoHow can it be fair if it's set up by the company? Even if it's an "agreement" between an employee and the employer, the employer is in a much more powerful position and can force a better position. The whole point of unions is to have enough labor negotiating together than it can argue on the same footing as the company