5 ms·

And you believe that using the union as an enforcer or as a protection racket was a good experience for you? Just so I have this straight, you thought that a g

And you believe that using the union as an enforcer or as a protection racket was a good experience for you? Just so I have this straight, you thought that a good outcome was to have your (clearly abusive) manager(s) silently seething with rage against you, but impotent to act on it, because of the union protection? This was a good outcome to you, over, say leaving that hostile environment as fast as humanly possible, or, I don't know, turning in the manager(s) to higher-ups (or to state agencies if the abuse warranted)?

zaccus 12y ago
Whistleblowing on mgmt is a great way to get blacklisted, and one person's ability to quit their job does not address the root cause of the abuse. Why should the burden be on the worker to find a new job anyway? If the abuse is coming from mgmt, it should be their responsibility to make it right.
- mhuffman 12y ago
  I agree, but how might you imagine that management would find this out if the person is unwilling to speak up, instead relying on the silent fear of the union to keep it at bay? Do you think that leaving the abusive manager in place, but impotent, is a better outcome? For whom? The company, the employees?
  - Devthrowaway80 12y ago
    What makes you think that they were unaware of the abuse? It's a better outcome for the employees. They have more leverage over their managers and are protected from abuse. If the manager is seething and impotent over his inability to mistreat his employees, maybe he can do what others have suggested the employee do and find another job.
  - EdwardDiego 12y ago
    > How might you imagine that management would find this out if the person is unwilling to speak up The entire management structure in place was the problem. Are you seriously suggesting I should have attempted to contact my manager's boss in the USA, instead of joining a union?
    - mhuffman 12y ago
      Yes, I am not only suggesting that, I am baffled as to how you think not making noise about it and letting it lay in some Mexican standoff with the union was better.
Devthrowaway80 12y ago
With a union, he was able to stay at his job and not experience abuse. Without a union, his likely outcomes were to leave his job, possibly winding up at another abusive organization that experienced no penalties for abusive behaviour, or report his manager to higher-ups (who may have been aware or complicit in the abuse) and suffer retaliation when his manager found out, or report his organization to authorities and likely suffer retaliation from the organization as a whole. None of these are particularly positive outcomes, which is a direct result of a large organization having more power than an individual, unorganized worker.
EdwardDiego 12y ago
> And you believe that using the union as an enforcer or as a protection racket was a good experience for you? Yes. I had entered that job from a social welfare benefit, and if I were fired or forced to leave the job, I would be subject to a 13 week stand-down. > This was a good outcome to you, over, say leaving that hostile environment as fast as humanly possible, or, I don't know, turning in the manager(s) to higher-ups (or to state agencies if the abuse warranted)? My recourses would have required legal action to the Employment Court, and when you're earning minimum wage, lawyers aren't easy to come by. So yes, it was good that I could keep earning the money I needed to live, until I found a better job.

zaccus 12y ago

Whistleblowing on mgmt is a great way to get blacklisted, and one person's ability to quit their job does not address the root cause of the abuse. Why should the burden be on the worker to find a new job anyway? If the abuse is coming from mgmt, it should be their responsibility to make it right.

mhuffman 12y ago
I agree, but how might you imagine that management would find this out if the person is unwilling to speak up, instead relying on the silent fear of the union to keep it at bay? Do you think that leaving the abusive manager in place, but impotent, is a better outcome? For whom? The company, the employees?
- Devthrowaway80 12y ago
  What makes you think that they were unaware of the abuse? It's a better outcome for the employees. They have more leverage over their managers and are protected from abuse. If the manager is seething and impotent over his inability to mistreat his employees, maybe he can do what others have suggested the employee do and find another job.
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  > How might you imagine that management would find this out if the person is unwilling to speak up The entire management structure in place was the problem. Are you seriously suggesting I should have attempted to contact my manager's boss in the USA, instead of joining a union?
  - mhuffman 12y ago
    Yes, I am not only suggesting that, I am baffled as to how you think not making noise about it and letting it lay in some Mexican standoff with the union was better.

Devthrowaway80 12y ago

With a union, he was able to stay at his job and not experience abuse. Without a union, his likely outcomes were to leave his job, possibly winding up at another abusive organization that experienced no penalties for abusive behaviour, or report his manager to higher-ups (who may have been aware or complicit in the abuse) and suffer retaliation when his manager found out, or report his organization to authorities and likely suffer retaliation from the organization as a whole. None of these are particularly positive outcomes, which is a direct result of a large organization having more power than an individual, unorganized worker.

EdwardDiego 12y ago

> And you believe that using the union as an enforcer or as a protection racket was a good experience for you? Yes. I had entered that job from a social welfare benefit, and if I were fired or forced to leave the job, I would be subject to a 13 week stand-down. > This was a good outcome to you, over, say leaving that hostile environment as fast as humanly possible, or, I don't know, turning in the manager(s) to higher-ups (or to state agencies if the abuse warranted)? My recourses would have required legal action to the Employment Court, and when you're earning minimum wage, lawyers aren't easy to come by. So yes, it was good that I could keep earning the money I needed to live, until I found a better job.