Scab's Caught Drinking

Red Tail Bear said:
But what happens when his competition resorts to sucking up to management for advancement? Management certainly doesn't care just as long as there is someone to do the sucking. This is something that you are all to familiar with, isn't that right PTO?
[post="298795"][/post]​


Just curious. What's the difference between someone who has no job skills sucking up for a promotion verses someone who has not job skills getting a promotion because they are senior to the next guy?
 
Garfield1966 said:
Just curious. What's the difference between someone who has no job skills sucking up for a promotion verses someone who has not job skills getting a promotion because they are senior to the next guy?
[post="298873"][/post]​
In a union environment seniority is the name of the game. In a non-union environment sucking up to and being at the mercy of management is the name of the game. If both non-union guys have equal job skills, Who gets the promotion?The one who can suck up the best? Sorry, but I prefer the seniority route. At least you know the rules before you play the game.
 
PlayTheOdds said:
I think it's more along the lines as to who is better for the job. That is determined with by interviews. I know these are concepts that you guys cant grasp but that is how it works. No sucking required.
[post="298920"][/post]​
If both non-union guys have equal job skills, Who gets the promotion?The one who can suck up the best?
 
Red Tail Bear said:
In a union environment seniority is the name of the game. In a non-union environment sucking up to and being at the mercy of management is the name of the game. If both non-union guys have equal job skills, Who gets the promotion?The one who can suck up the best? Sorry, but I prefer the seniority route. At least you know the rules before you play the game.
[post="298913"][/post]​


I'd rather stick with non-union. At least I know I have a shot at getting a promotion based on my skill rather than seeing some senior union puke who is incompetent get the job each and every time.
 
The one that they determine has the better leadership skills. It’s not a 100% system but it far outweighs the union alternative. This scenario is just the reason companies are turning their backs on unions. How can a company operate when its policies are dictated by an outside source that doesn't have a clue?
 
Anybody think right to work will be federal some day in which case the RLA would not exempt Airlines. ?

If it happens will it spell doom for the Unions or will the majority still join anyway ?
 
Garfield1966 said:
I'd rather stick with non-union. At least I know I have a shot at getting a promotion based on my skill rather than seeing some senior union puke who is incompetent get the job each and every time.
[post="298951"][/post]​
But what if your skills are the same as three other guys and the most junior guy gets the promotion over you. How do you feel about that?
 
"promotion" is a relative term here. real managment is never and should never be a union job. I do not consider a lead to be management.
 
It is called competition, for the junior to get promoted over the other guys means for what ever reason it was believed he had what it takes to hold that position and the others didn't. Like I said its not 100% but it is better than the alternative.

How would that make me feel? If I were the older guy it would make me get my ass in gear and hone my competitive skills.

If I were the junior I would be proud that my education and instincts paid off, and glad that I wasn't in a union company.
 
PlayTheOdds said:
The one that they determine has the better leadership skills. It’s not a 100% system but it far outweighs the union alternative. This scenario is just the reason companies are turning their backs on unions. How can a company operate when its policies are dictated by an outside source that doesn't have a clue?
[post="298955"][/post]​
It's managements determination process that required the need for unions in the first place.
 
PlayTheOdds said:
It is called competition, for the junior to get promoted over the other guys means for what ever reason it was believed he had what it takes to hold that position and the others didn't. Like I said its not 100% but it is better than the alternative.

How would that make me feel? If I were the older guy it would make me get my ass in gear and hone my competitive skills.

If I were the junior I would be proud that my education and instincts paid off, and glad that I wasn't in a union company.
[post="298977"][/post]​
When I said junior guy I was talking in terms of company time not age. It could have been the older guy with less company time than the other two younger guys that gets the promotion even though all three have the same skills.

In this particular case wouldn't you think you should get that promotion over the guys with less company time than you? Especially since you all have the same amount of skills!
 
Unions of today exist so the uneducated and not so smart person could get ahead of an educated smart person.

Unions of yesterday fought to correct wages and working conditions that were deplorable and the governments refused to step up to the plate.
 
Red Tail Bear said:
When I said junior guy I was talking in terms of company time not age. It could have been the older guy with less company time than the other two younger guys that gets the promotion even though all three have the same skills.

In this particular case wouldn't you think you should get that promotion over the guys with less company time than you? Especially since you all have the same amount of skills!
[post="299000"][/post]​

I wrote that in context of company time. Very seldom does any two or three people have the same exact skills but in the event that that does happen I would think the company would go with seniority. I'm sure some favoritism would also play a roll also. Once again it is not 100% but it is better than the union alternative.