4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- mig39 4y ago
  I know in many union shops, there's a mutually-agreed process for termination. It's usually part of the Collective Agreement. This process needs to be followed for termination. Problem is, some middle-management type decides they want to fire a person (for cause), and doesn't follow the process. And even if they are correct in the substance of their action (ie: bad employee), they get stopped because they don't follow the agreed procedure. So you have an incompetent manager trying to fire an incompetent employee, and this turns into the FUD of "unions protect bad employees!" When the reality is that the management is incompetent, and probably didn't even read the Collective Agreement.

by IMTDb 4y ago

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.
mig39 4y ago
I know in many union shops, there's a mutually-agreed process for termination. It's usually part of the Collective Agreement. This process needs to be followed for termination. Problem is, some middle-management type decides they want to fire a person (for cause), and doesn't follow the process. And even if they are correct in the substance of their action (ie: bad employee), they get stopped because they don't follow the agreed procedure. So you have an incompetent manager trying to fire an incompetent employee, and this turns into the FUD of "unions protect bad employees!" When the reality is that the management is incompetent, and probably didn't even read the Collective Agreement.