6 ms·

Why is it appropriate for a union to determine who has the right to accomplish specific tasks (you can't restart the server, but you can unplug it or you can pl

by vdqtp3 5y ago

Why is it appropriate for a union to determine who has the right to accomplish specific tasks (you can't restart the server, but you can unplug it or you can plug in a lamp but you can't change a light bulb)? That's not a management failure. Sounds like they had people who were trained and had the technical ability. It was bureaucracy that caused the problem.

lakecresva 5y ago
> Why is it appropriate for a union to determine who has the right to accomplish specific tasks It's just an exclusivity clause. The employees and management willingly entered into a contractual agreement containing a provision that management ostensibly understood and then completely failed to account for. If I sign an employment contract that explicitly says "I will be your exclusive provider of X service, I am not available on weekends", the employer shouldn't be surprised when I refuse to come in on Saturday and Sunday or sue them for breach when they hire a second service provider.
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  and this would be the core of the "hostile unions are suboptimal" argument you are trying to sidestep.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    If the core of your argument is that contracts are suboptimal for people who want more than what is in the contract, it's not hard to sidestep. It's also suboptimal for the employee not to get paid twice as much, or work half the hours.
lmm 5y ago
> Why is it appropriate for a union to determine who has the right to accomplish specific tasks (you can't restart the server, but you can unplug it or you can plug in a lamp but you can't change a light bulb)? That's not a management failure. On the contrary, that's a two-sided negotiation and if management have failed to protect their interests then that's on them. I've heard plenty of stories like this where it turned out the real reason was that management's own rule was that anyone who touched that server without that certification became personally liable for damages, and management had been warned about their lack of certified people but refused to send more people on the xyz server training course, and or something on those lines.
pessimizer 5y ago
Because otherwise your boss could tell you to sweep the floors while your software was compiling. The negotiation of specified work duties resulted in an agreement between the company and the union representing the employee. If that doesn't matter, then why negotiate at all? Do employees get to decide that they're not going to do something because they don't feel like it? If you want flexibility, you negotiate flexibility. You don't negotiate the reduction of work duties against wages, and then demand that employees do whatever they have the technical ability to do. If I have the technical ability to do accounting, but I'm employed as a bus driver, can my employer demand that I balance the books? Employers don't own employees. There's a contract that promises specific wages for specific work.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  > Because otherwise your boss could tell you to sweep the floors while your software was compiling. And if the floor was really dirty and he had a good reason (showing off the office to a visitor and nobody else was available), I'd be like "sure thing, lets get the place nice for the visitor; I'm not busy". Or, if he was just a neat freak and constantly asking people to do work they weren't hired to do like that, I'd say no. > Do employees get to decide that they're not going to do something because they don't feel like it? Generally, you're hired with a job description. Anything outside that description is up for discussion. I mean, I'm a software developer, but if I had to have a union contract that said I wasn't _allowed_ to empty my own garbage when it annoyed me that it was full... I'd go elsewhere. I don't expect the owner of the company to prioritize my interests over those of the company or his own. But I do expect him to consider my happiness and well being when making decisions that effect me (or, more generally, groups). And, along the same lines, I prioritize my well being over that of the company, but the well being of the company matters to me, and I'm willing to be flexible to help it succeed.
cool_dude85 5y ago
First, as others have mentioned, the union did not unilaterally choose how the job specs at this plant were written. But to answer your broader question, the reason unions sometimes point for seemingly narrow job specs is to prevent management picking and choosing titles in a way to keep pay and membership down. Let's say that in this situation, you have 5 Server Janitors and 1 Sysadmin, with corresponding pay rates of course. Maybe the janitors have the skills to turn on the server, but the spec says only the sysadmin can. Whose fault is it that there's just one sysadmin? And if the job spec says anyone can turn the server on, why give anyone the sysadmin title?
- dls2016 5y ago
  Exactly the scenario I had in mind with my comment. A lot of places are now "two tier" where the newer employees have no path to the higher rate. You have one guy hanging who can press the button for $43/hr, and anyone who replaces him will top out at $32/hr. Not to mention the history of labor battles (actual fisticuffs) and police departments in many parts of the country... talk about adversarial!

by vdqtp3 5y ago

lakecresva 5y ago

> Why is it appropriate for a union to determine who has the right to accomplish specific tasks It's just an exclusivity clause. The employees and management willingly entered into a contractual agreement containing a provision that management ostensibly understood and then completely failed to account for. If I sign an employment contract that explicitly says "I will be your exclusive provider of X service, I am not available on weekends", the employer shouldn't be surprised when I refuse to come in on Saturday and Sunday or sue them for breach when they hire a second service provider.

MrStonedOne 5y ago
and this would be the core of the "hostile unions are suboptimal" argument you are trying to sidestep.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  If the core of your argument is that contracts are suboptimal for people who want more than what is in the contract, it's not hard to sidestep. It's also suboptimal for the employee not to get paid twice as much, or work half the hours.

lmm 5y ago

> Why is it appropriate for a union to determine who has the right to accomplish specific tasks (you can't restart the server, but you can unplug it or you can plug in a lamp but you can't change a light bulb)? That's not a management failure. On the contrary, that's a two-sided negotiation and if management have failed to protect their interests then that's on them. I've heard plenty of stories like this where it turned out the real reason was that management's own rule was that anyone who touched that server without that certification became personally liable for damages, and management had been warned about their lack of certified people but refused to send more people on the xyz server training course, and or something on those lines.

pessimizer 5y ago

Because otherwise your boss could tell you to sweep the floors while your software was compiling. The negotiation of specified work duties resulted in an agreement between the company and the union representing the employee. If that doesn't matter, then why negotiate at all? Do employees get to decide that they're not going to do something because they don't feel like it? If you want flexibility, you negotiate flexibility. You don't negotiate the reduction of work duties against wages, and then demand that employees do whatever they have the technical ability to do. If I have the technical ability to do accounting, but I'm employed as a bus driver, can my employer demand that I balance the books? Employers don't own employees. There's a contract that promises specific wages for specific work.

RHSeeger 5y ago
> Because otherwise your boss could tell you to sweep the floors while your software was compiling. And if the floor was really dirty and he had a good reason (showing off the office to a visitor and nobody else was available), I'd be like "sure thing, lets get the place nice for the visitor; I'm not busy". Or, if he was just a neat freak and constantly asking people to do work they weren't hired to do like that, I'd say no. > Do employees get to decide that they're not going to do something because they don't feel like it? Generally, you're hired with a job description. Anything outside that description is up for discussion. I mean, I'm a software developer, but if I had to have a union contract that said I wasn't _allowed_ to empty my own garbage when it annoyed me that it was full... I'd go elsewhere. I don't expect the owner of the company to prioritize my interests over those of the company or his own. But I do expect him to consider my happiness and well being when making decisions that effect me (or, more generally, groups). And, along the same lines, I prioritize my well being over that of the company, but the well being of the company matters to me, and I'm willing to be flexible to help it succeed.

cool_dude85 5y ago

First, as others have mentioned, the union did not unilaterally choose how the job specs at this plant were written. But to answer your broader question, the reason unions sometimes point for seemingly narrow job specs is to prevent management picking and choosing titles in a way to keep pay and membership down. Let's say that in this situation, you have 5 Server Janitors and 1 Sysadmin, with corresponding pay rates of course. Maybe the janitors have the skills to turn on the server, but the spec says only the sysadmin can. Whose fault is it that there's just one sysadmin? And if the job spec says anyone can turn the server on, why give anyone the sysadmin title?

dls2016 5y ago
Exactly the scenario I had in mind with my comment. A lot of places are now "two tier" where the newer employees have no path to the higher rate. You have one guy hanging who can press the button for $43/hr, and anyone who replaces him will top out at $32/hr. Not to mention the history of labor battles (actual fisticuffs) and police departments in many parts of the country... talk about adversarial!