Canada Post likely will be locked out/on strike - July 2

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by V

Where did I bash unions? I quite like a number of the unions I work with.

You posted that unions are bullying people to be less productive. Seems like a bash to me.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Where am I bashing management? I'm defending unions and the purpose they serve.

The very quote I responded to, actually. You're melting down because V (among others) has dared to question the perfection that is the union model, and immediately dismissed him because he is management. By the very same token, you yourself become easily dismissed for the exact same reason.

Also, you've accused Canada Post of bargaining in bad faith in this thread, presumably because management has not caved to the union's demands in full.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The very quote I responded to, actually. You're melting down because V (among others) has dared to question the perfection that is the union model, and immediately dismissed him because he is management. By the very same token, you yourself become easily dismissed for the exact same reason.

Also, you've accused Canada Post of bargaining in bad faith in this thread, presumably because management has not caved to the union's demands in full.

V said I sound like a kid but I'm the one melting down when I respond in kind? Ya ok. Lol. Go team Conservatives!

[Resolute 14]

V's not wrong. You usually come off sounding like a kid. The only reason I believe you aren't is the fact that few kids anywhere work in union environments, and none will have worked in one so long to create the kind of single-minded zealotry you routinely display. I would almost characterize it as brainwashing, personally.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Is it possible that maybe it's just the majority of unions you've worked in? Unless you've worked the majority of unions out there. Labelling the majority of union based on such a small sample size doesn't seem like either a fair or well informed statement

its possible, just as likely that you may have worked for a good one or two and are labeling them all as good?

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You don't know all the facts yet feel he should have been terminated? Geez what if God forbid she was lying? I hope she wasn't and would hope he be held accountable if he was at fault but people still need due process. Had he not been given that he could sue, with or without a union, for a number of things.

I don't know all the facts as in the process of firing someone is what I meant. I know all the facts of what happened.

Any non-union job that guy would be gone, union job he stays.

non-union job you are late a bunch and fired. union job you need to have 3 verbal complaints then get filed and get 3 written complaints, then you get suspended, then maybe you get fired assuming this all happens within a certain time frame or the clock resets. these are the hoops I'm talking about in a union that I don't have full details on.

due process to make sure an employee isn't wrongfully dismissed? that is handled by a whole department of HR professionals (ones who went to school to fully understand the intricacies of hiring and firing people) in normal companies, they make sure someone isn't let go for illegal reasons and protect the employee and company from lawsuit.

Anyways I'm done with this, get asked for examples of why I think unions are bad then either its just an anecdote and doesn't matter or I don't know 100% of every tiny detail in the process of running a company so I'm wrong. As someone else said its a very toxic argument and neither side will be swayed.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

V's not wrong. You usually come off sounding like a kid. The only reason I believe you aren't is the fact that few kids anywhere work in union environments, and none will have worked in one so long to create the kind of single-minded zealotry you routinely display. I would almost characterize it as brainwashing, personally.

I won't kowtow to team conservative here. So the ongoing personal attacks are expected. Fill your boots.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I won't kowtow to team conservative here. So the ongoing personal attacks are expected. Fill your boots.

Yeah, totally. Couldn't possibly be a problem with you in any way. No reason to even consider that possibility.

Not that it matters, but I voted Liberal both provincially and federally...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I won't kowtow to team conservative here. So the ongoing personal attacks are expected. Fill your boots.

Many, many conservatives actually have a tentative support for the concept of organized labour. Personally, I like the idea that an organization could represent workers in an effective, conciliatory manner in disputes with the owners of capital.

Too often though, it's a meet the new boss, same as the old boss type thing. There are also a bunch of disincentives that I believe have become ingrained in the union culture over time, and tend to select a certain type of behaviour which is counter-productive to the overall viability of unions in this economic era of stagnation.

Namely, entitlement, and antagonism. So clearly an insider vs outsider thing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I won't kowtow to team conservative here. So the ongoing personal attacks are expected. Fill your boots.

This is why I actually like you, Resurrection. You have great versatility. You can be a hero or a martyr depending on need.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yup. I know numerous people who were told, flat out, to slow down because they were making other union members look bad.

I'm not going into details but I'm dealing with unionized workers on a project right now. One of the union members volunteered to do a couple of hours of additional work that would make everything go much smoother. This person is familiar with the area and can preform the task in half the time that someone from the outside can. This person VOLUNTEERED their time to get this done.

The union got wind of it and forbid the person from doing any extra work that isn't part of the collective bargaining agreement, off the record everyone freely admits that they don't want the other employees to look bad. That person will literally have to stand there now and watch the outside service preform the task, ridiculous.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I'm not going into details but I'm dealing with unionized workers on a project right now. One of the union members volunteered to do a couple of hours of additional work that would make everything go much smoother. This person is familiar with the area and can preform the task in half the time that someone from the outside can. This person VOLUNTEERED their time to get this done.

The union got wind of it and forbid the person from doing any extra work that isn't part of the collective bargaining agreement, off the record everyone freely admits that they don't want the other employees to look bad. That person will literally have to stand there now and watch the outside service preform the task, ridiculous.

It's not weird or wrong that the union doesn't want someone to work for free. Hows that even a point of contention?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

It's not weird or wrong that the union doesn't want someone to work for free. Hows that even a point of contention?

The person volunteered to do the work but is still being paid for the time as a salaried employee, now they will be paid to stand there and watch someone else do the work. Doesn't surprise me that you think that's a good thing though.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

It's not weird or wrong that the union doesn't want someone to work for free. Hows that even a point of contention?

On this point, I will partially agree with you. It is very understandable that the union would prefer to avoid creating anything like a precedent. So there is nothing weird or wrong with a union not wanting this.

The problem is that the union is exerting force to prevent an individual from making an individual choice that they feel is mutually beneficial to themselves and their employer. The union is demanding hostility and divisiveness, and things like this do actually stand as an example of how unions often place ideology above the people they are supposed to represent.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Is this a serious question? This is like people in political debates saying "if you don't like it, go live in another country". It's not like jobs you'd want to do are everywhere.


This doesn't actually happen in companies that stick around for very long. If you don't promote the most qualified person, you're doing your own company a disservice. Of course, that's your call if it's your company. That's what you seem to be missing in a lot of this; if the dumb decision is made by the person who owns the shop, that's inherently different from some other entity forcing a dumb decision on them.

I really don't want to get sucked into this, because it's basically about as toxic a conversation as an Israel / Palestine debate... but there are definitely some interesting posts being made.

Yes it was a serious question, any job you agree to work at has pros and cons that vary from person to person. You are free to look consider the options and choose your situation accordingly, you can even join a union work site and try to decertify the union. But to play the victim isn't helpful and claim you were forced into something you weren't is just pointless.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The person volunteered to do the work but is still being paid for the time as a salaried employee, now they will be paid to stand there and watch someone else do the work. Doesn't surprise me that you think that's a good thing though.

Two people doing the work of one to the detriment of the company. A union zealot's wet dream, right there.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I'm not going into details but I'm dealing with unionized workers on a project right now. One of the union members volunteered to do a couple of hours of additional work that would make everything go much smoother. This person is familiar with the area and can preform the task in half the time that someone from the outside can. This person VOLUNTEERED their time to get this done.

The union got wind of it and forbid the person from doing any extra work that isn't part of the collective bargaining agreement, off the record everyone freely admits that they don't want the other employees to look bad. That person will literally have to stand there now and watch the outside service preform the task, ridiculous.

How can they stop him from doing it? They can't kick him out of the union for something like that. The guy made a choice. A union can't stop you from getting a part time job outside the union or from volunteering. Even if he worked extra hours for free they couldn't file a grievance for him unless he asked them to, now someone else could grieve those hours if it is union work, or the union could file a policy grievance, but unless they are physically restraining him from being able to volunteer I think it's more accurate to say that employee made a choice.

You say he is literally standing there watching someone else do the work, if that's the case I would ask what is he doing standing there? Is he doing his actual job instead of going and working for free? If his union influenced him to do that I'd say he's probably gonna be pretty thankful in the end. And when he gets his paycheque he'll probably be asking himself what he was thinking by volunteering hours when he had paid work to do instead.

Edit: Saw that you clarified he was still working in a later post

[RubberDuck]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Two people doing the work of one to the detriment of the company. A union zealot's wet dream, right there.

Pffft...companies can afford to pay three workers to do the work of one. It's just less cash for the managers and owners to roll around in.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Two people doing the work of one to the detriment of the company. A union zealot's wet dream, right there.

That's not what his original post described. He said he was volunteering his own time. That means unpaid. That's not something a union can allow a precedent to be set on because other workers will then be expected to volunteer too.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The person volunteered to do the work but is still being paid for the time as a salaried employee, now they will be paid to stand there and watch someone else do the work. Doesn't surprise me that you think that's a good thing though.

Why is he or she just standing there? That's bad management, not a bad union.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The person volunteered to do the work but is still being paid for the time as a salaried employee, now they will be paid to stand there and watch someone else do the work. Doesn't surprise me that you think that's a good thing though.

Can you give specifics on what kind of work was involved here? I'd hate to make any assumptions on this incident, but without anymore details it sounds like that company allowed themselves to get played