Trump goes after workers, unions again - gets slapped down by courts

[luckyshot]

A lot of Trumpublican private sector union members feel no fraternity with the state and federal employee unions. They just see those workers as part of "big gubmint".

To paraphrase their Dear Leader the public sector members are "fake union".

Which is especially funny considering only like 9% of private employees are unionized. “Right to Work” has been a long, slow, spectacularly successful war on the American middle class.

 

[whougonnacall]

Why would i want it to be hard to remove poor performing employees?

Maybe because it would make sense to ensure they were actualy poor performing? Or by how much vs their peers?
Maybe if its a temp glitch due to personal circumstances that can hit us all? Maybe management has fallen behind or been incompent with their training ?
Maybe they are very slightly poor performing vs their peers but are only being fired as execs wanabigger bonus this xmas and want a slew of layoffs to paybfor it ?

 

[whougonnacall]

Yep, this is the most unbelievable thing about the rise of Trump, his non millionaire followers really are this stupid.

Why not they are the same rubes who bought the shit he pedaled when he was a 'buisnesman' why wouldnt they buy his shit now ?

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Fight againt unions.
Hire illegals
Cry to build a wall

Sounds about right.

 

[Quequeg]

Fight againt unions.
Hire illegals
Cry to build a wall

Sounds about right.

Make all your crap overseas.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Why would i want it to be hard to remove poor performing employees?

So that employees who don't play politics, and kiss ass, aren't the first ones fired no matter how good they are at their job, like every non-union shop I have ever worked in?

Why do you think that employers should be able to fire people without having to document misbehavior?

It is hialrious to see the same people who shit on #metoo for treating accusations as fact, do the same to workers.

I guess some believe in due process and some believe in authoritatian rule.

 

[Tiny]

So that employees who don't play politics, and kiss ass, aren't the first ones fired no matter how good they are at their job, like every non-union shop I have ever worked in?

Why do you think that employers should be able to fire people without having to document misbehavior?

It is hialrious to see the same people who shit on #metoo for treating accusations as fact, do the same to workers.

I guess some believe in due process and some believe in authoritatian rule.

Uhhh No. I'd hate that as an employer. If you suck at your job, I wanna fire you. Simple as that.

Don't want to be fired? Don't suck at your job.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Uhhh No. I'd hate that as an employer. If you suck at your job, I wanna fire you. Simple as that.

Don't want to be fired? Don't suck at your job.

Yeah, that isn't what happens in non-union shops. It ends up a bunch of politics and ass kissing.

If you don't know this, I question if you have ever had a job.

You act like hard workers are rewarded and dirt bags are punished in non-union shops. Lololololololol!

Yeah, the hot receptionist who doesn't do shit, and the owners's son, and all his buddies, who are dirt bag workers are much preferrable to management actually having to document an employee did something wrong to fire them. (E-sarcasm)

 

[cincymma79]

He said he's for workers so it must be true according to his stupid voter base. Just like he's the law and order president, and least racist person you've ever met lol.

His "worker" base won't care even if they see this. I know they are dumber than most but they actually think some shady businessman from new york city who outsources and treats his employees like shit gives a damn about them? Trump loves the poorly educated.

The executive orders, which also rolled back the power of the unions that represent federal workers, had instructed agencies to seek to reduce the amount of time in which underperforming employees are allowed to demonstrate improvement before facing termination, from a maximum of up to 120 days to a maximum of 30 days, and to seek to limit workers’ avenues for appealing performance evaluations. The orders also sought to significantly reduce the amount of so-called official time that federal employees in union positions can spend on union business during work hours

which part you have trouble with there^^^
giving shitty employees who handle things like your court records and so on longer to be shitty with your stuff that you pay for? 4 months? goddamn that's a long time
or making people who handle things like your court records and so on work during work hours

 

[Prutfis]

In Murica "right to work" means you can bleed your own union to death by not paying dues and also be terminated by your employer at any time for any reason.

Pure freedom, bro.

Yeah Our communist unions only provided livable minimum wage, 6 weeks paid vacation, paid maternity leave and other such commie burdens.
To bad we didn't have the US republicans and a large base of retarded idiots to change that.

 

[Damien Karras]

As an employer, I don’t see how 30 days isn’t enough time for an employee to show improvement in how they do an existing job. I have had about 300 employees or so both as a manager and then as business owner and in my experience once you give somebody feedback that they need to improve and the resources needed to make that change happen it is often immediately clear whether that change is going to happen.

There are many things to consider. First of all we know that measuring work performance can be, more often than not, a flawed process. Also 120 days is about right when you consider an employee needs a verbal warning and a written warning with a performance improvement plan to take effect.

30 days sounds like an insufficient amoubt of time to me. Moreover, 120 does sound like a lot but it's just 4 months when you think of it.

I said it once and I'll say it again, the best defense against poor work performance is having good hiring practices. More often than not however employers see HR as a needless cost. Some of my friends are business owners and come to me looking for advice on what to do with their underperforming employees. I immediately ask them about their hiring procedures and more often than not I get "oh someone I know referred me this person" or they didn't check references or they went with their instinct cause they liked the way he/she interviewed. SMH

 

[Tiny]

Yeah, that isn't what happens in non-union shops. It ends up a bunch of politics and ass kissing.

If you don't know this, I question if you have ever had a job.

You act like hard workers are rewarded and dirt bags are punished in non-union shops. Lololololololol!

Yeah, the hot receptionist who doesn't do shit, and the owners's son, and all his buddies, who are dirt bag workers are much preferrable to management actually having to document an employee did something wrong to fire them. (E-sarcasm)

The employer typically wants to make money. You make miney by hiring the most competent reliable people. Sure you can hire a few family members and some hotty ya wanna bang but your first priority is to make bank.

Be an employee protected by a union allowing them to suck or be lazy or act entitled?

Fuck that.

I question if youve ever ran a company

 

[ultramanhyata]

Yeah Our communist unions only provided livable minimum wage, 6 weeks paid vacation, paid maternity leave and other such commie burdens.
To bad we didn't have the US republicans and a large base of retarded idiots to change that.

True Alpha-level employees don't need the collective bargaining power of union backing, bro. That gang mentality is for pussies. Alpha's sit down one-on-one with the boss and write their own sweet ass pay check based on the strength of their mad job skillz.

"If you need to belong to a union in order to make a decent living in the free-market, I'm sorry, but you're a loser." - Stuart Varney

 

[VivaRevolution]

The employer typically wants to make money. You make miney by hiring the most competent reliable people. Sure you can hire a few family members and some hotty ya wanna bang but your first priority is to make bank.

Be an employee protected by a union allowing them to suck or be lazy or act entitled?

Fuck that.

I question if youve ever ran a company

No union allows these things.

Lazy, incompetent managers that refuse to follow the documentation process to terminate shit employee are the problem.

I have seen union workers get away with murder, and I have seen union workers lose their job over bull shit. The difference was the manager, and their competence in documentation.

 

[HockeyBjj]

One of the only things I don't like about unions (been working engineering at a union plant) is that they make it damn near impossible to let go of someone even if they blatantly deserve it, and a better employee deserves a promotion to that position that he doesn't get or a new potential hard worker won't get hired to an open position.

We've had a guy with 6 lockout violations in the last 2 years. There's been 8 total in that time. He's gotten 3 days off and unpaid and 5 days off, but no matter the offense the union fights tooth and nail and this shitty ass millwright demoted to operator keeps keeping his job. We had to write a formal policy stating that if he does a lockout or is a verifier, a 2nd verifier is needed.

This guy is going to literally get someone killed at a manufacturing plant, but we can't legally fire him before he does. It's not like he an amazing worker at everything else but mentally checks out on lockout tagout process either.

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

Death to capital, or death under the heel of capitalism!

 

[luckyshot]

No union allows these things.

Lazy, incompetent managers that refuse to follow the documentation process to terminate shit employee are the problem.

I have seen union workers get away with murder, and I have seen union workers lose their job over bull shit. The difference was the manager, and their competence in documentation.

Exactly.

If a good manager wants to fire a shitty employee, there is a process. Follow the process, fire the employee.

@Tiny you act like following due process is some huge pain in the ass... but it’s someone’s fucking livelihood we are talking about. If you can’t be arsed to fill out some paper work and go to couple of meetings before taking the food off a man’s table, you are a piece of shit who shouldn’t EVER be managing people.

If you are, your employees probably want to shank you and that’s why they half ass it.

One of the only things I don't like about unions (been working engineering at a union plant) is that they make it damn near impossible to let go of someone even if they blatantly deserve it, and a better employee deserves a promotion to that position that he doesn't get or a new potential hard worker won't get hired to an open position.

We've had a guy with 6 lockout violations in the last 2 years. There's been 8 total in that time. He's gotten 3 days off and unpaid and 5 days off, but no matter the offense the union fights tooth and nail and this shitty ass millwright demoted to operator keeps keeping his job. We had to write a formal policy stating that if he does a lockout or is a verifier, a 2nd verifier is needed.

This guy is going to literally get someone killed at a manufacturing plant, but we can't legally fire him before he does. It's not like he an amazing worker at everything else but mentally checks out on lockout tagout process either.

What does the contract say about lockout violations, critical safety protocols, or employee performance reviews?

 

[Tiny]

Exactly.

If a good manager wants to fire a shitty employee, there is a process. Follow the process, fire the employee.

@Tiny you act like following due process is some huge pain in the ass... but it’s someone’s fucking livelihood we are talking about. If you can’t be arsed to fill out some paper work and go to couple of meetings before taking the food off a man’s table, you are a piece of shit who shouldn’t EVER be managing people.

If you are, your employees probably want to shank you and that’s why they half ass it.


What does the contract say about lockout violations, critical safety protocols, or employee performance reviews?

Unless you do something extremely wrong, which I will fire you on the spot without due process, I don't mind the 3 warnings...and then dismissal. But I'm not going to promote based off of union seniority nor am I going to dance to some union's rights bullshit.

You get 3 warnings. Unless you are a complete fuck up.

 

[DIDM]

I’ve worked for two unions, literally neither did anything besides take dues.

Sure there may be a good union out there, but they are more of a political force than for their members

 

[franklinstower]

“These executive orders will make it easier for agencies to remove poor-performing employees and ensure that taxpayer dollars are more efficiently used,” Andrew Bremberg, head of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said on a call with reporters in May.

Sounds like a good idea to me

Yeah but that is because you are dumb enough to buy the anti union propaganda. If there were no unions people would be totally fucked and many businesses would work people into the ground, use them up, and hire new people afterwards.