Certainly not everyone…just those who have a problem with our country’s national policy, those who believe that “the boss is always right,” (oh I’ll hear from that - I know he is still the boss) and those who believe in following all the rules all the time - you know, tightasses.
Is that “Society” accessible from this site?
I haven’t really seen anyone take the “boss is always right” stance. Just that the boss IS the boss and sometimes the bad employees need to be disciplined for the sake of the morale of other employess and the company. You appear to take the side that “the boss is always wrong”.
IMO, you give leeway to the good employees (because they’re gonna do the right thing anyway and really don’t need supervision), watch the mediocre employees (they’ll do good when watched, slack when not watched) and flat out can the bad employees (because they hurt productivity and kill morale). If you’re paying attention, it should be pretty clear who’s who.
I am not in management. I am a worker. My manager seems incapable of dealing with bad employees. She sends out e-mails to the ‘team’ about what to do in general rather than taking the offender to task for what only HE did. It royally irritates those of us (the overwhelming majority) who do the right thing. It always irritates good employees when they have to pick up the slack for a malcontent.
Sometimes management is right. But they have acted heinously in the past and occasionally still do.
Sometimes labor is right. They have acted heinously from time to time themselves though. It’s good that they organize to protect the ranks from ruthless people. But sometimes they protect incompetents and defend indefesible positions.
And you don’t want to be part of the society. Trust me on that.
[Sometimes management is right. But they have acted heinously in the past and occasionally still do.
Sometimes labor is right. They have acted heinously from time to time themselves though. It’s good that they organize to protect the ranks from ruthless people. But sometimes they protect incompetents and defend indefesible positions.
Exactly.
I administer several labor agreements and the union (any union) never requires management to live up to the letter of the agreement all the time.
I listen to all these tightasses talking about “fining” minimum wage workers for forgetting a name tag and how important it is to “follow the rules” and watching the workers on a fucking video
camera - well fuck em, if they want to, they can Bite me.
I don’t object to unions. I object to the way some unions choose to comport themselves. Mostly it’s the fault of the people in leadership, but sometimes the overall policies of the unions are annoying.
I’ve been forced to join one in one job, and it was a fucking joke. If you got me started about this, I’d never shut up but I will tell you that I would have no problem dedicating the rest of my professional life refuting their ridiculous, overblown, melodramatic claims about their working conditions and the bad faith of the employer.
I’ve also worked in a job where I desperately wished we had a union.
Try living in Texas.
Texas has an “open shop law.” This means, basically, that unions cannot apply any leverage against employers due to any employees in that shop being non-union.
This means unions have no leverage.
This means, effectively, there ARE no unions in Texas.
And the employers hold sway over all.
…which is, I suspect, why Texas has such an insane poverty problem…
Thanks for the cite - I was curious about the context, which was, for those interested, a section specifically exempting labor unions from antitrust legislation that might have otherwise been construed against the unions as price-fixing. The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce within the meaning of anti-trust and anti-price-fixing legislation.
Well I compare them to churches and believe that if you can’t support the leadership, well ok, but you need to support the movement.
At least with a union you can vote out the leadership. With piss-poor management, all you can do is support the union.
Quitting a union or bashing a union because of a negative experience is simply doing what you really wanted to do anyway -you just got yourself an excuse.
I never knew a Christian who quit being a Christian because he heard the pastor was screwing the choir.
Those “right to work laws” are especially prevalent in the South.
They were implemented/lobbied/whatever by big business to keep unions weak or to keep them out altogether.
However, when things get bad enough, a union will get voted in and the employees will support the union voluntarily.
Bricker:
“The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce within the meaning of anti-trust…”
True as written but obfusicates (spelling???) the point. It means that business cannot put labor in jail for negotiating wages. It means that the anti-trust statutes cannot be used against unons.
The “open shop law” in Texas means the employee has the option to join the union or not. The union is still obligated to represent the employee and anything less than a full representation in a grievance will have the NLRB on your ass in a heartbeat.
Well, there you go, a law that requires services but makes no provision for how those services will be funded.
Guess who thought that one up? I bet it wasn’t a union.
county— Spoken like a true union rep. A leech that doesn’t give fuck about the working man but only his own ass.
Where the fuck did that come from? What are you talking about?
Open shop makes an attempt at least to hold the union accountable to it’s members for there actions. Closed shop merely propagates the union. No matter how corrupt and useless they are.
Actually, business cannot “put labor in jail” for anything – business is not the government. What the statute means is that business cannot pursue civil remedies against labor unions on the basis of the antitrust laws, nor can the government agencies responsible for enforcing those laws seek administrative or judicial enforcement of the antitrust laws against labor unions.
And, more importantly, that’s all it means. It just proscribes one possible method of breaking a union. The existence of that statute does not mean that labor unions are a good idea, or that collective bargaining is a “national policy” – the statues say that the right of workers to pursue collective bargaining is in the national interest. The law is agnostic on the question of whether or not a union is a good idea for every set of workers in every possible circumstance.
FTR, here are the statutes county is referencing:
And before you call me a “tightass” and tell me to bite you, save your breath. I’m a lawyer. I’m paid to be a tightass. To me, it’s a compliment.
First - union’s don’t just materialize - they were/are voted on - sometimes they are voted in, sometimes not, but there is an election where the employees get to decide.
Open Shop has nothing to do with accountability - it just means you don’t have to join the union. Accountability is maintained by laws and the democratic process - vote them out if you don’t like your leaders.
Also, despite the lawyer’s moronic statement to the contrary, collective bargaining is the national policy of this country. Just like murdering people isn’t.
Oh yeah, Read Neck, if you want to, Bite me.
Truer words were never spoken…
Ummm… let me guess… bite you?
Don’t forget “tightass”!
Accept bargaining or else.
Erm, can anyone else see a slight contradiction in this stance?