RTW- Leaving the Union.
- Thread starter coolslice
- Start date
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
I'm curious about that myself.
Boywondr
The truth never changes.
There are panels outside of the local union who make decisions. And the nlrb.
Read the post. "unless a division of the government forced it." As far as panels, the Union had to take it to panel so this seems shady at best. If they were conspiring, he wouldn't come back at panel because the case wouldn't have allowed for it. If it was deadlocked,depending on article, it would have been taken to arbitration(if the Local agrees) in order for that to happen. I asked about government agencies. In most of those cases, the Union would have to fight for that person. I just asked for clarification on a shady scene.
I think he said that both had agreed that they were at fault. I understand that the company would be the only to "place" him back on the job unless the panel agreed in his favor which is probably what he is saying. Sometimes the panel does side with the employee to place them back with full back pay. Not often will the company vote in that manor.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Ok.
Litigation, for what ?
You (allegedly) got your job back.... and back-pay.
What's left ?
That's my point. 99% of the time, the Company will not award back pay. They won't even side with return unless they see a problem with the case that the Union has to bring to light. Something is not adding up here.
Management Blows
Banned
.So to summarize.
Management hates you.
The union hates you.
Hourlies hate you.
HR hates you
Kinda sounds like the problem might be you.
I can see how you’d think that. But the fact remains I’m hated because I don’t lay down and take the abuse. I fight for what’s right for myself and others that’s unaware of their rights. also, I have very strong relationships with many coworkers, as I mentioned in my original post. Especially since they saw what transpired. I wouldn’t be there if I were wrong.
the main point I’ll make is that I get paid the same no matter who likes me. I could care less who does or doesn’t, besides my family. They think I’m great. So what was your point again?
Last edited:
UnconTROLLed
perfection
If both sides knowingly are friend'd, I'd say they were just saving face. Because it could get more ugly and costly in court, court and legal fees, etc
To not to allow them back
To not to allow them back
Management Blows
Banned
I didn’t allegedly get my job back. I most definitely got my job back. What’s left? Well, as I mentioned before, I can’t talk about that. When I can I’ll be glad to. But there’s a lot more to the situation than just getting set up and reinstated. If that’s were all that happened, I’d agree there’d be nothing left
Last edited:
Management Blows
Banned
This pretty much sums it up. The union wouldn’t even tell me what I was accused of until the last minute, although I knew all along what their plan was. During the hearing the BA stated to me I would not be getting my job back, period. But he was obviously mistaken. I was back the next day paid in full. Both sides weren’t happy about it. Oh, just like all previous hearings, I was going against the company and union too. Always had to represent myself.
Nothing ads up dude. How do they bring you back "THE NEXT DAY"? The government takes way longer than that. The Company would have had to relent or the Union got you back under Article 7.
Management Blows
Banned
I confused as to where the government came up? I had a local hearing after the set up, sent home. Then another hearing, I’m assuming the one preceding the panel, approximately 2 weeks after incident. It was that one I was reinstated and brought back with full pay
Boywondr
The truth never changes.
That was the "next day".
What's next? Shoot the wounded.
It only adds up if the whole story is laid out but that can't happen yet. This never happens in real life? Ok.
This should all be read with the understanding that I fully understand the union has screwed over people in the past, and will do so in the future.
But innocent until proven guilty.
The new guy logs on with a claim against the union. (Among others).
It is his burden to justify his claim, which he has not done very well.
We are not obligated to believe him without demonstrable proof, and it would be imprudent of us to do so.
Boywondr
The truth never changes.
Looks like the "guy" was releasing built up anger but couldn't give all the details, true. You dont have to believe him/her and it really doesnt matter since this is all imaginary here.
That is the hope anyway.
NLRB, Labor Board, Arbitrators, etc are part of the Government.
Management Blows
Banned
Not asking you or anyone to believe anything I said. I simply chimed in with my opinion, reasons for feeling the way I did. Maybe to offer a different angle ? But if anyone believes me or not is irrelevant. I know what happened and have receipts.
