Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
as someone who just had this happen to them, i still see no problem with it. why should a company be forced to keep people they dont want?
where is it written that you (or me in this case) should be guaranteed a job, even if the job is being done right?
according to labour standards, I was given a severance (well above minimum required) and i am moving on. i know that i contributed at a high level and it was simply a case of the CEO not liking having to go through me in his corporate structure, so he changed the structure and paid me to leave. i didnt need a union for it and i didnt expect the company to keep me, just because.
|
Agreed. Of course, I'm looking at this from the perspective of a guy who has more or less been in business for himself for 6 or 7 years now. I have no problem firing someone that I simply don't like. Well, I sure feel bad doing it, but I certainly wont let my own business or productivity suffer because I've got an annoying person working for me.
When you hire someone, a complete stranger, how the hell are you supposed to know how well you'll work together?
Of course, Ozy works for the city, and I don't know where poison works, but it sounds like a larger organization than the one or two people I ever have working for me at any given time, so my argument is somewhat nullified by that.
So as for whether big organizations should be able to arbitrarily can someone because they're unpopular, I still gotta say yes. One rotten apple can ruin the barrel. Like a cancer in the dressing room. Just get rid of it. I don't understand the sense of entitlement that alot of pro union people seem to have. Like they are immune to good business practices. The owner of the company can't fire a guy because he has seniority. Or he's forced to promote one guy over another because of seniority. It's crap. And if my company ever gets big enough and a union approaches my employees and tries to get them to form a union, I'll fire everyone that joins. I don't owe anyone a job. They're either pulling their weight or they're not. If they are, and if they're good people to have around, then they have no reason to worry about me firing them arbitrarily. If they start to get belliegrent and are causing unrest within my company, I'll fire them so fasttheir head sill spin.
And if anyone that ever works for me feels that they deserve more, they can come and tell me why. And if they're right, I'll give them more. Of course, if the company can't afford it, the answer will be NO.
But poison, as far as my earlier rant was concerned and the back and forths after that, you aren't acknowledging that useless people should get fired. If you don't agree with that, fine. I guess. But I don't understand why. Why wont you acknowledge that its these useless people that get ensconced in these cushy union jobs, getting their incremental pay raises and racking up more and more holidays that are the real problem?
That is the problem with these gigantic unions like the UAW. They fight so hard for the collective, but they refuse to concede that there is alot of fat that can be trimmed.
If they don't want to take pay cuts, why wont they at least acknowledge that there are some redundant employees that need to be layed off to keep the union healthy and, more importantly, the company they work for? Without the company, they're all out of work.
I dunno. The union mentality just annoys me so much. Sorry poison, I'm not directly attacking you. I appreciate the way you've kept cool in this thread and just argued your points. So good on you.