Originally Posted by
Crazy Canuck
Nevets, here is my problem with unions. Of course they have their place, but when did we decide that workers could dictate to their employers terms and conditions?
I prefer a company that wants to take care of their employees so that you don't need a union. That may change for us in the future, and many feel it already has. That is fine. But for me it's not there yet, granted I am new. It seems like every time you come here it's to argue about how we are at fault for not having a union.
I have been unionized, and I have watched as the lazy and the incompetent held and kept their jobs when they absolutely should have been fired.
Just my 2 cents
There are certain things that will always be management's rights. That's why there is an employee handbook and a Flight Operations Manual. But everyone dictates their terms and conditions. Even you to a small extent. When you are offered a job, you either negotiate your terms, conditions, benefits, fringe benefits, etc. Or if you are joining a unionized group, you agree to the employment contract or don't take the job. In your case, you take the terms and conditions that already exists as well. But it's not a contract, much less an enforceable contract. They just change your terms when it's convenient to them without making you whole, by changing the terms you originally agreed to. Having a contract that BOTH parties previously agreed to abide by is not dictating to employers.
It's no different if they tried to change the terms of your senior executive's employment contract. And if they want to "fire" one of them, they will negotiate a buyout. As for lazy and incompetent people, yes, that is a downside. But there is something to be said about having a neutral third party (arbitrator) deciding whether you were fired fairly, ie incompetence or negligence. Ask about DD to get an idea of the value in that.