Union Busting in Wisconsin

[Scotty]

People sleeping on the job isn't just cause?

How often? For what reason? How long have they worked there? There are a variety of factors involved. I wouldn't automatically fire anyone for falling asleep on the job.

[BubberMiley]

Then such a protocol would apply to you as well. I have always maintained that you are irrelevant when it comes to the USA (and now Canada too it seems)...thank you for confirming that.

I never base my arguments on my personal citizenship, employment, or education.

When backed into a corner, you always do.

[bush_cheney2004]

I never base my arguments on my personal citizenship, employment, or education.

When backed into a corner, you always do.

My citizenship, employment, and education are a matter of public record. Your opinion does not change this one iota.

[Scotty]

Public unions know no bounds because they think that the government has an endless supply of money. We simply cannot afford to continue to raise taxes forever.

Taxes are raised because new programs are implimented. That's not decided by unions, though of course, unionized workers do implement the programs. If you don't want taxes to go up, then stop bringing in new programs, and cut some of the wasteful ones. Every level of government has tons of those.

Plus unionized workers don't have to work and there's nothing anyone can do about it. These people cannot be fired.

Idiotic statements. If unionized workers didn't have to work then, for the most part, they wouldn't. Yet clearly, they do.

As for being fired, the complexity of the firing and disciplinary process is almost always the result of the employer's decisions and policies, which are guided by lawyers. Any time a lawyer decides a process, especially in conjunction with the idiots who make up HR departments you're going to get a very complex and time-consuming system.

[BubberMiley]

My citizenship, employment, and education are a matter of public record.

Really? Can you direct me to these records? I have a feeling they'll just be anonymous ramblings though.

[Scotty]

So your saying that a manager or whomever is in charge of such things can fire a member of a public sector union like they can a private employee? That just isn't true.

The only difference between an employer's ability to fire a unionized employee and the private sector's ability to fire one of their employees is that the unionized employee has someone there to back him up if the firing is unjustified according to law. For the private sector employee, recourse to the courts is normally prohibitively expensive, so he's screwed.

But in theory, private sector workers have the same rights with regard to the termination of their employment as unionized employees. They just have no one to see to the enforcement of those rights.

[bush_cheney2004]

Really? Can you direct me to these records? I have a feeling they'll just be anonymous ramblings though.

Here ya go...just another American web site for you to drool over:

http://2010.census.gov

[BubberMiley]

Just as I thought---no one listed there named "BushCheney_2004."

I guess I'll just have to continue to "(not) trust but verify."

[bush_cheney2004]

Just as I thought---no one listed there named "BushCheney_2004."

I guess I'll just have to continue to "(not) trust but verify."

I don't care if you lay, stay, or pray.

(C'mon...name the movie where that quote came from....it'...ummm....American...I know you can do it....use Google like you always do!)

[bloodyminded]

I don't care if you lay, stay, or pray.

(C'mon...name the movie where that quote came from....it'...ummm....American...I know you can do it....use Google like you always do!)

Yes, that's a fun game; like your assertion that mean ol' lefties were calling you a "babykiller" because of your military service...well, that never happened, BC. That's a self-indulgent fiction. You made it up.

But I enjoyed First Blood, too! That Stallone, eh?

(BTW, Glenn Beck beat you to it on that one; pretending that what happened in that movie was an actual event he knew of personally.)

Support the troops!

[Shady]

The only difference between an employer's ability to fire a unionized employee and the private sector's ability to fire one of their employees is that the unionized employee has someone there to back him up if the firing is unjustified according to law. For the private sector employee, recourse to the courts is normally prohibitively expensive, so he's screwed.

But in theory, private sector workers have the same rights with regard to the termination of their employment as unionized employees. They just have no one to see to the enforcement of those rights.

Complete nonsense. Just google "rubber rooms" to see how public workers leetch the system.

[Scotty]

Complete nonsense. Just google "rubber rooms" to see how public workers leetch the system.

Wow. Amazing example of bureaucratic incompetence.

Not the union's fault, though.

You'll note where it said

In some cases, teachers have been known to wait for three years before they are told what they are alleged to have done wrong.

So the teachers are alleged to have done something wrong, removed from the classroom, and ordered to go to this place instead and do nothing, while the employer slowly, slowly, slowly tries to figure out what misdeeds they want to charge the teacher with and what support there is to punish or remove them. And you blame that on the union?

As I said, long, arcane processes for disciplining or removing bad employees are invariably the fault of the employer.

Now, of course, if this was the private sector, they could simply fire the teacher. But they need just cause or the teacher can sue them. And since the employer knows whatever cause they have is going to be scrutinized by the union they're being very, very careful to get all their ducks in a row and have them all reviewed - probably multiple times - by lawyers. Again, that's the fault of management incompetence, not the union.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Scotty

[punked]

The Republicans have now decided that the Democrats aren't allowed to vote any more in the Senate. At this point it is half a step away from a dictatorship. The sooner the recalls the better for Democracy in the States.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Republicans have now decided that the Democrats aren't allowed to vote any more in the Senate. At this point it is half a step away from a dictatorship. The sooner the recalls the better for Democracy in the States.

Next time read the fine print....the United States is not a pure "Democracy".

[Pliny]

Your claim was that unionized workers don't have to work, AND that they can't be fired. Anyone that isn't a simple ideologue knows that both claims are obviously untrue.

Even in the most protective agreements, an employee can be fired for just cause. More often than not, the limiting factor is management's will to do so. Not the union itself.

yep. Management's will. They just don't have forever to waste. So you just leave those union guys who don't, won't or can't work alone. It would be more effcient to let them do crossword puzzles all day.

There are those that pull up the slack and you can work with them, the majority really.

[bush_cheney2004]

yep. Management's will. They just don't have forever to waste. So you just leave those union guys who don't, won't or can't work alone. It would be more effcient to let them do crossword puzzles all day.

There are those that pull up the slack and you can work with them, the majority really.

Very true....the union "brotherhood" will actually lean hard on any worker who outpaces the slackers, who are trying to force a big overtime payday. Seen it too many places....it's not rare.

[SF/PF]

yep. Management's will. They just don't have forever to waste. So you just leave those union guys who don't, won't or can't work alone. It would be more effcient to let them do crossword puzzles all day.

There are those that pull up the slack and you can work with them, the majority really.

Which is most of the problem. They decide for a while that "its not worth the trouble," and then when they try to go after a few people for legitimate reasons, the union says "whoa.. firing this guy is way out of line from the discipline you've meted out in the past to others. A little consistency is in order."

Basically, an abrogation of responsibility on the part of management that is blamed on the union.

[pinko]

Which is most of the problem. They decide for a while that "its not worth the trouble," and then when they try to go after a few people for legitimate reasons, the union says "whoa.. firing this guy is way out of line from the discipline you've meted out in the past to others. A little consistency is in order."

Basically, an abrogation of responsibility on the part of management that is blamed on the union.

I will agree that a union, by obligtion of law, must represent the interests of those covered by a collective agreement. This is known as the duty of fair representation and in Manitoba is framed in the following terms:

Duty of fair representation

20 Every bargaining agent which is a party to a collective agreement, and every person acting on behalf of the bargaining agent, which or who, in representing the rights of any employee under the collective agreement,

(a) in the case of the dismissal of the employee,

(i) acts in a manner which is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, or

(ii) fails to take reasonable care to represent the interests of the employee; or

( in any other case, acts in a manner which is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith;

commits an unfair labour practice.

Should the union be seen to have failed to fulfill such obligations it will find itself before the Labour Board to account for such conduct. Most unions have a fairly elaborate system of assessing the merits of a grievance in light of such provisions.

As has been noted by others lawyers are quite often involved in the more problematic cases.

Edited March 15, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

Here is a link addressing the duty of fair represenation and some of the history behind the development of the law.

http://www.caleywray.com/Libraries/Publications/A_Practical_Guide_To_The_Duty_Of_Fair_Representation.sflb.ashx

[pinko]

GRIEVANCES

As the exclusive bargaining agent, it is only the trade union that may file grievances under its

collective agreement with the employer. Unless expressly provided for in its constitution, a trade

union is not obliged to take every grievance to arbitration nor is it obliged to file a grievance

every time an employee so requests. It is undisputed that the union has the discretion whether or

11 Hemmings v. University of Saskatchewan, (2002) SKCA 96; unreported decision of the Court of Appeal

for Saskatchewan.

12 Hemmings, ibid , paragraph 20.

not to file a grievance, whether to proceed to arbitration with a grievance, and has the authority

to settle grievances. That is part of the function of being the certified bargaining agent.

[BubberMiley]

Seen it too many places....it's not rare.

No, it's beyond rare. Non-existent even. You must have just seen it in all those places you worked that didn't have unions.

[Pliny]

Which is most of the problem. They decide for a while that "its not worth the trouble," and then when they try to go after a few people for legitimate reasons, the union says "whoa.. firing this guy is way out of line from the discipline you've meted out in the past to others. A little consistency is in order."

Basically, an abrogation of responsibility on the part of management that is blamed on the union.

It depends upon what you consider cause and effect. Looking prior to unions, management determined what was cause for dismissal. The introduction of unions made the process difficult. The decision for dismissal of an employee now had to be weighed against the effort involved in doing so. It isn't an abrogation of responsibility it is a determination of effort versus gain. If an employee at least provides a minimum of expected production it may not be worth it to pursue dismissal but any change favouring action to terminate may upset the balance and a call for dismissal made.

Government tends to be least likely to pursue dismissal or termination of permanent employees because the cost is not determined by any profit/loss determination and government is large enough that it is easier to ship or transfer employees to other areas or by even limiting their obligations and work load if that proves to accomplish more in achieving objectives. Whatever works.

[Pliny]

Very true....the union "brotherhood" will actually lean hard on any worker who outpaces the slackers, who are trying to force a big overtime payday. Seen it too many places....it's not rare.

Well, I don't know about "forcing" big overtime paydays but most bright-eyed newcomers wishing to contribute have to be told to slow down in order to not make others look like slackers.

[Pliny]

No, it's beyond rare. Non-existent even. You must have just seen it in all those places you worked that didn't have unions.

It's quite common place really. A pace is set. Some union jobs, I imagine require a certain pace and expectation, such as assemblyline work, or any time sensitive work, such as at the post office. There certainly isn't any effort involved in wishing to surpass themselves in production. As long as the minimum is met that is all that is necessary, working too far above that minimum is frowned upon.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I don't know about "forcing" big overtime paydays but most bright-eyed newcomers wishing to contribute have to be told to slow down in order to not make others look like slackers.

It's not complicated....failing to meet output objectives during regular time is often "rewarded" with overtime, which the senior "brotherhood" has first shot at. At time-and-a-half or double time (triple time on holidays), union employees can pad their income quite well.

Anectdotally, my brother-in-law left a union telecom position (Quest Communications) because he was threatened over his "exuberant and too honest work ethic". I have personal experience with unionized workers in defense and automotive supplier plants, and some (not all) would milk the system just as I stated. For ratings sweeps week, a favorite local televison news story tactic is to spy on city, county, or state (unionized) workers for long breaks, inactivity, and dope smoking on the taxpayer's dime.