Evil union defends worker's "right" to use bathroom during work.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Evil union defends worker's "right" to use bathroom during work.

     


    There is no time for urinal-induced stage fright at WaterSaver Faucet company—especially if, say, you’re a big water drinker and think you might need to head back too the loo later in the day. While bathroom breaks seem like a pretty basic workers’ right, the Chicago-based faucet company is concerned about lost production time spent in the bathroom and is cracking the whip. How, you might ask? They’re timing employees’ bathroom excursions, says the local Teamsters union, in a complaint filed to the National Labor Relations Board.


    The union says the company even disciplined 19 workers for “excessive use” of the bathrooms last month. And by excessive, the company means you’re allocated six minutes to do your business—a day. Oh, and they also give workers gift cards as rewards for not using the bathroom at all in a day. Google this is not. The length of one’s time in the bathroom, it goes without saying, is a pretty intimate, personal thing. But, obviously, that’s not the case at WaterSaver Faucet company. Here’s more from CNN:


    The company's human resources department described "excessive use of the bathroom as... 60 minutes or more over the last 10 working days," according to the affidavit. Do the math and it works out to 6 minutes a day. The controversy goes back to last winter when WaterSaver installed swipe card systems on bathrooms located off the factory floor. The company said it had little choice because some employees were spending way too much time in there, and not enough time on the manufacturing line. WaterSaver's CEO, Steve Kersten, said 120 hours of production were lost in May because of bathroom visits outside of allotted break times. To recoup lost hours, WaterSaver has adopted a rewards system where workers can earn a gift card of up to $20 each month ($1 a day) if they don't use the bathroom at all during work time… He said that so far no one has been suspended or terminated, although warnings were issued. The company has a three step disciplinary process that starts with a verbal or written warning, which can then lead to a suspension, and finally a termination.


     


     


     


     


    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/07/16/company_limits_bathroom_breaks_to_six_minutes_daily.html

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    "Outside of break time", being the key. Undoubtedly there will be a morning break at 10, 1/2 or hour lunch, and an afternoon break...

    So the additional six minutes a day average for bathroom breaks doesnt sound so horrible, where you have an assembly line that loses productivity without sufficient personnel at their station at different parts of the line...

    Unless one has a medical issue...

    Left out was this reasonable statement: “Our point of view is that anyone can go to the washroom when they need to but what bothers us is extended periods of time and multiple trips that cause lost productivity"  

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chicago-faucet-company-limits-bathroom-breaks-6-minutes-day-article-1.1868954#ixzz37gZnrrUS

    The union position is apparently that an employee can assume the squat position and read the paper in the John all day....

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    Corporations and rich people are evil. We get it.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    "Outside of break time", being the key. Undoubtedly




    (Emphasis added).


            The 8th word in your post shouldn't be the supposition the rest depends on.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     


    "Outside of break time", being the key. Undoubtedly


     



    (Emphasis added).

     

     

            The 8th word in your post shouldn't be the supposition the rest depends on.

    [/QUOTE]


    It is not a supposition. The CEO states the excessive bathroom breaks were "outside of allotted break times". Gift cards were given for those not using the bathroom "at all during work time".

    Do you actually believe the company gave gift cards for not using the bathroom at all for 8 hours straight?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:


    Corporations and rich people are evil. We get it.



    No, I do not think you do get it, Hansoribrother, with all due respect.


    Nor do I believe corporations and rich people are evil. I do believe that sometimes corporations and people act in ways that are not only unlawful but deeply personally invasive.


    Trying to regulate the number of bathroom breaks workers can take at the WaterSaver Faucet Co. is a deeply invasive company policy that their union was quite right to take to the NLRB.


    Besides being deeply personally invasive, the 6 minutes per day is completely ridiculous.


    I know this is an "icky" subject but workers rights and their jobs are on the line.


    You can start with workers in general. To be healthy, you need to be hydrated properly. An easy way to know if you are is if your urine is clear when you urinate. You need to drink enough water to have to urinate about every two hours for that to happen. That number varies with the size of the person.


    Then take women. In the US. women menstruate until app. age 52. So every 4 weeks, your female workers will need to use the restroom for app 5 days more until they are 52.


    When they are pregnant they also need to use the restroom more as the pregnancy progresses.


    Then there are many physical disorders that require one to need the restroom more frequently. Some are mentioned in the article below.


    If one argues that the company will give a special waiver to those that disclose their disorder(s), that does not solve the problem. These are private matters. Moreover a company may layoff an employee on the pretext of one reason but the real reason is the knowledge of the physical disability.


    For example, if someone has ulcerative colitis there is no outward sign. But it is chronic with no cure. It raises the chance of getting colon cancer by 10% every decade. The medications are very expensive as are the likely hospital stays over the years.


    There are other issues in this particular case, but i just stayed with the right or lack therof to regulate employee bathroom breaks. 


     


     


     


     


    Can an employer regulate the number of bathroom breaks that workers take?


    A Teamsters union in Chicago thinks not and claims workers have been disciplined for taking what the company says is an "excessive" number of breaks. Teamsters Local 743 filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board last month and is awaiting a response from WaterSaver Faucet Company.


    Last winter, WaterSaver Faucet Company installed equipment to electronically monitor the production staff's washroom use, requiring employees to key in and out of the bathroom during work hours, according to the Teamsters' statement filed with the federal labor board, with one WaterSaver Faucet employee describing "excessive use" as spending 60 minutes or more over the last 10 working days, an average of six minutes a day.


    Workers picketed outside the company on July 9 with placards that read, "Stop Bathroom Harassment!"


    Teamsters Local 743's staff attorney Nick Kreitman said 19 of approximately 90 employees, or about 20 percent of the company workforce, were disciplined last month for "excessive washroom" use, according to the filing. The company told CNN that no one has been suspended or terminated, but warnings were issued.


    WaterSaver Faucet said the issue has been "mischaracterized by union leadership."


    "We understand that employees need to use the washroom outside of scheduled break times. Any person may go to the washroom at any time they need. It should be noted that union leadership previously had agreed to a policy regarding washroom use, and even suggested language for it," the company said.


    The Teamsters Local 743 agreed to the company's proposed incentive program to pay workers $1 per day, up to $20 a month, if the employee visited the bathroom only during breaks or other non-work time, according to the union's statement to the labor board.


    Kreitman told ABC News that none of the 200 or so contracts the union manages with other companies have such policies.


    In general, a work rule that seems unfair or silly is not illegal unless it impacts a protected group disproportionately, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If this rule of 60 minutes per month in the bathroom hypothetically affected women more than men, because, for example, they may need more breaks for menstrual periods, it might be sex discrimination, an EEOC spokeswoman said. Or if the rule affected older men, many of whom have prostate problems, it might be a combination of sex and age discrimination.


    Last year, one T-Mobile employee who was given two 15-minute breaks and a 30-minute lunch, claimed she was instructed to clock out to use the restroom while she was pregnant because it wasn't enough time.


    Pregnant T-Mobile Employee Clocked Out to Use Toilet


    And a 51-year old woman was dismissed from the Minnesota factory of Electrolux Home Products in August 2012 for urinating in a box after being refused a bathroom break. Last year, an arbitrator ruled the firing violated her union contract and she was reinstated.


    The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration states employees have a right to bathroom use. Electrolux stated that it complied by providing a half-hour lunch break and two 10-minute breaks for restroom use for every four hours, which is in its collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Machinists (IAM), according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.


    In China, factory workers in Shanghai revolted in January 2013 over two-minute toilet breaks, according to the Associated Press.


    If an employee had a disability, such as irritable bowel syndrome or needed to change a colostomy bag, an employer would have to modify its limited bathroom breaks policy to accommodate the disability, unless it could show that doing so would be an undue hardship, a spokeswoman for the EEOC said. Cases that involve bathroom policies and alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act occur more frequently than those involving gender or age discrimination, she said.


     




    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/regulate-bathroom-work/story?id=24581940&singlePage=true" rel="nofollow">http://abcnews.go.com/Business/regulate-bathroom-work/story?id=24581940&singlePage=true

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    Seems like the unions have been reduced to complaining about trivial matters.


    there are good bosses, there are bad bosses, but all unions, at this point in history, in this economy, are bad.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    Because this of course isn't the exception but rather the rule.....sigh

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

    "Outside of break time", being the key. Undoubtedly

     

     



    (Emphasis added).

     

     

            The 8th word in your post shouldn't be the supposition the rest depends on.

    [/QUOTE]


    It is not a supposition. The CEO states the excessive bathroom breaks were "outside of allotted break times". Gift cards were given for those not using the bathroom "at all during work time".

    Do you actually believe the company gave gift cards for not using the bathroom at all for 8 hours straight?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well..I think it's kind of creepy that the company installed a swipe card system for their bathrooms in the first place. Why focus on that? If a worker needs to leave their spot on the floor , presumably there is a supervisor overseeing the group. Why can't it just be dealt with that way.

    Also, if one has to swipe a card to use the bathroom..how does the system differentiate between time in the bathroom when on an official break..or time outside that? I mean..something really stinks with this bathroom system ;-)

    Added to that I think it's kind of smelly that the this policy seems to be limited to the "low men" on the totem pole. How come the CEO doesn't have to swipe a card to use the bathroom? Who is watching his productivity?

    I get the importance of production in a manufacturing environment..but this seems to be intrusive. Better to deal with employees on an individual basis. A few years back, we had a temp who was working our front office. She would disappear into the bathroom every hour for about 10 minutes or so. It took a while for others to catch on and the other front desk girl started to complain.  Turns out the temp was going into the bathroom to text back and forth with her boyfriend throughout the day.

    There needs to be a balance struck between people who are truly taking advantage of bathroom privacy to fool around on their phones..and people who legitimately need to use the bathroom. I think 6 minutes a day is a little bit of an unreasonable bar to set.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

    "Outside of break time", being the key. Undoubtedly

     

     



    (Emphasis added).

     

     

            The 8th word in your post shouldn't be the supposition the rest depends on.

    [/QUOTE]


    It is not a supposition. The CEO states the excessive bathroom breaks were "outside of allotted break times". Gift cards were given for those not using the bathroom "at all during work time".

    Do you actually believe the company gave gift cards for not using the bathroom at all for 8 hours straight?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well..I think it's kind of creepy that the company installed a swipe card system for their bathrooms in the first place. Why focus on that? If a worker needs to leave their spot on the floor , presumably there is a supervisor overseeing the group. Why can't it just be dealt with that way.

    Also, if one has to swipe a card to use the bathroom..how does the system differentiate between time in the bathroom when on an official break..or time outside that? I mean..something really stinks with this bathroom system ;-)

    Added to that I think it's kind of smelly that the this policy seems to be limited to the "low men" on the totem pole. How come the CEO doesn't have to swipe a card to use the bathroom? Who is watching his productivity?

    I get the importance of production in a manufacturing environment..but this seems to be intrusive. Better to deal with employees on an individual basis. A few years back, we had a temp who was working our front office. She would disappear into the bathroom every hour for about 10 minutes or so. It took a while for others to catch on and the other front desk girl started to complain.  Turns out the temp was going into the bathroom to text back and forth with her boyfriend throughout the day.

    There needs to be a balance struck between people who are truly taking advantage of bathroom privacy to fool around on their phones..and people who legitimately need to use the bathroom. I think 6 minutes a day is a little bit of an unreasonable bar to set.

    [/QUOTE]

    In my opinion the best way to NOT get the best out of people is to treat them like children. Knock on wood but I have never had a boss who stood over my shoulder watching every move I made. Micromanaging is NOT the way to go. Obviously if people are slacking then it needs to be dealt with...but it should be dealt with on a person to person basis. Not something universal like card-wipe bathrooms. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    It is now not just a matter of receiving gift cards or not for "holding it" as it were.


    "The union, Teamsters local 743, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board claiming WaterSaver unfairly disciplined 19 workers in June for "excessive use" of washrooms.



    The company's human resources department described "excessive use of the bathroom as... 60 minutes or more over the last 10 working days," according to the affidavit. Do the math and it works out to 6 minutes a day."


    In addition, when interviewed, the CEO had to admit that cell phones are not allowed on the factory floor. So it does not seem to be a problem of employees disappearing to use their cell phones to text and what not as an above poster mentioned was the problem in one case in her workplace.


    The CEO, when asked, also admitted that he did not have to swipe a "potty card" to use the bathroom like his employees.


     


    http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/15/smallbusiness/bathroom-time-penalty/" rel="nofollow">http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/15/smallbusiness/bathroom-time-penalty/

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    The CEO states the excessive bathroom breaks were "outside of allotted break times".

    I see. So by virtue of his good glorious name, workers' biological functions will automatically snap into whatever schedule he deems worthy to allot?


    Face it...the only reason you don't have a problem with this is that it's a CEO not a government employee.


     


     


     


     


    If any individual isn't getting his work done, it should be easy enough to spot it and discipline him.


     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

    "Outside of break time", being the key. Undoubtedly

     

     



    (Emphasis added).

     

     

            The 8th word in your post shouldn't be the supposition the rest depends on.

    [/QUOTE]


    It is not a supposition. The CEO states the excessive bathroom breaks were "outside of allotted break times". Gift cards were given for those not using the bathroom "at all during work time".

    Do you actually believe the company gave gift cards for not using the bathroom at all for 8 hours straight?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well..I think it's kind of creepy that the company installed a swipe card system for their bathrooms in the first place. Why focus on that? If a worker needs to leave their spot on the floor , presumably there is a supervisor overseeing the group. Why can't it just be dealt with that way.

    Also, if one has to swipe a card to use the bathroom..how does the system differentiate between time in the bathroom when on an official break..or time outside that? I mean..something really stinks with this bathroom system ;-)

    Added to that I think it's kind of smelly that the this policy seems to be limited to the "low men" on the totem pole. How come the CEO doesn't have to swipe a card to use the bathroom? Who is watching his productivity?

    I get the importance of production in a manufacturing environment..but this seems to be intrusive. Better to deal with employees on an individual basis. A few years back, we had a temp who was working our front office. She would disappear into the bathroom every hour for about 10 minutes or so. It took a while for others to catch on and the other front desk girl started to complain.  Turns out the temp was going into the bathroom to text back and forth with her boyfriend throughout the day.

    There needs to be a balance struck between people who are truly taking advantage of bathroom privacy to fool around on their phones..and people who legitimately need to use the bathroom. I think 6 minutes a day is a little bit of an unreasonable bar to set.

    [/QUOTE]

    It is not a strict 6 minutes a day, it is one hour over ten working days...that is quite different. If you have a specific problem on certain days, fine.

    Unless you have medical issues, you can go during the three breaks a day, and also a few additional trips....


    Your temp who disappeared into the bathroom didnt have a union...otherwise you would be hauled before the NLRB for "intrusive" interference with her private bodily functions , no doubt...

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    A company may also be hauled before OSHA by an employee if the employee feels there has been undue interference with their right to use the restroom.


    "If an employer places unreasonable restrictions on use, employees may file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA). Each complaint received by OSHA is looked at on a case-by-case basis, looking to the environment, nature of the restriction, and the employer’s justification. Consideration is also provided to whether the policy is general and whether an employer recognizes employees’ medical needs or reported adverse health effects."


     


    Some states also have laws regarding bathroom breaks, such as California.


    "Bathroom Breaks Do Not Count As Part of the Lawfully Mandated Rest Period
    A trip to the bathroom will not count against the employee’s paid rest break time. In California, an employee generally enjoys the privilege of using the restroom without the law’s interference.
    The California Division of Labor Standard Enforcement’s Policies and Interpretations Manual explains that the mandated rest period should not be confused with use of restroom facilities. If an employer allows an employee to use the restroom, the time an employee spends in the restroom will not be counted as part of a rest period. The rest period must be provided in addition to the amount of time for bathroom use.
    For example, if an employee uses 4 minutes to use the restroom, an employee will still be entitled to 2 full 10 minute rest breaks. But even though the law doesn’t regulate bathroom time, that doesn’t mean the employer can't"."


     


    Read more below...


     


    BATHROOM BREAKS – WHEN CAN AN EMPLOYER REGULATE THE TIMING AND LENGTH OF AN EMPLOYEE’S TRIPS TO THE RESTROOM?
    Toilet Stall California is one of few states that entitle employees with regular rest breaks. Generally, an employer must allow an employee to take a ten minute break every four hours, preferably in the middle of the four hour period. This break must be paid.
    But beyond these rest breaks, what can an employer regulate in terms of necessary personal time, such as timing and frequency for calls of nature?
    Do trips to the bathroom count toward these two paid breaks?
    What happens if an employee must use the restroom more than two times during the day? What if a sick employee needs to use the restroom for more than ten minutes?
    What if the employee abuses his or her restroom privileges and leaves the workstation excessively?
    Although these may be embarrassing topics, these are real issues that employers and employees face every day.
    Bathroom Breaks Do Not Count As Part of the Lawfully Mandated Rest Period
    A trip to the bathroom will not count against the employee’s paid rest break time. In California, an employee generally enjoys the privilege of using the restroom without the law’s interference.
    The California Division of Labor Standard Enforcement’s Policies and Interpretations Manual explains that the mandated rest period should not be confused with use of restroom facilities. If an employer allows an employee to use the restroom, the time an employee spends in the restroom will not be counted as part of a rest period. The rest period must be provided in addition to the amount of time for bathroom use.
    For example, if an employee uses 4 minutes to use the restroom, an employee will still be entitled to 2 full 10 minute rest breaks. But even though the law doesn’t regulate bathroom time, that doesn’t mean the employer can’t.
    An Employer May Still Reasonably Limit an Employee’s Use of the Restroom
    Brief non-working gaps in the workday are considered a privilege, not an entitlement. Therefore, an employer who permits employees to use the restroom without regulation is providing employees with a privilege that the employer rightfully expects should not be abused.
    If an employee is habitually using the restroom in excessively, an employer has the right to reasonably limit the amount of time an employee may be absent from his or her work station. There is no bright-line standard for what kinds of limitations are appropriate on use of the workplace restrooms.
    At least one company has approached this sensitive subject by establishing the time allowed for bathroom breaks as part of the negotiation process with employees. In its 2005 memorandum of understanding, Ford Motor Company agreed to give employees 48 minutes per shift for bathroom time. Shockingly, Ford issued a memoranda to its employees that year, explaining that managers would begin to keep a close eye on time spent in the bathrooms, because so many employees were using more than their 48 minutes per shift.
    The bottom line is: An employer may not impose unreasonable restrictions on employee use of facilities, but may provide sensible limits on use. If an employer places unreasonable restrictions on use, employees may file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA). Each complaint received by OSHA is looked at on a case-by-case basis, looking to the environment, nature of the restriction, and the employer’s justification. Consideration is also provided to whether the policy is general and whether an employer recognizes employees’ medical needs or reported adverse health effects.
    An Employer May Be Required To Reasonably Accommodate an Employee Whose Disability Requires Increased Bathroom Use
    If an employee has a disability recognized by law, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act both require employers to reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities. This may include providing the employee with more time to use the toilet facilities.
    In the 2009 Marin County case A.M. v. Albertsons, LLC, a checker was suffering from dry mouth, resulting from her cancer treatment. Consequently, she had to keep a water bottle with her at all times and increase her consumption of water. She logically had to make numerous trips to the restroom during her shift, as often as every 45 minutes, and this was accommodated by her regular managers. However, when one manager, unaware of her medical condition, refused to let her leave her station to use the restroom, the employee could no longer hold it and lost control of her bladder in front of customers.
    The employer’s failure to provide her in just this one instance with a reasonable accommodation for her disability was found to have violated her rights under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. A jury awarded the Plaintiff a total of $200,000: $12,000 for past lost wages, $40,000 for future medical expenses, and $148,000 for past emotional distress. The plaintiff had lingering psychological effects; she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a direct result of the incident.
    Employers must therefore be extremely careful to keep supervisors informed of accommodations made for employees with disabilities. Even one incident of failure to accommodate could result in a devastating experience for an employee, and major ramifications for the employer. As demonstrated by A.M. v. Albertsons, this is especially true in the area of disabilities that deal with bathroom issues.



    http://goyetteassociates.com/wage-and-hour-victories/bathroom-breaks-when-can-an-employer-regulate-the-timing-and-length-of-an-employees-trips-to-the-restroom/" rel="nofollow">http://goyetteassociates.com/wage-and-hour-victories/bathroom-breaks-when-can-an-employer-regulate-the-timing-and-length-of-an-employees-trips-to-the-restroom/

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    [QUOTE]The CEO states the excessive bathroom breaks were "outside of allotted break times".[/QUOTE]

    I see. So by virtue of his good glorious name, workers' biological functions will automatically snap into whatever schedule he deems worthy to allot?

     

    Face it...the only reason you don't have a problem with this is that it's a CEO not a government employee.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    If any individual isn't getting his work done, it should be easy enough to spot it and discipline him.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If an employee needs a restroom break outside of breaks and lunch, can we agree that that is unpaid time?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    [QUOTE]The CEO states the excessive bathroom breaks were "outside of allotted break times".[/QUOTE]

    I see. So by virtue of his good glorious name, workers' biological functions will automatically snap into whatever schedule he deems worthy to allot?

     

    Face it...the only reason you don't have a problem with this is that it's a CEO not a government employee.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    If any individual isn't getting his work done, it should be easy enough to spot it and discipline him.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If an employee needs a restroom break outside of breaks and lunch, can we agree that that is unpaid time?

    [/QUOTE]

    I assume you're joking. You don't really believe everyone can be on the same bathroom schedule of 10:00 a.m., noon and 2:00 p.m. do you? A) Some people need to go more than 3 times in an 8 hour shift. B) Not everyone has a set schedule of when they need to urinate

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    [QUOTE]The CEO states the excessive bathroom breaks were "outside of allotted break times".[/QUOTE]

    I see. So by virtue of his good glorious name, workers' biological functions will automatically snap into whatever schedule he deems worthy to allot?

     

    Face it...the only reason you don't have a problem with this is that it's a CEO not a government employee.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    If any individual isn't getting his work done, it should be easy enough to spot it and discipline him.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If an employee needs a restroom break outside of breaks and lunch, can we agree that that is unpaid time?

    [/QUOTE]

    I assume you're joking. You don't really believe everyone can be on the same bathroom schedule of 10:00 a.m., noon and 2:00 p.m. do you? A) Some people need to go more than 3 times in an 8 hour shift. B) Not everyone has a set schedule of when they need to urinate

    [/QUOTE]


    Or god forbid they have to take a No.2. Personally i wouldn't want to work for a company that has to micromanage like that. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    [QUOTE]The CEO states the excessive bathroom breaks were "outside of allotted break times".[/QUOTE]

    I see. So by virtue of his good glorious name, workers' biological functions will automatically snap into whatever schedule he deems worthy to allot?

     

    Face it...the only reason you don't have a problem with this is that it's a CEO not a government employee.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    If any individual isn't getting his work done, it should be easy enough to spot it and discipline him.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If an employee needs a restroom break outside of breaks and lunch, can we agree that that is unpaid time?

    [/QUOTE]

    I assume you're joking. You don't really believe everyone can be on the same bathroom schedule of 10:00 a.m., noon and 2:00 p.m. do you? A) Some people need to go more than 3 times in an 8 hour shift. B) Not everyone has a set schedule of when they need to urinate

    [/QUOTE]


    Or god forbid they have to take a No.2. Personally i wouldn't want to work for a company that has to micromanage like that. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    Bad management happens. If you think that a union is a force for making bad management better you should probably think again.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [] In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    []The CEO states the excessive bathroom breaks were "outside of allotted break times".[]


    I see. So by virtue of his good glorious name, workers' biological functions will automatically snap into whatever schedule he deems worthy to allot?


    Face it...the only reason you don't have a problem with this is that it's a CEO not a government employee.


    If any individual isn't getting his work done, it should be easy enough to spot it and discipline him. []

    If an employee needs a restroom break outside of breaks and lunch, can we agree that that is unpaid time?




    Of course I don't agree. The other responses to your statement took care of it.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    Bad management happens. If you think that a union is a force for making bad management better you should probably think again.



    No but they are a force to stop abusive and/or unsafe employer rules.


    We can identify waste resulting from some union activities, but without unions and the NLRB, this sort of nonsense would quickly become the rule. Reading endless rants of the CLCs makes clear that some people think we'd all be better off if unions were smashed utterly.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    I'm not discounting the good that private sector unions have done over the years but very often union and company management combine to prevent a company from achieving it's potential. I imagine that it's because bad companies require unions to mitigate the bad management of their managers. A well run, well managed company shouldn't need to have a union around to protect their workers.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    Well, that's all true. The conundrum is, as usual, which side to err on.

    Personally, I tend to think the main change is that public employee unions need to go.

     

    A private sector union puts worker bargaining power somewhat on part with employers, and they bargain directly with the person paying them.

    Not true with public sector workers. What they get in negotiation depends on a chain of political appointees from some person(s) I may or may not have voted for. I have no power over those negotiations. The government employees doing the negotiating aren't paying the public sectors employees. Ultimately, I am.

    (And of course, public sector jobs pay more than they used to, plus benefits)

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: Evil union defends worker's

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm not discounting the good that private sector unions have done over the years but very often union and company management combine to prevent a company from achieving it's potential. I imagine that it's because bad companies require unions to mitigate the bad management of their managers. A well run, well managed company shouldn't need to have a union around to protect their workers.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]

    SB,

    One thing private sector unions do is protect employees from arbitrary and capricious decisions by the managers of a company.

    It is akin to the forums and article comments. While posters are not workers, they do put in time and energy into participating in boston.com. In return, BDC makes money whether you have a subscription or not.

    But the posters have absolutely no power at all to insure fairness in how the forums and article comments are run and I believe it shows with the shrinking amount of posters and posting in this forum.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share