4 ms·

Usually union employees can be fired if there is "just cause". Not showing up for work at all would definitely to considered "just cause" for most unions I've b

Usually union employees can be fired if there is "just cause". Not showing up for work at all would definitely to considered "just cause" for most unions I've been involved in. Did no one even try to fire him or was he related to someone in a management position? Being in a union doesn't mean you're "untouchable", it just means you can't be fired without hard proof that the worker is not doing what they are hired to do.

big_oof2023 4y ago
This may be the intent of the rules/contract. But real world stories and experience show that unions tend to make bad employees untouchable, to the detriment of their fellow union members. And I say this as someone who generally supports unionization (but not necessarily the union management beast)
- doublepg23 4y ago
  Having worked in non-Union and Union retail for that long I’m still on the fence. I’d probably lean Union but at the same time it really isn’t propaganda that there are downsides.
IMTDb 4y ago
> Not showing up for work at all would definitely to considered "just cause" for most unions I've been involved in Not with some of the one I have had to deal with. There are tons of way to justify not coming to work and some unions representative (not all !) take a posture of « we will fight tooth and nail for every single employee that gets fired regardless of the reason ». This includes having handbooks of all the legal options at your disposal that are hard to counteract by management. In their views, unions exist as a counter power vs management so they need to fight every single possible decision. There are some unions that are taking a different approach and that are focusing one or or two issues that are important to them. They will be vocal about those, but be a bit less concerned by the rest unless there is some obvious abuse. The thing is that it’s really hard to tell which way it’s going to fall. And it’s also not obvious to tell which approach gives the best results.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deaddodo 4y ago
  > There are tons of way to justify not coming to work and some unions representative (not all !) take a posture of « we will fight tooth and nail for every single employee that gets fired regardless of the reason ». This includes having handbooks of all the legal options at your disposal that are hard to counteract by management. As they should. This is the entire point of a union, to act as your collaborative defensive line against your employer. You argument is essentially the same as “well, if we had universal healthcare, homeless/minimum wage people would use it too!” OP makes it sound like this person was egregiously not doing his job. I’m sorry, but there isn’t a union agreement in the world that lets you No Call/No Show repeatedly and be fine. This is anti-Union FUD. > In their views, unions exist as a counter power vs management so they need to fight every single possible decision Yes, exactly. As they should. It’s the exact same logic as employers fighting every Unemployment claim, every workman’s comp claim, etc. If you don’t, you’ve moved the goalposts to a lesser defendable point.
  - IMTDb 4y ago
    > I’m sorry, but there isn’t a union agreement in the world that lets you No Call/No Show repeatedly and be fine. But there are unions agreement that say: if you are fired for any reason, come and see us. Usually the question « how is this justified ? » is not really used as a way of asking « should we help you or not ? », but rather as « which page go the handbook should we leverage to justify that this is definitely an abuse from management ». The starting point of the discussion is that any firing is necessarily an abuse. And by extension any decision by the company is done to hurt employees.
    - deaddodo 4y ago
      > The starting point of the discussion is that any firing is necessarily an abuse. And by extension any decision by the company is done to hurt employees. It would be useful to include the rest of the context of my message instead of snipping out a single line to counter. As I said, of course they do; as they should. Just like it’s in the best interest of the company to assume all employees are scamming, scummy liars; it’s in the best interest of the Union to assume the employer is a money-hungry uncaring entity focused on maximizing its profit. Why should one side shoot themselves in the foot while the other maximizes their advantage? That doesn’t change the fact that if the employee actually wasn’t coming into work, was abusing privileges or was somehow abusive they are going to be fired; so what’s the problem? Is this antagonistic? Sure. But we’re well past companies giving respect to employees and employees owing loyalty to employers. And, here’s the important bit: it wasn’t the employees that started nor perpetuated it.
doublepg23 4y ago
Yes, when I say “didn’t show up” I meant he called in “sick” every week to the point my manger would need to schedule on the assumption he would call off. Once he did completely stop showing up he was still on the schedule for months due to union contract stipulations as he was full-time. The bathroom policy was put in place after having multiple meetings with the district manager.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > he would spend 30min+ in the restroom > The bathroom policy was put in place after having multiple meetings with the district manager. Did he have health issues? I have never seen a healthy adult hide in the Bathroom. Is this something that happens? Has an effort been made to figure out whats wrong with them? I have also had a junior colleague and a family member go through stomach related issues where they required over 100 days of sick leave and 4 surgeries. If they were working for amazon warehouse, they'd be disposed of quickly. I definately dont want to work for a company that timea how long I spend taking a shit. For every 'lazy' or 'unproductive' employee i've seen, I can name two that create negative productivity for an entire team through office politics and maneuvering. They are much more damaging and management never seems to catch on!
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    > For every 'lazy' or 'unproductive' employee i've seen, I can name two that create negative productivity for an entire team through office politics and maneuvering. Is there a reason to assume the same ratio exists across all businesses?
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      There is a good reason to believe it's non-zero across all business, but only the first problem is ever talked about. I suspect that rank and file employees are better at identifying the second problem than managers are. What it second problem is less common in places where unions are present? Maybe it's a tradeoff, you gain A but you loose B. I am just saying this is never examined
pjmlp 4y ago
I find this interesting, because in Europe unions protect everyone (or should in principle), there is no law difference between if someone belongs to a union or not, and if the company decided to be part of union agreements with the government, that means everyone gets to be part of the agreement, regardless of having a union membership card or not.

big_oof2023 4y ago

This may be the intent of the rules/contract. But real world stories and experience show that unions tend to make bad employees untouchable, to the detriment of their fellow union members. And I say this as someone who generally supports unionization (but not necessarily the union management beast)

doublepg23 4y ago
Having worked in non-Union and Union retail for that long I’m still on the fence. I’d probably lean Union but at the same time it really isn’t propaganda that there are downsides.

IMTDb 4y ago

> Not showing up for work at all would definitely to considered "just cause" for most unions I've been involved in Not with some of the one I have had to deal with. There are tons of way to justify not coming to work and some unions representative (not all !) take a posture of « we will fight tooth and nail for every single employee that gets fired regardless of the reason ». This includes having handbooks of all the legal options at your disposal that are hard to counteract by management. In their views, unions exist as a counter power vs management so they need to fight every single possible decision. There are some unions that are taking a different approach and that are focusing one or or two issues that are important to them. They will be vocal about those, but be a bit less concerned by the rest unless there is some obvious abuse. The thing is that it’s really hard to tell which way it’s going to fall. And it’s also not obvious to tell which approach gives the best results.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deaddodo 4y ago
> There are tons of way to justify not coming to work and some unions representative (not all !) take a posture of « we will fight tooth and nail for every single employee that gets fired regardless of the reason ». This includes having handbooks of all the legal options at your disposal that are hard to counteract by management. As they should. This is the entire point of a union, to act as your collaborative defensive line against your employer. You argument is essentially the same as “well, if we had universal healthcare, homeless/minimum wage people would use it too!” OP makes it sound like this person was egregiously not doing his job. I’m sorry, but there isn’t a union agreement in the world that lets you No Call/No Show repeatedly and be fine. This is anti-Union FUD. > In their views, unions exist as a counter power vs management so they need to fight every single possible decision Yes, exactly. As they should. It’s the exact same logic as employers fighting every Unemployment claim, every workman’s comp claim, etc. If you don’t, you’ve moved the goalposts to a lesser defendable point.
- IMTDb 4y ago
  > I’m sorry, but there isn’t a union agreement in the world that lets you No Call/No Show repeatedly and be fine. But there are unions agreement that say: if you are fired for any reason, come and see us. Usually the question « how is this justified ? » is not really used as a way of asking « should we help you or not ? », but rather as « which page go the handbook should we leverage to justify that this is definitely an abuse from management ». The starting point of the discussion is that any firing is necessarily an abuse. And by extension any decision by the company is done to hurt employees.
  - deaddodo 4y ago
    > The starting point of the discussion is that any firing is necessarily an abuse. And by extension any decision by the company is done to hurt employees. It would be useful to include the rest of the context of my message instead of snipping out a single line to counter. As I said, of course they do; as they should. Just like it’s in the best interest of the company to assume all employees are scamming, scummy liars; it’s in the best interest of the Union to assume the employer is a money-hungry uncaring entity focused on maximizing its profit. Why should one side shoot themselves in the foot while the other maximizes their advantage? That doesn’t change the fact that if the employee actually wasn’t coming into work, was abusing privileges or was somehow abusive they are going to be fired; so what’s the problem? Is this antagonistic? Sure. But we’re well past companies giving respect to employees and employees owing loyalty to employers. And, here’s the important bit: it wasn’t the employees that started nor perpetuated it.

doublepg23 4y ago

Yes, when I say “didn’t show up” I meant he called in “sick” every week to the point my manger would need to schedule on the assumption he would call off. Once he did completely stop showing up he was still on the schedule for months due to union contract stipulations as he was full-time. The bathroom policy was put in place after having multiple meetings with the district manager.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> he would spend 30min+ in the restroom > The bathroom policy was put in place after having multiple meetings with the district manager. Did he have health issues? I have never seen a healthy adult hide in the Bathroom. Is this something that happens? Has an effort been made to figure out whats wrong with them? I have also had a junior colleague and a family member go through stomach related issues where they required over 100 days of sick leave and 4 surgeries. If they were working for amazon warehouse, they'd be disposed of quickly. I definately dont want to work for a company that timea how long I spend taking a shit. For every 'lazy' or 'unproductive' employee i've seen, I can name two that create negative productivity for an entire team through office politics and maneuvering. They are much more damaging and management never seems to catch on!
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > For every 'lazy' or 'unproductive' employee i've seen, I can name two that create negative productivity for an entire team through office politics and maneuvering. Is there a reason to assume the same ratio exists across all businesses?
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    There is a good reason to believe it's non-zero across all business, but only the first problem is ever talked about. I suspect that rank and file employees are better at identifying the second problem than managers are. What it second problem is less common in places where unions are present? Maybe it's a tradeoff, you gain A but you loose B. I am just saying this is never examined

pjmlp 4y ago

I find this interesting, because in Europe unions protect everyone (or should in principle), there is no law difference between if someone belongs to a union or not, and if the company decided to be part of union agreements with the government, that means everyone gets to be part of the agreement, regardless of having a union membership card or not.