News   Jul 08, 2024
 251     0 
News   Jul 08, 2024
 604     0 
News   Jul 05, 2024
 3.2K     0 

Unions!

There is TTC employee a young guy who comes to our store sometimes and he always says their are many senior employees who have pointlessly yelled at people, abandoned their posts (for no reason), take 2-3 hour long breaks and the unions protects them even though they have been fired by management many times.


That is what Unions do now...
 
"Seniority" is now a word that is almost despised in some circles... and often for good reason.
 
This thread is filled will people that make grotesque generalizations and pass steaming piles of dookie off as fact.

It is very entertaining to read posts by people that are on the outside of a subject.
 
It is very entertaining to read posts by people that are on the outside of a subject.

O RLY?

"Of course, for the workers the union is often a net benefit despite this, no question. But there's no way you're going to convince me that a workplace which values seniority over all else is going to be as productive as one that tries to reward performance."

This above quote from someone else on this board does point out the true beyond moronic union rule that I hate with a passion. Senority. You can get a position if you have the senority. Nothing to do with attendance, work performance and so on.

I'm a union person and support them but this sort of thing is certainly one that pisses off people to no end and doesn't make an ounce of sense in my book. It's not based in reality. It needs to change.

I really think that union members not coming to work on time or performing up to par should either be penalized through suspensions or face a reduction in pay within the workplace. You sign unto the position with the understanding that if you don't perform, you face penalties.

Make $19/hr but always late and goof on the job, fine. After several warnings and getting nowhere we'l drop your hourly rate down a few dollars/hr for a period of time until you get the message.

And it's true.... I see daily the people who get away with murder and they're untouchable. There needs to be accountability and having inviduals face the music when they come to work and expect to do nothing.

And that's from a union man. Also, Keithz works directly with public unions (or are you in a Union, Keithz?). I mean, do you have to work for a union to have an opinion on them?

This thread is filled will people that make grotesque generalizations and pass steaming piles of dookie off as fact.

Is that your counter-argument? That's actually the biggest gerneraliztion in this thread.
 
Last edited:
I've worked in three different unions. Like anywhere, if you screw up, you get fired. To say that a worker is untouchable because they are in a union, is in fact, a steaming pile of dookie. The same arguement could be made that workers in the private sector can get away with murder. Bottom line, if I don't perform, I get fired, union or not.

I know people that work in the private sector, and they tell me things that make my jaw drop in regards to their ability to do two hours of work a day, and get paid for a full day.

Seniority is very important. The only way that it is argued otherwise is to say slackers with seniority get away with murder. I argue that a worker that slacks get fired, or laid-off. I've seen it happen and I see it happen everyday. That just leaves a pool of hard working people that can feel safe about their job being there in a tough time because of their seniority.
 
^ If unions didn't make it more difficult for a company to fire their workers, then they wouldn't be doing their jobs very well, would they?

I've worked in three different unions. Like anywhere, if you screw up, you get fired. To say that a worker is untouchable because they are in a union, is in fact, a steaming pile of dookie. The same arguement could be made that workers in the private sector can get away with murder. Bottom line, if I don't perform, I get fired, union or not.

I believe this to be the case many unionized places, sure. But as tkip has said, he has seen different situations, which I also believe can exist. I, nor anyone else here is trying to say that unions are inherently bad, lazy and corrupt, just that in some situations they can create structures which make for a work environment that does not encourage workers to feel the need to push themselves. There are situations created where there is no reward for particularity hard work. This is probably not even the norm, but it can happen.

Union workers are protected, sometimes to an extent where workers take advantage of that protection and become less concerned about their job performance than they would be otherwise. It's just human nature. It happens outside of unions, too.

To say that a worker is untouchable
The only way that it is argued otherwise is to say slackers with seniority get away with murder.

The only person who said anything like this is tkip who works in a union, and is speaking from first hand experience at his workplace, which is obviously different from yours. Do you not believe such a situation is possible?

More to the point, the main beef here is with the public sector unions. I don't know a whole lot about private unions, how they're run, what the work environment is like, and I don't frankly care, that's their business.
Abuses and entitlement in the public sector does seem to be a problem to many people, however. It's a public issue, so don't tell me I'm on the outside looking in. This is my pubic service, and I have to pay for it by law, so I'm going to have an opinion.
 
Last edited:
I believe it would be wise for everybody including myself to be very specific to which union and employers they are refering to in their posts.

For the record, I have worked as a member of the USW, CAW, and the IBEW. I have immediate family that are members of CUPE as hospital workers that have been deemed essential services. As well as many relatives and close friends that are in unions, public and private.

I have also worked for many non-union companys in the service, auto, and manufacturing industries. I feel like I can speak strongly on both sides of this arguement. There are several reasons why I am very pro-union, only one of those reasons is salary and benefit related.
 
I once worked in a government office, and the amount of slacking there was just legendary. There was one guy who would always walk in at least an hour late, and he'd spend most of the day with his feet up on the desk and the daily crossword in hand. If it wasn't the crossword, it was Minesweeper. He'd do this in plain sight of everyone. How doing nothing all day isn't grounds for dismissal is beyond me.

My sister had a summer job in a government office last year, and upon her arrival she was told by her fellow workers "don't work too hard" because it'd make them look bad. Now of course not all union workplaces have such a slacktastic culture, but I don't think people would be able to get away with this attitude if they didn't feel absolutely secure in their positions. It's just very very hard to fire anyone. At best they get shuffled to another department, unless you are talking gross incompetence causing national scandal played out on the media.
 
I've worked in three different unions. Like anywhere, if you screw up, you get fired. To say that a worker is untouchable because they are in a union, is in fact, a steaming pile of dookie. The same arguement could be made that workers in the private sector can get away with murder. Bottom line, if I don't perform, I get fired, union or not.

That hasn't been my experience... I was part of a union as well and I've seen the supervisor have to accomodate really lazy workers, giving them the easiest and most relaxing position on the production line because they can't be fired. All workers are supposed to rotate position after each break so that it is fair for everyone, but the lazy workers don't rotate position.
 
I believe it would be wise for everybody including myself to be very specific to which union and employers they are refering to in their posts.

For the record, I have worked as a member of the USW, CAW, and the IBEW. I have immediate family that are members of CUPE as hospital workers that have been deemed essential services. As well as many relatives and close friends that are in unions, public and private.

I have also worked for many non-union companys in the service, auto, and manufacturing industries. I feel like I can speak strongly on both sides of this arguement. There are several reasons why I am very pro-union, only one of those reasons is salary and benefit related.

Sounds fair. I'm sure many enjoy the union environment, and I'm not going to try and tell you you shouldn't. Although it seems to me you're very defensive as to almost any criticism of unions, which is odd. They're not a panacea, they have flaws.

Please don't think what's going on in this thread is straight union-bashing. From what I can tell most, if not all, people here see important roles for unions. I don't hate unions on principle, and I would fully support the further unionization of certain industries. For example, I think the SEIU is doing a great service in some of the "underclass" industries where workers are often paid minimum wage or just above. These people could use some help and organization.

I don't think anyone wants to see workers abused, or the poor stay poor, but what gets this thread going is when OPSEU and their ilk start going on about "fairness" for themselves, when they already have jobs which afford them very comfortable lives. Just because you want it, doesn't mean it's unfair if you don't get it.

What makes this the most frustrating is that there is seemingly no mechanism to prevent their demands from being met. As I stated in an earlier post, many public workers used to be paid slightly less than their private equivalents due to the strong benefits they received. Over the last generation or so they've manged to keep the benefits and have their wages sometimes more than quadruple over the private sector while their workload has not changed. This is what happens when there's no counterweight. They're the only union allowed to do this work, and their employer has the means to jail people who don't give them the money it demands. A feeling of powerlessness sinks in, and then Mike Harris (or similar) gets elected. This is a system totally different from the private realm, union or not.

In summary it is this broken "negotiating" system which I get upset with, not unions alone (although I find some aspects of even private unions...counterintuitive, I really don't care what they do). In the public realm, there is little real negotiation. The union knows that the government can get the money if they're squeezed enough, and the union has nothing to lose but a reduction down to strike pay for a few weeks in order to squeeze. Eventually it will go to arbitration, and the only people who suffer are the ones who have to live around the strike, and then pay for the increased benefits when tax time comes. Which is everyone outside the public union. Government is not some massive corporation from which the workers are only trying to get a fair slice of the pie, it's a not-for-profit run for the good of all. It sucks to see it abused for the benefit of some who already have more benefits and privileges than most. These guys go after Bob Rae (circa 1990) and David Miller, for crying out loud. They know nothing but "get more", anyone in their way becomes the bad guy, no matter how pro-union they are. And when will it end? What will stop them being paid more and more than those who pay them? Unless a structural change is made, it won't. It is set up to reach this conclusion.

Ok, I'm going in circles now. No more of this thread.
 
Last edited:
I've worked in three different unions. Like anywhere, if you screw up, you get fired. To say that a worker is untouchable because they are in a union, is in fact, a steaming pile of dookie. The same arguement could be made that workers in the private sector can get away with murder. Bottom line, if I don't perform, I get fired, union or not.


From Macleans:
What it took for one Ontario principal to rid her school of an incompetent teacher is a process she’s not fond of revisiting. It began in September 2007, when she inherited a teacher whose performance was already under review. Despite a file thick with evidence of inadequacy, the principal helped draft an “improvement planâ€â€”a requirement in the provincial Education Act—and dipped into school funds to pay for substitutes while the struggling teacher attended workshops. But, says the junior school principal, it soon emerged that there was “a serious, basic problem of not understandingâ€â€”which continued even after the teacher knew she was under review. Students shuffled through reading levels without proof of assessment. Parents complained about spelling test words that weren’t sent home. And the teacher submitted grades for computer class when, in fact, her “inability to use technology†meant the monitors “were rarely turned on,†says the principal. Still, it took months of paperwork and meetings with union representatives before she was able to inch even one step closer to dismissal. “It was very upsetting,†she says. “I wouldn’t choose to do it again unless I absolutely had to.â€

Inadequate teaching has been shown to contribute to dropout rates, low test scores and a dislike for school. So severe are the implications, says Brendan Menuey, an assistant principal in Virginia, that poor teaching is tantamount to “educational malpractice.†Yet in Canada, teacher incompetence prompts so few administrators to pursue termination that the Ontario principal insisted that not even the name of her school board be published, because it would almost certainly identify her. According to Barrie Bennett, a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, the dismissal process is so onerous, the risk of reprisal from teachers’ unions so great, that “most principals find it’s not worth the effort.†Instead, they approve transfers, or hide struggling teachers where their deficiencies can go unnoticed. The result however, is this: a system that keeps incompetent teachers in the classroom.

The fact that more bad teachers aren’t being fired is “a problem that nobody wants to talk about,†says Menuey, who authored a 2007 study on the subject. Despite research indicating that about five per cent of every workforce is incompetent, he uncovered a truth about his district he describes as “scandalousâ€: less than one-tenth of one per cent of tenured teachers were being dismissed annually for poor performance. When viewed through this lens, the Canadian numbers are even more damning. Of the roughly 200,000 educators licensed by the Ontario College of Teachers to teach, only 27 have been terminated due to poor performance since 2004—an annual average of just 0.002 per cent. In the past five years, not a single permanent teacher has been dismissed for incompetence in the largest school boards in Montreal and Winnipeg; Saskatoon Public Schools has terminated just one; and in Edmonton Public Schools, says a spokeswoman, “very few if any†have been let go.

While a report of sexual or physical abuse is clearly grounds for disciplinary action (as well as a police investigation), what constitutes teacher incompetence can be somewhat fuzzy. As a teacher, Menuey says he had a colleague who gave “no grades at all.†When filling out report cards, this teacher would ask around to determine what grades each student had earned in other subjects, and “give them the same,†he says. While working for Edmonton Public Schools, Bennett once offered support to a teacher who would ask his unruly students to choose between the classroom and the hall. “Sometimes, I’d come to his classroom and there would be 10, 11 kids out in the hallway,†he says.

In most provinces, teacher incompetence isn’t formally defined. Yet long before termination is even a possibility, principals must document alleged instances of incompetence, often for the better part of a year. “It’s very labour-intensive and time-consuming,†says the Ontario principal. “You have to be meticulous or the union will grieve you.†Although the teacher in this case left before she could be formally fired, the principal says a grievance remains a possibility. But if inadequate teachers are being overlooked, says Frank Bruseker, president of the Alberta Teachers’ Association, it’s not the unions that are to blame. “The school boards and the principals need to step up the plate,†says Bruseker. “To simply say, ‘We’re not doing our job because we’re scared of the unions,’ says to me that they’re abrogating their responsibility. If we’re talking about incompetence, maybe they should be looking in the mirror.â€

However, as educators are quick to point out, low dismissal rates don’t necessarily mean that bad teachers aren’t being ushered out of the classroom. In the Halifax Regional School Board (HRSB), where six teachers have been terminated in the last five years for either professional misconduct or incompetence, an additional 33 have resigned or been removed from lists of approved substitutes and those under consideration for future contracts. And according to Mike Christie, director of human resources at the HRSB, “self-screening†is a significant safeguard that these numbers don’t reveal. “Teachers have got a tough crowd in those kids,†says Christie. Many of those who are struggling simply “take themselves out of the profession,†he says.

Still, teachers are well aware that being bad at their jobs will rarely earn them their walking papers. As part of his study, Menuey asked teachers to rank a list of 19 strategies that administrators use to deal with incompetence. They identified “voluntary transfer to another school†as the most prevalent. Dismissal, meanwhile, was ranked 14th. “We all knowingly play this game,†says Menuey. “I believe passionately that we need to get rid of these folks, but I’ll be honest, because of the time and the difficulty in getting what you need, I’m inclined, when [another] principal calls me, to just say, ‘She’s a fabulous teacher.’ †This practice, dubbed “passing the trash,†is hardly news to Bennett. He says “writing an okay reference letter†to get rid of an incompetent educator is endemic “at all levels. It’s not just teachers in classrooms—it’s principals in schools, it’s central office people too.â€

Other strategies are similarly problematic. According to a teacher in Ottawa’s French Catholic board, when one of his colleagues couldn’t cut it this year, the school “purposely gave her the most difficult classroom.†Within months, he says, she “burnt out,†and is currently on medical leave. (Virginia teachers also ranked “increased workload to encourage teacher resignation†above termination.) Oftentimes, Menuey says shuffling inadequate teachers to another class is an attempt to give them students “whose parents won’t pitch a fitâ€â€”though these are typically the kids who stand to gain the most from quality instruction. More disconcerting still is something the teachers came up with themselves. The highest ranked write-in tactic on Menuey’s survey: “ignore the problem.â€

Not all struggling teachers are beyond help. For some, observing more experienced colleagues or learning to better manage students is all it takes to spark improvement. To that end, many administrators are more than willing to offer every support available, which, in many school boards, is a lot. As Menuey explains, “We believe that all kids can be successful, and we believe that all teachers can be successful.†But in some cases, this culture of acceptance may be blurring the line between effective remediation and a fruitless pursuit. Even the Ontario principal, who ss she “had no choice†but to go through with dismissal, expresses a palpable discomfort: “We’re educators. We’re not trained to fire people.†However, when incompetent educators are left to teach, whether in a roomful of difficult Grade 5 students, or hidden in the school’s art department, it’s kids who pay the ultimate price.
 
What???

At my mom's work about 4 years ago, a worker came to work drunk was fired.

The Union threatened Job Action (well because he was a leader of the union) and well he is still there. :D


That's unions my friends.


I am not saying everyone in a union is bad. Not at all, its the leadership and they way they protect the people who deserve to be working at Mcdonalds.
 
What's often struck me as strange is the lack of imagination on the part of public sector unions when it comes to labour actions. Why not work-to-rule instead of striking? At least then you might win some public sympathy. For example, what if TTC operators covered the farebox or trash collectors only collected trash and not recyclables. Doesn't that send the message without significantly inconveniencing the public? At least if they didn't collect fares, for example, they'd be targeting their employer, not the public.
 
my thoughts exactly. a strike should be a last resort in extreme circumstances. I guess the GW Bush ideology of "pre-emptive strike" is still the option of choice...
 

Back
Top