Things that make you go, hmmmmmmmm
POSTED BY: FutureMrsFIllion
UPDATED: Thursday, May 10, 2007 20:25
VIEWED: 6841
PAGE 4 of 5
"The fact is, they have way better benefits than private industry usually offers, way more days off per year, can't be fired (cuz of the union), and that's why everyone wants to work for the state. They do not at all resemble your "proud to be one of the faceless bureaucrats who make our government work" folks."
Uhm ... private employees would get way better benefits if they would unionize more. Why do you begrudge the unionized their benefits instead of saying to yourself - damn! maybe I should be unionized and get that, too !
Also, it's not true that you 'can’t fire' someone who's in the union. As a union steward we've had people fired. Just because it can't be capricious and arbitrary doesn't mean it can't happen.
The heyday of the working middle class - the mid 50's to mid 60's - was also the heyday of unions. As unions started to decline in private industry, so did benefits. But even with that you still owe a lot to unions today. Unions got the 40 hour work-week and other important safety items, benefits and work rules.
So unions aren’t the issue, just your perception of them.
I agree that managers, and even higher, are the biggest determinant of how a place functions. King-Drew (county hospital) is one example of the worst. But the culture of corruption and incompetence comes all the way from the top. OTOH the mega-county hospital I used to work at was an example of the best - hard work and competence by dedicated, and unionized, professionals.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Absolutely, problems above managers telescope down at the lower levels. I also agree, anyone who complains about union benefits should unionize themselves to get the benefits.
We have an example of the manager-divide with our kids. Our son is in 1st grade at one elementary school and our daughter is in K at another elementary school. Both are public schools (our daughter is in a French Immersion program) in the same county (which has an excellent school system).
My son's school has a brilliant principal, vice principal, and excellent support staff (encouraged by the principal and vice principal). We have 100% confidence in this school as they are responsive and are really dedicated to providing quality education to all of their kids.
My daughter's school has a new principal and vice principal and a mediocre support staff (disconnected from the new leadership). We have far less confidence in this school as they are not responsive, more than a little disorganized, and the leadership is honestly overwhelmed. Still this school has some cool stuff a French immersion program, a number of neat events, and all that, but the poor leadership at the top is so obvious to us with our son in another elementary school.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As a union steward.
That explains alot about your pro union stance. I wish you hadn't wrote that. Is it possible for you to be objective? It's a yes or no question. Say yes and I'll believe you
Quote:
So unions aren’t the issue, just your perception of them.
Probably, but I've never seen anything but corruption nepotism, etc etc from the unions I've observed. These unions are: The Longshoreman, Boeing Machinists, Whatever union Medicare workers belong to, and the California State Workers.
And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I am objective about unions. I've worked in both types of places. The unionized are by far the better places to work in terms of basic fairness. Out of my very long work-life (spanning too many decades for me to want to tell) I've only been a steward over the last 8 years. That's long enough to negotiate three contracts and handle many grievances and disciplinary appeals. Our union prides itself on not filing frivolous grievances or supporting unjust causes. But having sat across from management and watching their machinations parade in front of me, I can understand how, in a very specific way, unionized people fare better than non-unionized.
As for your observations, I can't address them as I've never seen it. Perhaps the unions I've belonged to are either too large to be manipulated that way, or too small to be of interest.
As for poor work performance, as I said before, I don't attribute that to unions, but inept management. (As I have been made proud to work in several unionized places and ashamed to work in some non-unionized ones.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As for poor work performance, as I said before, I don't attribute that to unions, but inept management. (As I have been made proud to work in several unionized places and ashamed to work in some non-unionized ones.)
Just thought I'd comment on this, I was contracting at a paper mill a little while ago and I forget how it came up, but there was some guys sitting around not working and I mentioned the possibility of getting fired, their response was "Oh we won't get fired, this is a union job".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I suppose I'll also mention that my dad used to manage union workers, and he says that he frequently had underperforming workers that he couldn't do anything about because they didn't want to do their jobs but the union wouldn't let him fire them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You'll find protected under-performers everywhere, and not just in union jobs. Why else do you think non-unionized places have the rep that the only way to get ahead is to seriously kiss ass?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Our union prides itself on not filing frivolous grievances or supporting unjust causes.
Based on that alone, your union is not like the CA state workers, Boeing Machinists, or the Longshoreman. So maybe I'm just hearing for the first time about a functional labor union. I'm going to make a guess...the Nurses union?...don't acknowlege if that's too personal
Quote:
But having sat across from management and watching their machinations parade in front of me, I can understand how, in a very specific way, unionized people fare better than non-unionized.
Being in management has an insidious dark side that can creep up around you. They are under intense pressure and vulnerable to all the trappings of power we humans often don't handle well. So you have a point. Be that as it may... someone still has to be the Manager
Quote:
As for poor work performance, as I said before, I don't attribute that to unions, but inept management. (As I have been made proud to work in several unionized places and ashamed to work in some non-unionized ones.
Looks like Management will probably continue to blame Unions, and visa versa. I guess it all comes down to which side of the table you're on.
Sorry to all for the diversion into Union Vs Non Union, I think we were talking about whether or not folks should be buying pharmaceuticals from Mexico and Canada.
And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, not too personal - it's a small professioanl union of engineers and scientists, has a few hundred members. Though I did belong to CSEA way back when when I worked at a county hospital - another union where a person I worked with was fired for good cause btw. That's what I meant by unions either too small or too large. I've been in both and neither was corrupt.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You'll find protected under-performers everywhere, and not just in union jobs. Why else do you think non-unionized places have the rep that the only way to get ahead is to seriously kiss ass?
Granted, but in a union job you don't even need to kiss ass to be protected, it's automatic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME