3 ms·
Just trying to understand: you think that somehow unions make it EASIER to layoff/fire someone? That management would somehow assume it's easier/less costly to
by moate 7y ago
Just trying to understand: you think that somehow unions make it EASIER to layoff/fire someone? That management would somehow assume it's easier/less costly to fire people when they know those people will have a lawyer review the terms of their termination? That management would be less inclined to attempt including illegal non-competes?
- kodablah 7y agoNo, sorry, I was too succinct. I am saying externalities like unions make it HARDER. Therefore the commenter might never have been laid off in a heavily unionized employment situation. Not arguing explicitly for or against, just mentioning that in situations where it is difficult to layoff/fire employees, it is not always a good thing (peer complacency, bloat, etc). Those that have worked in those situations often wish the protections were fewer, which is why I wondered if the commenter would rethink.
- moate 7y agoHe worked for a company with a union, and was still fired. I still don't understand your point here. Yes, he says the layoff had benefits, but that seemed more like a "silver lining" than a "I'm glad things happened this way". IDK, I'm either reading his statement or yours in a way someone isn't intending. Also, people who work in non-union jobs often feel that peer complacency and bloat are problems. That's not unique to union shops. Everyone has had a job where there was "that guy" that nobody understood how he kept his job. IDK why people thing unions magically create this problem, or make it worse. Mostly because I haven't seen any studies proving it, it's just a "feeling" people have.