I recently saw an ad for the Union of Toronto's Transit system. It had specified two cases where two employees were terminated for wrongful reasons. One of them was fired since she could not come back to full time work after an accident on the job. The other had a disorder which required medication which made her unable to go to work. In both cases, the union filed appeals on behalf of these employees, and won lawsuits for both of them. Each one won about $100,000 in legal fees, wages, punitive damages, etc, and also got their jobs back. The Union ad then goes on to say that the Transit Commission has wasted about $15 million in lawsuits related to unjustifiable dismissals.
Regarding the second case, the Union makes mention of an error in reporting the woman's case (they had previously stated that it was Cancer). The Union then goes on to say that when they are wrong, they admit it, while the Toronto Transit Commission is the exact opposite.
So what is the point of the Union's campaign? That the TTC stop wrongful firings? I don't think so. The TTC is a large organization with a large number of employees and as any other company will do, it will try to weed out those unsuited for duty. Like any corporation, private or public, the TTC may get the innocent employee. The Union also questions why the TTC challenges these lawsuits, but doesn't take into account that a good portion of most wrongful firings are due to bias of a superior, and the superior will usually twist the circumstances.
So if we were to stop challenging lawsuits from terminations, then anyone who was fired, justified or not, can simply get their job back. To make the picture a lot bigger, this hampers the ability for the TTC to terminate the true "unwanted" employees, such as those with constant absenteeism, harassment, incompetence, etc. So now, the TTC cannot get rid of these employees either, service suffers, TTC pays for the bad employees, and in turn is now an organization that can be taken advantage of. I don't know about you, but I think this is a bigger threat than the $15 million mentioned by the Union.
Oh, BTW, since when did the Union start counting lawsuits?
One of the reasons why 1) I hate unions, 2) why they have too much power and 3) why I would welcome any legislation that will limit a Union's influence (they should go back to the basics).
What think you?
Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
No body is always right.There are a lot of things about this type of termination to consider.One is whether or not being fired in this manner cuts the employee off from needed medical benefits.Another is the fact that they may now be able to retire for medical reasons and not be scewed out of their pension plan.I know nothing about the organisations involved but I have seen people lose out on a great deal of money that they had invested in insurance and pension plans because of just this sort of thing.Being unable to work is not the same as having done something wrong.It's all about Insurance when it comes right down to it.P.S.just how much of that 100k do you think the employees will ever see?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The mob...er "union" is always right.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"One of them was fired since she could not come back to full time work after an accident on the job."
So, what did she want? To be paid by the company to sit on her ass all day and not work for them? Where's the form I have to sign to get that deal?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If she recieved a permanant injury on the job, then that's exactly what she's supposed to recieve. That's what Workman's Com insurance is for. Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Just imagine driving a bus on a normal day when some wacko speeding dude hits your bus. Not on any part of the bus, but in the driver's area where you are sitting. Tell me that does not qualify as a job-related injury that should be covered by law.
One other thing, I wonder if the union is taking to account that the TTC, along with other companies, subscribes to insurance that covers them for lawsuits and other related legal items.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I've always felt that the majority of the unions out there today are basically a bunch of extortionists. They most certainly served their purpose fifty years ago, and even today still do some good in certain cases.
But from everything I've read in the news over the past five years, the majority of the unions are only making "good" actions when they're protecting individuals -- like the example of the woman who was injured on the job, then fired. But demanding exorbitant pay raises and all sorts of other stuff -- not to mention causing massive disruptions to commerce (like airlines or UPS or the NYC transit workers) that are rarely necessary.
I'm not saying that the workers don't have a point -- they do, and I agree that everyone needs to have more recognition from the corporate elite, especially in the big businesses. But given the increasing interconnectivity of the world, there's the potential for so much more disruption that is not justified by the kind of grievances they're fighting to have addressed.
Every weekday afternoon I happen to be driving home from Newark, I pass the Chrysler plant on S. College Avenue. At one of the main entrances, there's a small group always set up -- with a tarp tent and classic red signs -- always sitting around, "protesting." I have no idea what they're protesting because I always drive by too quick to look. I think they might be Teamsters, but I'm not certain. Seeing those people in the same place day in, day out for months on end makes me think of them much more as simple deadbeats, or a lame group rotating people around desperate for attention.
After all our progress, is this what Western businesses (not just American) has come to?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"If she recieved a permanant injury on the job, then that's exactly what she's supposed to recieve. That's what Workman's Com insurance is for."
Well, I didn't say she shouldn't get a workman's comp. settlement. But she shouldn't still have a job, if she isn't actually doing that job. If it was the company's fault that she got hurt, then, fine, they should make amends for that. But, if it wasn't (and I'm sure that's the case in many of these sorts for incidents), people should start accepting that sometimes bad things happen, and bad luck doesn't automatically entitle you to special treatment.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Unless, of course, you have insurance, in which case you are paying so that you will get special treatment in case of bad luck.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Well, I didn't say she shouldn't get a workman's comp. settlement. But she shouldn't still have a job, if she isn't actually doing that job. If it was the company's fault that she got hurt, then, fine, they should make amends for that. But, if it wasn't (and I'm sure that's the case in many of these sorts for incidents), people should start accepting that sometimes bad things happen, and bad luck doesn't automatically entitle you to special treatment.
I forgot to mention that she was slowly starting to go back to work as full-time when she was terminated.
I really don't mind where unions fight in these circumstances. It's necessary, to prevent the exploitation of employees. But there are many instances where I draw the line, such as: - Garbagemen being paid the same wages as Computer Programmers, - Unions complaining about them being the only "right" entity in the corporate world, - Unions saying that this company or that entity exists because of them, that everything is done right because of them, and they are critical to our everyday lives. Bullshit Narcissism all the way.
The one thing I actually supported the Provincial Conservative government of doing is proposing legislation that would take off some of the teeth that the Unions have. Many companies complain that they would like to do business here, if only the unions didn't have that much power. There would be many benefits for legislation that would limit the powers of any Union. Too bad the Conservatives don't have the guts to pull it off, and it's a shame the Unions don't see why it needs to be done (all they ever do these days is complain, complain, complain....).
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Perhaps more amusing is the Catholic school teachers who are about to go on strike in Philadelphia. It seems every year there's some group of teachers who f*ck up the academic schedules for kids somewhere... Even more than the economical issues that I talked about earlier in this thread would apply evern more to the education of children...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, teachers really don't get paid enough, anyway...
As for the woman who was fired: If she was going back to work, that makes a big difference. I was working on the assumption that she would never be able to work there again, but still wanted to keep the job without actually performing it.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Of course that's what they say.
The ones who do believe that Teachers are overpaid want the best bang for their buck, in other words, only the best. That's why they are in favour of testing Teachers in order to recertify them.
Me? I won't say whether Teachers are overpaid, but I am in favour of having them retested. Simply because if and when I obtain Oracle Certification, I have to take tests every five years to ensure I remain certified. Any professional occupation should be professionally tested.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Oh, I *know* that many teachers are underpaid, and have legitimate grievances. I went to Catholic schools most of my life. My high school was incredibly expensive, but I know of five or six teachers (all of them extremely popular) who had to get jobs in public schools because the current pay sucked. All within a four-year period while I was there.
I just think that there are certain jobs where strikes should be completely out of the question, for the sake of children's education.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: But there are many instances where I draw the line, such as: - Garbagemen being paid the same wages as Computer Programmers,
Didn't this come up before? And wasn't it pointed out that society would cope better with less computer programmers than less garbagemen?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The ones who do believe that Teachers are overpaid want the best bang for their buck, in other words, only the best. That's why they are in favour of testing Teachers in order to recertify them."
Who in their right mind has ever suggested that teachers are overpaid?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Oh, I *know* that many teachers are underpaid, and have legitimate grievances. I went to Catholic schools most of my life. My high school was incredibly expensive, but I know of five or six teachers (all of them extremely popular) who had to get jobs in public schools because the current pay sucked. All within a four-year period while I was there.
I just think that there are certain jobs where strikes should be completely out of the question, for the sake of children's education.
Private School? Figures.
PsyLiam: It doesn't give them the right to demand salaries that others can only dream of. Like I said before, I must have wasted my time in University and College because I could have become a Garbageman.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I can guarantee that there is no "salary X or your money back" clause in any college admission form I've ever seen, or that's likely to exist. If you really feel like that, then you have wasted your time.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Believe me, Sol, I'm not the only one.
Accountants, Senior Medical Staff, Transit Workers, Auto Workers, Teachers, they are all thinking the same way. Everyone was not happy about the contract the Garbagemen got as they are being paid higher than the above groups mentioned are. I guess that means that we all wasted our time in University and College.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Then why DON'T you become a garbageman, hmm? If you're THIS unhappy about your situation, THAT indignant because they make more money than you do (at least initially), and all you want to see are cold hard dollars... I'm sure the Toronto Garbagemen Guild would welcome another dedicated, hard-working member.
Also, if you think higher education automatically entitles you to special privileges and a salary Bigger Than Everyone Elses, then you REALLY went to university for the wrong reasons.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I am not sure he would want to touch the icky refuse, though.
Get your primadonna hands dirty.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
Unions have thier place. Right now, American workers need to join as rapidly as possible. With the massive bleed-out of jobs (all the ones going to Cheap Asia) this is the only way to stop the blood asians from bleeding this country dry. As it stands now, several american industries are on the verge of failure. Electronics, plastics, tool-and-die, and ship-building.
Only by getting the unions to lobby congress can we stop this, and the only way they are going to be powerful enough is if more people join.
...and yes, if my workers wanted to form/join a union I'd let them.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
** The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. **
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I went to university so that I could split the bill of getting digital TV between several people. That, and the crazy funky party nights where I turn red.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"The ones who do believe that Teachers are overpaid want the best bang for their buck, in other words, only the best. That's why they are in favour of testing Teachers in order to recertify them."
Who in their right mind has ever suggested that teachers are overpaid?
The conservative party here in Toronto.
Whether or not they are overpaid I will leave that for others to discuss. What I do agree with is for recertification of Teachers every few years. The unions reject this only because they feel that this is an intrusion of their workspace, blah blah blah. It appears to be more to protect the overpaid teachers who can't teach at all.
Cartman: That's not what I'm talking about. My beef is against the Unions, period. The unions, who have too much control, think they are everything, and the city can't live without them. I'm simply using the Garbagemen as a reference as to many people including myself, they are a sign that Unions should be put in their place with a well placed smack upside the head.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Programmers unite!
The thing is, when garbagemen go on strike, they have a VERY constrictive bargaining chip to back their demands with. You can insist on better pay all you want, but if you don't have a similar job-related means of persuasion (like an ubervirus to bring society to its knees, or something), your terms aren't going to be agreed to. It's not the unions you should be blaming here.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Tell that to all the medical staff, accountants, teachers, auto workers, etc. who feel that the Garbagemen's contract is unfair to the taxpayers of this city.
The city does not have the guts to do what it should to do, like, privatize them. Almost all other cities in Ontario now contract out their garbage collection (and pay half the cost). The Garbagemen are basically a part of a city-wide union known as "outside workers". So when the City made plans to privatize Garbage Collection, the entire union got mad and went on strike. We're not talking about just garbage, it was most of the city workers that went on strike. So when the city caved in, it also caved in to their demands for Garbagemen to have "wage parity" with the rest of the Union. Thus the 50% wage increase. Oh, and applying to be a garbageman? Forget it. When word of the contract got out, the applications for being a garbageman went through the roof.
When a single militant union can hold a city hostage and have them cave in to their demands, we have a problem. Also curious is why the typically anti-union Provincial Conservative Government did not step in with back-to-work legislation and send the dispute to binding arbitration. If it did, then this wouldn't have happened.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
You seem a little bitter. I'm not entirely sure about what though...
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)