Not going to work, an interesting dichotomy.

[Donald H]

What an employee can be fired for is in the union contract with the company.

Yes! finally you have admitted your mistake. It's referred to in the collective agreement as termination for cause.

And the worker will then have the right to question the employer's decision through arbitration or some other means.

 

[danielpalos]

I've seen it first hand. What an employee can be fired for is in the union contract with the company. If they don't agree with a reason a company wants to fire a worker, they hold out until the company concedes. A company cannot fire a worker for low production. A company cannot fire a worker for fucking up all the time. A company cannot pick and choose who gets the next available promotion. A company can fire a worker for being late too many times. A company can fire a worker for hiding out in the cafeteria when he or she is supposed to be working.

With equal protection of the law in an at-will employment State, Labor could simply quit instead of becoming disgruntled as a form of pursuit of Happiness. And collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in at-will employment State.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

In this country there is a group of people that are basically refusing to go to work for what they consider shit wages for shit jobs. They are holding out hoping to force companies to pay better wages. This group is venerated by the left and vilified by the right.

Then we have a group of people that are staging "sick outs" and quitting their jobs over the vaccine mandates, hoping to force companies not to enforce it. This group is venerated by the right and vilified by the left.

But in the end, are not both groups trying for the same thing, to use the power in numbers that employees have to force changes by employers?

Everything is backwards in PROG. ILMAO @ too good to work because I'm worth more types. They're fucking up the economy badly, under the disguise of COVID. Goodbye middle class & small business is the theme of the day, same with resources controlled by the few who will gladly throw you a bone for your worthlessness and Amazon shopping.

 

[danielpalos]

Everything is backwards in PROG. ILMAO @ too good to work because I'm worth more types.

Employment is at the will of either party not the social, State.

 

[Donald H]

With equal protection of the law in an at-will employment State, Labor could simply quit instead of becoming disgruntled as a form of pursuit of Happiness. And collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in at-will employment State.

The only purpose of Ray's post was to try to admit that he was wrong about the employer's right to terminate a worker for cause.
So you'll notice that Ray went to a lot of trouble trying to say what he could have said in those few words.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The only purpose of Ray's post was to try to admit that he was wrong about the employer's right to terminate a worker for cause.
So you'll notice that Ray went to a lot of trouble trying to say what he could have said in those few words.

Few words doesn't work with you, it works with most other people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes! finally you have admitted your mistake. It's referred to in the collective agreement as termination for cause.

And the worker will then have the right to question the employer's decision through arbitration or some other means.

Bullshit. Employers were always held hostage by the criminal unions and had to capitulate to whatever their demands were. That's why you seldom seen unions make new demands in a slow economy. If the company held hostage didn't give in, the workers walked off the job and the company was screwed.

What company would actually want outsiders to determine what is a dismissive offense? What company wants to promote a complete waste of human being to a better paying job they know the individual has no real ability to do?

 

[westwall]

and again, you prove my point.

this was too easy

What point is that? So long as there is a permanent underclass of workers willing to take low wages (the millions of illegal aliens) you will NEVER see an improvement in wages for the rest of the citizenry.

It's called economics. Here in the west, the trades are heavily impacted. Contractors who only use legal labor can't bid a job low enough to get the gig away from those who employ illegal labor.

Xidens admin has prevented ICE from putting those illegal contractors out of business.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Xidens admin has prevented ICE from putting those illegal contractors out of business.

Link please.

Also, a link to those illegal contractors being put out of business under the last guy would be sort of helpful

 

[westwall]

Link please.

Also, a link to those illegal contractors being put out of business under the last guy would be sort of helpful

Link to what. Contact any contractor they will tell you the same.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Link to what. Contact any contractor they will tell you the same.

I would like some sort of evidence that things are different as far as illegal contractors since Jan 20th.

"Because you said so" is not really good enough.

 

[westwall]

I would like some sort of evidence that things are different as far as illegal contractors since Jan 20th.

"Because you said so" is not really good enough.

Talk to a contractor. It's easy, it's called a phone.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Talk to a contractor. It's easy, it's called a phone.

I am a data geek, I need actual data.

Stories do nothing for me

 

[Donald H]

Bullshit. Employers were always held hostage by the criminal unions and had to capitulate to whatever their demands were. That's why you seldom seen unions make new demands in a slow economy. If the company held hostage didn't give in, the workers walked off the job and the company was screwed.

I have neither agreed or disagreed on those points Ray. In fact, if you're through with your mistake on 'termination for cause', we may be able to go on to debating some of your points.

What company would actually want outsiders to determine what is a dismissive offense?

Most likely very few, but there are still unions and collective agreements in place.

What company wants to promote a complete waste of human being to a better paying job they know the individual has no real ability to do?

No company would want to promote an individual who doesn't have the ability to do the job.
However, there are 'closed shop clauses' written into some collective agreements that dictate to the employer who will get the promotion. (there are sometimes exceptions written into a collective agreement) And also understand that collective agreements dictate certain demands on the workers too.

That which you need to accept Ray is that I'm not debating 'pro' or 'con' unions right yet. I'm simply informing you of the facts of what is contained in most collective agreements. A 'closed shop clause' may not be in most. I'll leave that to you to determine.

 

[Donald H]

Bullshit. Employers were always held hostage by the criminal unions and had to capitulate to whatever their demands were. That's why you seldom seen unions make new demands in a slow economy. If the company held hostage didn't give in, the workers walked off the job and the company was screwed.

What company would actually want outsiders to determine what is a dismissive offense? What company wants to promote a complete waste of human being to a better paying job they know the individual has no real ability to do?

Ray!!
Terminate for cause!
Is it the word 'cause' that you're having difficulty with? If so then think it out.

That is saying nothing about the question that will be asked on whether or not the employer's 'cause' will be determined by the arbitrator (or body responsible) to be a valid cause or not.

Can you see how this is democracy in action?
That says nothing about whether or not the correct decision has been arrived at.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most likely very few, but there are still unions and collective agreements in place.

Most of our unions are in government because government is a monopoly. You'd be hell pressed to find unions in privately owned companies. We spent the 80's and 90's, and even the early 2000's watching jobs move out of state or country by the day. Workers have finally come to the realization how damaging unions are and have been to this country. We don't want them anymore.

No company would want to promote an individual who doesn't have the ability to do the job.
However, there are 'closed shop clauses' written into some collective agreements that dictate to the employer who will get the promotion. (there are sometimes exceptions written into a collective agreement) And also understand that collective agreements dictate certain demands on the workers too.

That which you need to accept Ray is that I'm not debating 'pro' or 'con' unions right yet. I'm simply informing you of the facts of what is contained in most collective agreements. A 'closed shop clause' may not be in most. I'll leave that to you to determine.

Strong unions are all the same. Employees get promoted based on how long they've been with the union period. There are no stipulations to that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray!!
Terminate for cause!
Is it the word 'cause' that you're having difficulty with? If so then think it out.

That is saying nothing about the question that will be asked on whether or not the employer's 'cause' will be determined by the arbitrator (or body responsible) to be a valid cause or not.

Can you see how this is democracy in action?
That says nothing about whether or not the correct decision has been arrived at.

It all boils down to the same thing: Unions determine what is cause--not the employer. Employers have to keep troublemakers and low performing employees on the job whether they like it or not. That's why the last customer we had that was union, the company got rid of three people in their small shop the day the union was gone. The employer wanted them out for years.

 

[Donald H]

Most of our unions are in government because government is a monopoly. You'd be hell pressed to find unions in privately owned companies. We spent the 80's and 90's, and even the early 2000's watching jobs move out of state or country by the day. Workers have finally come to the realization how damaging unions are and have been to this country. We don't want them anymore.

Jobs move out of country because companies and corporations take them out. That is sometimes due to demands made upon them by unions who are covered under a collective agreement. The employer has exercized his right to terminate some collective agreements. (a right with certain conditions)

Strong unions are all the same. Employees get promoted based on how long they've been with the union period. There are no stipulations to that.

I've just finished telling you why all unions aren't the same. Some strong unions don't have a 'closed shop clause'!

If you refuse to pay attention to what I'm telling you then you are wasting my time. There's no need for that Ray, we have no issues on which we are in disagreement.

 

[Donald H]

Strong unions are all the same. Employees get promoted based on how long they've been with the union period. There are no stipulations to that.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!
There's no point in telling you again if you're too stubborn to listen!
For somebody who has claimed to know a lot about unions, you know very fukking little.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong, wrong, wrong!
There's no point in telling you again if you're too stubborn to listen!
For somebody who has claimed to know a lot about unions, you know very fukking little.

Just remember something here, you are an outsider. We live here. My Dad spent his working years in the union. I've been in two unions myself. I have friends that were in the union years ago. You don't know shit of what goes on here no more than me telling YOU what's going on in Canada.