Quote:
|
Why should Unions be held accountable when so often management isn't? Unions are responsible for lack of productivity and responsibility? Boo hoo, that's nothing compared to 'Corporate (lack of) Responsibility'.
|
If the company is public, management most certainly should be responsible. They in turn would report to the Board of Directors who in turn could toss management if they deem performance to be less than satisfactory.
Quote:
|
My peeve is that this board specifically spends a lot more time bitching about workers and their laziness than Corporate ethics and exploitation.
|
I think there's a fundamental difference in Alberta due to the business culture here. There's the realization on behalf of most employees here that if the company is sucessful, so will I. (I understand this difference doesn't always exist though) Rather than trying to hide behind rules most people are likely to just change jobs as the economy is good enough to do so.
Why do we slag unions more than management? It's think it's because of their nature and role in business. There's a greater likelyhood you'll find an "outstanding" management team that still respects it's workers than you'll find an outstanding "union" that's acutually helped the business, not just stay out of the way. Treat employees right and there's no need for a union.
I've spent a lot of time working with government organizations who are all unionized and the level of waste and inefficiency is incredible. I'm convinced it's the reason why our government is so wasteful and inefficient. When everything is locked into job roles and you may only do what's specified - and NO more - where's the incentive to be innovative and efficient?
I got into an argument with someone a few months back about the CHR hiring non union staff to clean its facilities. The CHR was paying about $22 / hr to their staff but could get cheaper non union staff. This other person thought it was totally wrong to do that - that you needed to think about their families and how they had to feed them. While I understand the human side of them, I'm also thinking that the extra dollars could be used to open up a bed or MRI, rather than scrubbing floors (assuming both union and non-union staff do the same quality of job.
Once I almost took a job in a unionized environment (in an office no less) and was told that I had to leave immediately at 5:00pm. Any longer than that and my "shop steward" (what is this 1940?) would report me. I believe in getting the task done, but wouldn't be allowed to do so in that type of environment.
Talk to any new grad teacher right now and they'll tell you how frusturating it is to not be able to land a position when they're brimming with energy and new ideas, while seeing burnt out incompetent teachers that ought to be fired but aren't due to union seniority.
I do agree that unions do have a place, and that's with repect to physical saftey. If it's not a safe work environment then yes, I do believe they reserve the right for group decisions. But as someone pointed out, the ability to modernize and make the company more profitable shouldn't be held up by the unions.
The NHLPA certainly isn't help to present unions in a good light either, nor illustrate how unions are can be anything other than an obstacle to management.