Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
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.
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.
|
That's not what I was trying to say. But I'm just going to bow out because my attempts to help are just derailing things instead.