Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleF
Not a lot, no. I've seen behind the curtain and actively helped those who were actively at the table, but not a primary or full access to all of what was going on. But I'm also not trying to push the discussion in that direction of discussing actual collective and mediating processes. I'm just saying what technically the rules of the game are and give insight from a different angle.
I'm not disregarding what you've gone through and have done/experienced. That's your expertise, I don't know it like you do and I'm leaving that alone. I am pointing out that for certain hypothetical scenarios where the rule is here vs the situation is there, is it so far away from what is supposed to happen that a foul needs to be called? Or is it a situation where the result is still close to where it's supposed to be, and thus "OK". I'm also saying that conflict of interest and independence are things that should be able to be addressed relatively little time comparatively to the rest of the whole situation. It's not supposed to be something that should take a ridiculous amount of time with insane barriers to figure out.
|
I’m going to go with yes, it should be called out as foul. But to be fair it’s not necessarily foul due to any intentional malice on your part.
Quote:
|
When I re-read your post, it doesn't seem like we're completely conflicting... more like same ish page, different paragraph?
|
Our viewpoints are very conflicting, again though not necessarily out of intentional malice or belligerence on your part. Your position is basically taking a perfect or utopian application of the rules and assuming that it will always yield the right outcome. My position is that laws don’t always work as intended and are often shrouded in legislation that does not actually allow for the intended/implied outcome.
I’ll put it into a context for you that I think will best illustrate what I’m saying: The law says an employer cannot interfere with or influence employees trying to organize a union in their workplace. As someone with an HR background, when a company becomes aware of such activities does the HR handbook say to hold a meeting informing all management to not interfere or influence employees and those employees are left to make their decision without ever hearing anything from their employer on the matter, or is there maybe a different kind of meeting that is held?
You know as well as I do what happens in those situations despite there being “laws” that state certain practices are forbidden while those same laws paint a picture of the perfect outcome. That’s why I’m suggesting your expectations in the case of a mediator appointment or how to challenge said appointments are overly optimistic at best and not really based in reality. Again, not necessarily due to you trying to be intentionally misleading in the matter(which I hope is not the case) but rather due to inexperience in how these laws actually apply themselves in the real world.