babble: Union Theory

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » walking the talk » labour and consumption » Union Theory

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: Union Theory

wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 29 March 2004 09:01 PM

I wanted to have some people tell me about the current theory behind unions. I'm only just now working in an unionized workplace for the first time, and I find it strange from other places. Maybe someone can help me out.

I'm a little confused as to how seniority works, or more precisely, I'm confused about where my personal performance fits into the reward system. It doesn't matter if I'm a better worker, better at the job, if a union job opens that I'm interested in it goes to the most senior union member?

From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 29 March 2004 09:21 PM

quote:
I'm confused about where my personal performance fits into the reward system. It doesn't matter if I'm a better worker, better at the job, if a union job opens that I'm interested in it goes to the most senior union member?

It depends on what your contract says. Union seniority rules usually apply most strictly for layoffs, rather than promotions. Either way, the employee must still be qualified for the job, or capable of becoming qualified with reasonable training.

Many non-union shops also have seniority rules.

Would you care to elaborate further what your concern with this is? I suspect you're being a little disingenuous with the way you've set this up, so far.

[ 29 March 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 29 March 2004 10:29 PM

Our contract says that where experience and skills are relatively equal, seniority shall be a factor in promotions. It's not unknown to have more than one grievance in the same job competition.

Seniority is a more significant factor in bumping (displacement) and downsizing layoffs.

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002 | IP: Logged

wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 30 March 2004 12:55 AM

No, you're right I should look closely at the contract.

I've just worked in other places that have "performance evaluations" and that sort - sometimes they connect to promotions, sometimes to pay increases.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the different system.

From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 30 March 2004 01:51 AM

The way we have it is that promotions have nothing to do with seniority - anyone can apply for and be considered for management or higher-paid clerical/administrative jobs as long as they had a satisfactory performance evaluation. Layoffs pretty strictly depend on seniority as do pay increases while in the same job (you move up a grid each year for five years, and after you get whatever the general negotiated increase was) with the proviso that your performance has to be satisfactory to move up the grid.

In any case, it all depends on the specifics of your own collective agreement, so the best people to ask are your union representatives and human resources people.

From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 30 March 2004 02:47 AM

Essentially, the union position on seniority vs. "merit" tends to be that, frankly, we don't trust the bosses or their assessments. All too often, "merit" boils down to favoritism and ass-kissing or, on the other end, retribution--for, say, being active in the union. Which in turn weakens unions--who's going to be active in the union if they know it means they'll never be promoted again? Seniority at least has the benefit of being objective and measurable. So unions tend to push for increased importance for seniority and specifically measurable qualifications, as opposed to managers' assessment of who they like.

Reasonably enough, managers are rarely thrilled with this attitude, which they rightly figure is calculated to limit the scope of their decision-making power. It's ultimately an irreducible conflict, which can never be eliminated as long as you have bosses and workers. Which is to say, until you switch to co-operatives.

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged

N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 30 March 2004 09:04 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
...It's ultimately an irreducible conflict, which can never be eliminated as long as you have bosses and workers. Which is to say, until you switch to co-operatives.

I wouldn't trust any employer. Every worker, without exception, deserves an organizational means of self-defence, whoever the employer is. Even friendly bosses can become...unfriendly. The thread outlining the conflict between the Ontario NDP and its staff should make that clear.

[ 30 March 2004: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: