Ohio Business Owner Shot For Being Non-Union, Police Investigating
With around 25 employees, John King owns one of the largest non-union electrical contracting businesses in the Toledo, Ohio area. As a non-union contractor, his business happens to be doing well at a time when unions in the construction industry are suffering. This, it seems, has made the usual animosity unions have for him even greater, making him a prime target of union thugs. So much so, that one of them tried to kill him last week at his home.
Much more at the link, including the union’s long history of harassing and threatening John King, and also a news video.
August 18th, 2011 6:44 pm
How does this example of silly, foolish, and inexcusable violence have anything to do with card check?
August 18th, 2011 8:07 pm
Oh don’t be silly we are not thugs. Some individuals are but not the whole. There were a lot of mob roots in the union a long time ago but that’s ancient history. Unions represent about 11 percent of the american work force so its not like we are that big a deal.
Who knows? Perhaps one day apu will unionize! You. Would make a great steward. Turn to the darkside! Its not that bad!
August 18th, 2011 9:54 pm
Card check was always about giving license to unions to apply INDIVIDUAL PRESSURE to people to vote for the union, instead of allowing confidential, anonymous voting to decide whether or not a business should unionize. What this story shows is that unions have a history AND current willingness to intimidate and harass and threaten to get their way. And it isn’t about only a single incident. Read the article. It goes WAY back for that union in that town abusing that employer.
There has never been a decent explanation of why card check is in any way a good thing, instead of confidential, private voting.
Of course all union members don’t do this. But the people who directly work for some of the union bosses DO. Does anyone want to pretend this isn’t a pretty common thing? Sure, everyone doesn’t do it. But WAY too many do. On the other hand, can you find a story of an employer threatening individuals to vote particular ways in balloting to decide whether or not to unionize? Of course not… because no employer will know how any employee voted. And THAT’s the point.
August 19th, 2011 9:16 pm
Read through some NLRB cases. If you seriously don’t think that employers don’t threaten their employees when the prospect of unionization comes up, I have no idea what to tell you. There is an entire union-busting industry that teaches exactly how to do such threats – both legally and illegally. I have personally observed employer intimidation tactics.
An American Rights at Work analysis found that “in 46% of NLRB-supervised union elections, workers report employer lawlessness both before and during the election.” (source: http://tinyurl.com/46du97). Hell…40% of workplaces who ask for union elections never even get them!
And more (http://tinyurl.com/cbj5vy):
August 20th, 2011 12:03 pm
Dave,
I don’t doubt that employers and unions (and wanna be union organizers) have used bad tactics against each other. I get that. I’m not saying employers are all angels.
My point was far more specific than that. I said, “…can you find a story of an employer threatening individuals to vote particular ways in balloting to decide whether or not to unionize?”
In order for an employer to threaten INDIVIDUALS who voted against the employer, the employer would have to have a way of knowing exactly which employees voted which way. Because of confidential, anonymous voting, no employer can ever know that. So while an employer may issue warnings of general responses to unionization (cuts in hours, fewer jobs, reduced wages, whatever), in the current regime, an employer has no way of retaliating directly against an individual who wishes to keep his or her vote secret.
I think you can’t find an instance of an employer threatening or retaliating in some way against an employee who did not “out” himself as one who voted for unionizing.
BTW…. I suspect that most of these “spontaneous unionization efforts” are actually NOT local grass roots efforts, but are instead the product of out-of-town (often out-of-STATE) forces coming in and trying to convince local employees that they should unionize.
NLRB exists to support unions…. NLRB’s history reveals that pretty clearly. It exists to FIND and DOCUMENT “employer abuse of employees” and its reason for existence is to do exactly that. It is not exactly an “impartial observer”.
On the theory that unions abuse their power as often as employers abuse theirs (no angels here, right?), NLRB should be documenting UNION abuse of power as much as employer abuse of power. Does it?
Here are some links I recommend:
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/labor/reforming-labor-union-laws
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-35.html
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/76501
NRLB is in many ways a direct arm of the union industry… and make not mistake about it, unions themselves ARE an industry.
To the main point: the behavior of the person who shot John King in the incident reported here was possible because he knew and could target John King. What if unions knew and could target all the people who voted against them?
It’s pretty obvious what would happen.
Unions are an idea whose time has mostly come and gone. I don’t mind their continued existence, I guess… but they are largely responsible for the destruction of American industry. They got what they wanted so successfully that they put their employers out of business, all too often.
Something like that is happening with public employee unions as well, which are busy contributing to the bankruptcy of government at all levels. The money just isn’t there to support people who retire sooner than they really have to for physical or mental reasons, nor to provide lavish benefits that exceed what is available in most private sector jobs. There are a lot of working 70 yr olds right now, whose tax money is paying for the retirement of 55 yr olds from public sector jobs. Somehow, I never hear the left cry out about how unfair that is.
The state of Wisconsin is a model for what should be happening everywhere.
August 20th, 2011 12:15 pm
Anonymous or not employers shouldnt be allowed the union busting tactics they utilize. A fair vote implies that both sides have fair access to dialogue. And when one side holds the threat of termination in one hand and the promise of promotion in the other it dramatically unlevels the playing field. Its not so much about card check specifically, they just wants scales to tip more in favor of unions before they are wiped out altogether.
August 20th, 2011 12:44 pm
Do you have any experience with a union organizing effort? While it is true that an employer doesn’t necessarily know how an individual votes in a private ballot, that doesn’t mean that there is not serious threats and retaliation against those that they know are involved in organizing the union. Employees get fired ALL THE TIME for organizing their fellow employees.
I take it that you have ZERO experience with the NLRB. The NLRB sanctions both employers and unions, and for decades has leaned towards employers in their decisions. They are the exact definition of “impartial observer” and they are not, in anyway, an arm of the unions. Such an assertion simply has no basis in reality and demonstrates that you have never dealt with the NLRB.
The NLRB exists to protect the rights of employees AND employers.
Sure… it has nothing to do with the very, very cheap labor with zero regulations that the various manufacturing industries are able to access outside of this country.
Sure… except for the fact that public sector employees are actually compensated less than their private sector counterparts when you factor in things like education and experience.
Sure we do… that 70 year old should have a pension as well.
August 20th, 2011 12:45 pm
Yes.
August 20th, 2011 12:45 pm
As I said, I have no doubt both sides use questionable tactics. I work in a “non-union” shop, and I’m basically glad of that, although if I was a professor in a state university (with a union) I’d be making more money…. for less work.
On the other hand, the states are mostly going bankrupt, and public universities are having to raise prices and, to some small degree, react to the marketplace. Unions are a pretty new phenomena in economic and social history. It remains to be seen whether any union can have a long life-span without destroying its employer, or causing its employer to go elsewhere to do business. We’ll see…. but I have my doubts. The American auto industry, the American steel industry, even the computer manufacture industry, are all cases in point, not to mention nearly every state and local government, all of which are suffering, and all of which made essentially unsustainable deals with public employee unions… and don’t even get me started about public education unions.
Go back and read the history of unions, who started them, what their motivations and world-views were, what their long-term goals were, and ask yourself if they are people with whom you would choose to associate yourself now.
I understand that, working in a unionized situation, with both sides already predisposed to see each other as adversaries, it’s difficult to see any way of “backing out” of unionization and all it brings. There is simply no trust left.
But there are just enough examples of non-union shops with very happy employees and employers who are not in adversarial relationships to know that it’s possible, although those are rarely formerly unionized shops which have backtracked.
Read the links I posted in comment 5 for some of the history and philosophy.
Sadly, the most influential founding unionists in US history were mostly socialists, and not ashamed to say so…. and we all know where that leads, eventually.
August 20th, 2011 12:46 pm
As far as employers threatening employees yes they can. They hold remarkable sway, no they dont know who voted for what that is true but people dont magically take a side all at once. A move that big at a worksite needs alot of dialogue and lines are drawn in the process. Suddenly those saying the “right” things find themselves on really nice shifts, the most outspoken of which end up in managerial roles. Suddenly the opposing side turns inward as those feeling the pinch blame the union and support dwindles. I dont think the solution is removing card check, I think the dialogue needs to be moved outside the worksite as much as possible for a honest and true vote to take place.
Dont believe me? As an experiment try walking into a walmart with one of my union shirts on. I hear its alot of fun… 😛
August 20th, 2011 12:46 pm
Dave, can you show me stats on the frequency with which NLRB documents and prosecutes bad UNION behavior in comparison to how it does the same for bad employer behavior?
August 20th, 2011 12:55 pm
Anthony, what you report reflects the adversarial role between employer and employee that usually exists where there are unions. As I said, I doubt that it’s very easy or likely to “walk back the cat” once the lines are drawn.
Bottom line: unions protect bad employees. They do it all the time, everywhere and every-when. Employers know this. So the war is on. Everywhere there are unions, this happens.
Unions depress innovation and initiative, mostly. Unions encourage “time in grade” promotion instead of “excellence” promotion. And a dozen other things.
I understand there are unfair employers in the world. I have worked for them. I changed jobs. I got more education. Nothing is perfect, and all power is abused… it’s a matter of balance. UNION power is abused every bit as much as EMPLOYER power. And the battle lines are drawn.
Isn’t there a better way, in these enlightened days?
August 20th, 2011 1:06 pm
I did… they were just anti-union hit pieces. I know, very well, the history of unions and the labor movement. Reading a couple of things from right-wing anti-union think tanks aren’t going to convince me. It seems to me that your only perspectives on unions and the labor movement come from these right-wing sources. Do you have ANY experience in unions? Part of an organizing drive? Because your perspective is so skewed that it clearly only comes from the anti-union headlines and not the reality on the ground.
I don’t know the stats, but I did already reference some above.
It doesn’t appear that you aware that the NLRB does not document or prosecute. For the most part they just respond to complaints – from unions, employees, and employers, as well as enforce orders. They also conduct/monitor union elections.
Wrong. Unions don’t protect bad employees. They protect all employees, and ensure that all employees have their rights protected and that all employers follow proper procedures.
Don’t get me wrong – there are bad unions, just as there are bad employers. But for the most part unions work like hell to protect their members jobs, compensation, and working conditions. And, generally, a health relationship between the employer and the union is the best way to do that.
And I can’t believe people actually believe that it is the unions faults that the American auto and steel industries have gone the way that they have gone. You are aware that the unions didn’t give themselves the wages and benefits, right? And you are aware that no matter how low those wages/benefits could be driven, labor will still be cheaper in places like SE Asia.
August 20th, 2011 1:07 pm
One reason unions are gradually on the way out is this. They got started partly because they initially “protected” mostly-unskilled laborers, doing mind-numbing assembly line work that could be learned in a day (or less), and for which there was sufficient demand for the jobs that an employer could always find someone to do the job slightly cheaper. From the beginning, unions distorted the actual value of labor… and of course, employers simply passed it on to the rest of the society in higher prices.
The more skilled you are, the less you “need” a union to protect you from people who will work cheaper, or have greater skills. But that’s just a general tendency. There will be people who have high skills, but in an area where plenty of other high skill people exist, and therefore depress demand for those skills in the workplace.
I’m in a job like that. Sure, I have high skills and education in my area. But whenever anyone announces a job like mine to solicit applications, 150 people with similar looking track records (on paper, at least) will apply for it.
August 20th, 2011 1:18 pm
Not sure where you went with this, but you definitely didn’t answer why unions are gradually on the way out.
BTW… I find it odd that I can’t find any legitimate news source covering this story. And no, the Daily Caller, the Blaze, and LaborUnionReport don’t count as legitimate sources.
August 20th, 2011 1:26 pm
My personal experience with unions:
I was a federal employee for three years. I was a “claims authorizer” for the Social Security. I was, of course, required to be a member of the federal employees union of the time (it was 35 years ago).
My observations:
Employees could get away with almost anything. They could not be fired for being slow, or unproductive, though that would keep them from being promoted. They could not easily be fired for reading paper-back books when they should be working. The could not be fired for being routinely late, or routinely taking too-long breaks or lunches. It was just more trouble than it was worth to supervisors to try to get rid of such people, even though they weren’t earning their pay. There was plenty of cronyism, with supervisors promoting friends, etc., a black women supervisor who seemed to promote only other black women, you name it. The union protected THOSE SUPERVISORS every bit as much as it protected lousy lower level employees, because everyone is in the union in the first few levels of “management”. So a supervisor who was too interested in getting their money’s worth out of employees was often seen as a trouble maker by the next level of supervision up, since it all eventually landed on their desk.
I got the job when I was 22 (having just finished a master’s degree in music composition, not found a teaching job yet, and so I took the civil service exam). I could have retired at age 55 with more money every year than I even MAKE now, I think. And I know that I’m paying the pension of people who “stayed in” that way, who are younger than me, and getting more money every year from that pension than I even make working full-time and then some.
I saw so much incompetence and sheer inattention to the job in those three years that it played a large role in turning from a reflex-liberal into an economic conservative (it was a process… but those years working for the feds really began it).
BTW, my experience wasn’t just in a single office, or a small situation. It was first in a large (3000+ employees) Social Security “program center”, then later in two separate Social Security “district offices”. My observations reflected general culture of the time, not just some local problem.
I have had many private sector jobs in my life…. And none of them tolerated, even for a minute, an employee sitting at a desk reading a paperback, or playing chess, when they were supposed to be working. None of them left it up to the employee to decide how much work was reasonable to get done in a day. All of them fired people for poor performance during my tenure with them, proving they had the option, and would use it when necessary to improve the functioning of the business or organization.
On the other hand, my daughter’s fourth grade teacher was, no kidding, about on a 7th grade level in her reading/writing skills. She had a teaching credential and a union. When I pointed out the problems with her to her principal, she was moved into teaching 2nd graders, but that was it. This is TYPICAL of union protected employees, and managers who know when it’s nearly impossible to do anything about it, due to the union.
August 20th, 2011 1:27 pm
Dave, you said:
“I find it odd that I can’t find any legitimate news source covering this story.”
I take that the local TV news coverage doesn’t count in your world? It has to be in the New York Times before it’s true?
August 20th, 2011 1:29 pm
Dave, I liked this: “that 70 year old should have a pension as well.”
Uh… paid for by whom?
August 20th, 2011 1:42 pm
FWIW, everything you said about your time as a federal employee could be said about numerous people at APU.
I didn’t see any local news coverage of this. Note that I didn’t say that there WASN’T, I just said I didn’t find any. Google’s news search didn’t bring any up when I searched for [union “john king” ohio].
August 20th, 2011 1:42 pm
Dave, you’re right, I have had no dealings with the NLRB. Have you? What experience, if you have some? What was the outcome? Or are you just reading “pro-union sites” for your info?
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/85781
August 20th, 2011 1:43 pm
Dave, the local TV video clip is at the top of this page, after the short paragraph. Does it not show up in your browser?
August 20th, 2011 1:53 pm
Dave, of course unions don’t give themselves contracts or agreements. Except that when employers are forced by law or precedent to deal only with unions, and when unions essentially buy legislative/regulative support, employers often have no choice but to largely cave.
I can’t think of any other way that a man with no real skills, working in an assembly line factory in 1965, doing a (boring, repetitive, but low skilled) job that a new employee could learn in a day, made more money than many educated people with years of college or training, but in a business without a union.
But those days are over. They aren’t coming back. We can’t afford them.
I recall being a young professor. I was able to calculate my hourly wage (salary divided by hours working in a year). I figured out that EVERYONE on a union-based construction job site made more money than I did, often quite a bit more, EVERY SINGLE JOB (this was in 1979).
No wonder I couldn’t afford to buy a house in 1979.
August 20th, 2011 3:41 pm
Well let me respond to lazziness in a worksite and the so called inability to fire anyone. I cant disagree that in many cases it could appear that way, but the problem isnt because of the union, but rather incompetent and arrogant managers to be honest.
Firing a civil service employee is as simple as a signature from the boss. Not the direct supervisor in most cases, but generally the local director such as a warden of a prison for example.
The warden is of course bound by department policy, that policy dictates what punishments are warranted for which degree of violation. For example reading a book on the job would proably get you a write up by your supervisor at first. If they did it again they would get a second write up to put it on the record and submit it for a stiffer punishment that could range anywhere from pay cuts to termination.
When the director is deciding he is supposed to worsen it if you have a history of these things or lessen it if you have won awards or whatever. There is also a degree of discretion involved.
That is only a small example, but if managment follows that model there is really nothing I can do but watch the employee lose their job, and smack em across the head for being a dummy.
More typically the supervisor wants to directly punish someone they dont like rather than focus on the mission and let the employee effectively punish themselves by documenting each incident. They like to move on staff via direct action without establishing any foundation whatsoever. Though the director can technically fire someone with the stroke of a pen if he doesnt back it up and set his pride aside the arbitrator will end up giving the employee back their job.
So many bosses give up, thats true. That is why one of the things I focus on is demanding leadership from managment. By holding them to the standards, jealously defending the innocent, refusing to lie for abusers while not denying them their rights, and bringing the perspective of the workers to the attention of our leaders we get better results on the whole.
Its not so much about improving the lot of the unskilled. Our very well educated leaders dont have the perspective of the line staff where the application of actual healthcare is taking place. We dont have their education and experience but without the combination of both in symmetry either is useless and we fail in our mission. I find I get best results by rather than telling managment what to do, I give them new perspective and ask them to come up with a new answer.
And as far as evil union bosses go, well I am sure grateful for them sometimes. When I have a boss that refuses to listen to reason it is sure satisfying to have resources at our disposal to force them to. My favorite moment in that was forcing a highly arrogant boss to follow our contract against his will whilst being kind and respectful to him at all times. Every time he passes me in his fancy executive suit he immediately begins examining his shoes… Ill tell yall that story sometime, its a good one.
August 20th, 2011 3:48 pm
And phil, you would make a great union steward. You are already half doing it to be honest. You work hard to build concensus amongst staff on the course your company is taking and try to improve their goals and by extension the lot of the staff and students as a whole. That is what unions are supposed to do to be honest. There is generally a dark side to anything though. Eh, think of it like star wars!
August 20th, 2011 4:06 pm
Well… the sad truth…. since the fall, no human system works very well. Power is almost always abused, in small ways or large. Unions, employees, employers, legislators, the whole crowd, are all after what benefit they can get.
That being the case…. the best system we can have this side of a new heaven and a new earth (which doesn’t seem to be here yet) is one which decentralizes power as much as possible, one which makes it harder to be fraudulent, one where people are encouraged to understand that it is in their own best interest to deal honestly and fairly with everyone else, as opposed to merely trying to get all they can get in a given instance.
August 20th, 2011 4:47 pm
Ah, Dave, I don’t really think it is common for people in faculty or staff to be goofing off instead of carrying out their job responsibly at APU…. partly, of course, because we don’t have a union that would protect them if they did. My impression is that most people go beyond their job description to make it all go, and to make it better. Not all, of course. And in those cases where perhaps some corrective action might be needed, but isn’t taken, it is, as Anthony says, a failure of management oversight to do what needs to be done.
Nevertheless, I had the federal government experience I had…. and my experience in dealing with government since then hasn’t done much to make me think my personal experience as a federal employee was in any way unusual, for federal, state or local.
August 20th, 2011 6:33 pm
I see it… somehow I originally missed it.
Yes, I do. I have helped prepare NLRB charges against employers and have also helped prepare information in defense of NLRB charges from employers against the union. I have also read numerous NLRB cases as part of my job. So yes, I have a decent amount of experience and knowledge of NLRB issues, but am no expert by any means.
Not really sure what your point is here, other than the unions clearly helped those workers and you were hurt by not being in a union job. But you also seem to be implying that your job SHOULD have been more valuable (and in turn better paying) than those construction jobs.
There are very good employees at APU and very bad ones. And I have seen numerous examples of bad employees at APU not get fired. And it had nothing to do with them having a union.
My point is that your federal job experience has very strong similarities to most jobs, and many jobs that I have been in (that until the last few years have all been non-union). Again, as both Anthony and I have pointed out – unions don’t protect bad employees. They protect rights and procedures. All a union employer needs to do is follow proper discipline procedures and they should have no problem getting rid of bad employees.
And by decentralized power, it sounds like what you really are advocating for is putting ALL the power in the hands of a few (the owners/management) and taking any/all power away from workers.
August 20th, 2011 6:35 pm
I missed this line:
EXACTLY! But the exact same thing is said about union employers. It isn’t the unions fault that there is a failure of management oversight.
August 20th, 2011 8:00 pm
If unions had not in essence become big businesses themselves, I might feel more favorably towards them. But as it is, national unions have become much bigger businesses than some of the businesses that they are trying to “unionize.”
If it was limited, i.e., if unions only consisted of those people who work for a particular business, and they all saw their own personal welfare as being bound up in the success of the business, it might all work better.
I have not heard anyone but me in this conversation acknowledge the reality that there are real, very large, serious problems with unions, especially public sector ones. With respect, I think that means I’m the only one not seeing unions through rose colored glasses. Between you and me…. my side is winning this debate.
But as it is, the UNIONS can win when *some* businesses that are unionized fail, not in the sense that the local employees of the failed business win, but in the sense that the national leadership of the union has just conducted an object lesson about what can happen to those businesses that don’t play ball with them.
However, as with previous discussions, I’m done with this one. I don’t have a union. But I do have a deadline to get some music written, and I’d better get it done. On time. No excuses. Because there is always another arranger the client could hire who will deliver on time. How many years I’ve been an arranger doesn’t matter. The quality of work I have done in the past doesn’t matter. How much I need the work doesn’t matter.
All that matters is that I deliver, on time, with good quality. And that’s all that SHOULD matter.
August 21st, 2011 9:50 am
I’ll jump in for miner on this one. The union concept and its execution, regardless of how it’s defined, originally had some natural means to an end: umm, in the sense that one starts something and finishes it, without that something leading into something else. Thus, it is an end in itself. Problem was, the POWER GAINED in the process of starting and finishing this particular task was/is so addictive, that its end has been “self-denied” (lack of a better term).
It’s common practice for today’s employers to respectfully respond to workers’ complaints and suggestions. Much more than they used to at least, thanks to unions. I suppose this relationship requires maintenance and monitoring by a union, but nothing more. Government now has firmly established institutions regulating management and labor, thanks to unions. Of course the government tends to create Industrial Complexes out of everything these days, notably the Progressive wing in this case.
Unions are either fading out, or destroying themselves through corruption, because they’ve fulfilled their purpose. Most of their acceptable ideas were implemented by government and management years ago. So there’s nothing left for them to do but sell their monopolies in health insurance, financial services, and votes for democrats.
August 22nd, 2011 6:05 am
I think they are born from need but it is important to keep watch in a sense. To give an example, there wernt any medical union stewards at my prison… that is until this one lady became our manager. She has done more to grow the union in our region than any single thing could ever have done just by bing cruel and trying to destroy peoples careers for no good reason. If you were her friend and female she would cover for you, anyone else takes the fall for those people of course, she made it a cya enviroment.
The only way I could get her support on something was to somehow make her think that what I was asking for would harm the members, and that I was just too stupid to see it. That way she would think herself clever by giving it to us, then I would be sure to gripe about the results to one of her spies a few weeks later. That is really hard to do consistently. She wouldnt even follow the contract at all, which means I had to grieve everything, and thst takes up to six months to enforce when you have no local support. We thought that after getting her before a judge a few times to explain herself would help, but even that was useless. She even refused to post the ruling that legally required her to do so.
Fortunately they changed the command structure for CDCR medical, we are no longer under the warden, we have our own directing authority now. They actually laid off our command structure in sacramento and have been building more local authority as we move out of these lawsuits and form our own department.
The nice part is that any time this manager acts up I have two people above her now that I can take it to, and its almost fun to watch them stop her now. Our CEO has said point blank that he will not violate any contract. If it gets bad enough and his managers get out of line, I send one email to him and suddenly all our bosses are in his office getting reamed. Its taken a while to earn that kind of credibility, but we couldnt have done it without all that practice on that evil boss 🙂
August 24th, 2011 4:29 pm
I have to wonder, though: when someone gets promoted into management (like the evil manager you just described) they generally were in “labor” first, i.e., protected by the union, and it is not usually a shock to all concerned when they start acting, as a manager, in ways similar to their behavior before the promotion.
If I’m right, and this woman was labor before she was management, and if her behavior as a manager could have been predicted from her behavior as “labor,” then the union protected the person, earlier, that it then was fighting later.
Hmmm… kind of reminds me of the US arming Saddam in the 1970s so we could fight him later….
August 26th, 2011 8:10 pm
I am glad to tell you that wasnt the case at all! In fact I am especially glad that you framed it that way because there are so many ways I could tell this story to you!
She was labor, but ever so briefly. Prison medical care underwent a rapid transition. It was and is still a dramatic change that is rather unprecedented in civil service. In fact we are still under the authority of a federal reciever, though that is transitioning at the moment. Short story is in a very brief amount of time an entirely brand new and untested command structure was built. It brought alot of change, much of which was good, but we ended up with alot bad leaders in high positions across the state.
Believe it or not us union guys have very little true power. The only way we can overturn a managment decision is through arbitration, which is hard to get to. We handle most things through the informal process. Whats that? Thats called talking to people and trying to change their minds.
So what normally happens is when an employee is a good worker and loves their job they may choose to advance their career after a number of years. When they become a boss they already have a good deal of respect and repore with their former peers. Their decisions make alot more sense because they are leading positions they once did themselves. This also makes the informal process more effective because a layer of trust is already established.
This lady became the director of nursing within her first year or two at the prison due to the recievership dynamic that was in play at the time.
As far as defending people goes here is another story. A coworker right now I am representing has MS. Her boss makes her call him on his personal cell phone at home when she has to call in, and is hypercritical on her use of FMLA, even when she is out for surgery. He makes comments about her use of leave, gray hair, and how difficult it is for him to fire the state employees that he wants to.
Any time ahe makes a mistake they jump on top of her. She sent a letter begging for help with the new computer programs that she doesnt know how to use and they then find mistakes with her use of the computer to write her up for.
When you get down to it she just isnt the 22 young person they want her to be, and her having ms is sure inconvenient to cover behind, so they are trying to get rid of her. Its rather cruel really. I think its ok for people to be sick, make mistakes, and do their best. I want them to give her the help and training she needs to meet their standards and to leave her the h@ll alone when she is in the hospital. You shouldnt need a union to ask for these things for you, but its sure nice to yave when you do need it.
August 26th, 2011 11:38 pm
This is interesting, Anthony. I get that sometimes people are promoted quickly through hierarchies, often because they know someone with decision making power.
Re: the lady with ms, I have two minds. On the one hand, I have compassion for her. Maybe she should go on disability, or drop to part-time with some percentage of disability, or whatever. I don’t know her options.
Let me make up a different story. What if you had a small business with five employees. What if one gets ms, and misses significant amounts of work, is not able to keep up on her own with changes in the workplace, etc.? Should you, the employer, be forced to keep her forever until she is fully disabled? Should you, the employer, be forced to pay for extra training for her if she can’t keep up with work other employees manage to do?
In other words, is a job a life-time promise? Or is a job an agreement for a specific length of time?
Part of my feeling on this is based on how long a person has worked somewhere. If they’ve been there 20 years, and the job changes in some way that requires retraining, an employer can only afford so much of that.
The state, of course, is not a business. But what if this woman worked at K-Mart? Should she expect as much consideration as she now gets (she DOES still have a job, after all, and while the bosses may complain, they evidently can’t do much to her except insult her, if I understand your story). If I had a small music preparation shop, with maybe four music copyists working for me, and one of them got MS and had trouble with the fine motor skills the job required, or one of them had trouble keeping up with changes in music software as it advanced through different versions, I would not want the law to require me to just grin and bear it, and suck up the expense involved because that person could no longer be effective in the job.
I’m not against safety nets. Some disability programs are necessary (though they are too often VERY abused). If this lady really can’t do the job, then some adjustment needs to be made. If she can, and is simply being harassed for no good reason, there really are laws against “hostile workplace” and the like. I could not get away with making comments about the age of someone in my supervisory chain, nor should I.
I worked for the Social Security system for three years. During that time, one supervisor in particular got it in for me, and began to harass me in different ways, making snide comments of all kinds, talking about me to other people, etc. I started a log. I kept it for three months, detailing everything the supervisor said to me, date/time/witnesses/context and a quote.
Then I took it to the supervisor of MY supervisor. It wasn’t long before my supervisor was transferred elsewhere.
That was back in the 1970s, before there were “hostile workplace” laws… but they saw trouble brewing, and headed it off.
Maybe the union steward should help this lady with ms do the same? Hmmmm?
August 27th, 2011 8:47 am
That is actually what we are doing. And the hostile workplace claim is called EEO complaint. Its an option but I think other routes should be exausted first. The thing is that she gets flustered and forgets to write things down so I am left with less ammunition.
And while the stuff you said does apply,there are rules in her favor to and a boss should be accountable. They are not absolute monarchs who can just say “off with their head”. Its sad how many of them have to be forced not to do that though.