I want to share it with the group as I am curious what some of your opinions may be. The union rep is in his mid-twenties with a uni degree which rubs a lot of members the wrong way and I think his most recent article paints a solid picture of how unions don't actually protect lazy workers.
“We have all worked with that person who does less than the bare minimum. Their work is sloppy, they care little about details, and are the last one in, first one out. These sorts of workers are everywhere, and the trope that unions “protect” them above all other members is untrue, and is mostly based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of how unions work.
Unions create and enforce a process where a worker cannot be unjustly terminated or disciplined for looking at the boss the wrong way on one hand, but in the event that a worker’s actions justify discipline or termination, that there is a clear and legal process to follow on the other. However, it is not the union’s right or responsibility to issue discipline or terminate employees. That right belongs to the company, under what is called ‘Management Rights’, which means that they have the sole authority to hire, fire, and discipline employees or, in other words, manage their business.
If a manager ignores or does not document a member’s supposed misconduct, going as far as to allow the behaviour to occur unchecked, that is their choice. This is also referred to as “condoning” where if they later decide to terminate that employee after the alleged offense, and rely on “cause”, an arbitrator would consider that argument unreliable because if their offense or actions were truly that bad, you would have fired them earlier.
What a union does is ensure that the member’s conduct and the company’s chosen discipline are proportionate to the alleged misconduct. For example, if a member of the union forgets to clock out after working excessive overtime, and is terminated for it, we would argue that the termination is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Importantly, too, is that we assess the circumstance based on the facts provided by the company, and conduct our own investigation, before deciding to pool resources into the matter. This is where the trope “unions protect lazy workers” is grossly misunderstood.
We have finite resources and time, so we have to make our decisions based on the merits of the investigation, the testimony of the member(s), and what our investigation uncovers. To simply “protect” lazy workers is out of our budget and would not accomplish the enforcement and protection of members’ hard-earned rights. However, every member is entitled to the same level of representation, which means that we do our due diligence to ‘fact-find’ before informing the member whether or not we are going to take this matter any further. Also, if the member in question is considered that “lazy worker” people have to put up with, but their issue has merit, we separate the issue from who the member is or perceived to be.
In conclusion, the union's “protecting lazy workers” stereotype is devoid of how unions actually decide to proceed with discipline or terminations issued by the boss. If that same boss allows their workers misconduct to fester or they ignore their inability to do their job, that is on them and issues with that “lazy worker” on the shop floor are theirs to deal with. How, without merit, could a union “protect a lazy worker” solely because they’re a union member?”