Unions Suck!

[Tero]

Liz Wilson... who's been the "fire lady" in Penticton for 9 years, has been bumped out of her job. Anyone who has kids in Penticton knows what a phenomenal job this woman does.... this absolutely disgusts me. Unions SUCK!!!

http://www.pentictonwesternnews.com/news/135701953.html

‘Fire lady’ always put her heart into her job

Liz Wilson is the voice behind the gruff exterior of Fireman Frank and faithful companion of Sparky the fire dog but to most she’s simply the “fire lady.”

On any given day the Penticton Fire Department’s operations assistant can be found teaching kindergarten kids the stop, drop and roll technique or patiently helping seniors with safeguards to keep them in their own homes a little while longer.

Now after nine years of educating people and likely saving a few lives along the way, Wilson is leaving the position that has become her passion.

“It’s just sad, sad, sad to be going, I just can’t tell you how hard this is,” she said. “Really, I guess I’m fine. The problem is I really, really love what I do. I just have this incredibly wonderful heart-warming job.”

Because of a union seniority situation she is expected to be replaced by another city employee as of Dec. 31.

“What has made this so much fun is I’ll be walking to the bank at lunch in my uniform and people I don’t even know will come up to me and tell me things like I saw you on the news or read about you in the Western and because of that we changed the batteries in our smoke alarm,” she said.

Wilson recalls not knowing anything about fire prevention when she first applied for the job and “talking way too much” during the interview, but it turned out to be a perfect fit.

“It was a job the first day that I walked in the door, but ever since then...,” she said.

Over the years as her knowledge increased so did the quality of the city’s fire education program.

While much of the work has been her own, she is quick to acknowledge all of those around her

“It’s been such a pleasure to work in an environment that has that strong sense of togetherness, it’s that through thick or thin that really bonds people,” said Wilson. “We pull together when the going gets tough.”

Fire Chief Wayne Williams has also watched her grow into the professional she is now.

“Liz has been the hub that keeps the wheel together, the one who keeps it going around here,” said the chief. “We’re very proud of what Liz has been able to accomplish.”

According to Williams, while the position will be filled because of the move of dispatch services to Kelowna, exactly what it will entail is undetermined.

He stressed fire prevention will continue to be a department priority.

Two of her co-workers, Karen Henderson and Dawne Young, who are also good friends, believe Wilson will be greatly missed.

“She is one of those people who is like an angel on earth and I sincerely mean that,” said Henderson. “She is so wonderful and patient with people and there’s no question how much she has helped.”

Young agreed: “There’s no question she has made a difference in people’s lives. You walk down the street with her and everybody knows her.”

For Wilson, the next challenge will be to search for another job she believes in as much as the one she is leaving.

“I am spreading my arms, my heart and my mind wide open to figure out what other opportunities are out there,” she said. “But I guess I really still would like to be the fire lady.”

[-fluffy-]

That's going to make for a nice work environment coming on board as the "one who stole the fire-lady's job."

[twobits]

That's going to make for a nice work environment coming on board as the "one who stole the fire-lady's job."

It is likely one of the laid off 911 dispatchers doing the bumping. My previous experience tells me the union members will not be critical of the bump. To do so could make them hypocrits if they excercised bumping rights themselves down the road. They'll just say sad to see ya go but those are the rules.

Edit to add- I find it curious that none of the dispatchers from Penticton were hired for positions in Kelowna (two applied) while I understand a Cashier at the Penticton Home Hardware store has been hired for Kelowna 911 dispatch before she has even completed the required courses. Could this be a "new Hire" wage structure or a "who ya know" structure?

[grammafreddy]

Yup - in this case, unions suck. Looks like she was doing her job and doing it well. Sad when someone else can bump you out of a job just like that and they aren't even a replacement in your job.

Kudos to the fire lady for educating so many and saving lives.

[-fluffy-]

It is likely one of the laid off 911 dispatchers doing the bumping. My previous experience tells me the union members will not be critical of the bump. To do so could make them hypocrits if they excercised bumping rights themselves down the road. They'll just say sad to see ya go but those are the rules.

It would be hypocritical of me to say that length of time served (seniority) should not be a consideration in situations like this, but it shouldn't be the only consideration. Skill, experience, knowledge and enthusiasm all play a part in finding the best person for the the job. Granted we know nothing of the bumpor, but the way the media is playing up the bumpee it certainly isn't shining a favourable light on the union. It makes one wonder as to just who put the papers on to the story?

[twobits]

Ya, all union contracts have those caveats for required skills etc for both bumping rights and hiring for job postings out of seniority ranking. Unless they are very specific skills, and most often a degree, diploma, or trade ticket, a great amount of leaway is present and often even gives the applicant a certain time period in which to learn or aquire the "skills". What the typical result of bumping is that it flows downhill from a higher classification to successivly lower classifications until the bottom is reached. Ususally a labour position or no formal skill requirment. I suspect that the fire lady was in such a bottom catagory.

[-fluffy-]

But then the fire lady would be in a position to bump someone lower in the chain, would she not? With eight years on the job she must have some seniority of her own. It's kind of an "eat your young to survive" approach, but if survival it is then we do what we have to do, right?

[twobits]

But then the fire lady would be in a position to bump someone lower in the chain, would she not? With eight years on the job she must have some seniority of her own. It's kind of an "eat your young to survive" approach, but if survival it is then we do what we have to do, right?

I would suspect that she is the low gal on the pole. Depends what union she is in. If she is in the CUPE local as a civilian in the fire dept, she might find a labourers position she has seniority over.

[brentan]

Great Lady for sure, however gotta say
Like my Union!

[zoo]

Sad when anyone loses their job. Is it not true that the person moving into her position has more years on the job with-in the city, as she did. Why would it be ok for him/her to lose their job? Would it not be fair for everyone that the person nearest the bottom goes. My jobs have always been like this, whether in a union or not. Seems doing it this way is the fairest.
Could you imagine that everytime the boss wants to promote a family member they could just bump a more senior employee out of the way.
Also, If she started her job with no experience then it sounds fair that someone could as well.
Sorry to hear anyone lose their job, but I'd rather see it this way.

[mexicalidreamer]

I get the feeling that you may be a union member yourself but your comment is refreshingly non union in content, to a point.

Seniority should never be the yardstick used to determine fit for a job. Seniority has zero to do (in and of itself) with qualifications which should be the yardstick used to determine fit.

This unrealistic and outdated ideal is the exact problem with unions. They insulate those that would otherwise not be able to make it on their own without the help of the CBA.

Before you decide to bash me about the head, I also believe that employers need a standard by which they govern themselves properly and that all people are given equal opportunity, if they so choose, at a better or simply different position.

Unions are largely a breeding ground for mediocre performance and how long anyone has been in a job means nothing unless they are qualified and motivated.


It would be hypocritical of me to say that length of time served (seniority) should not be a consideration in situations like this, but it shouldn't be the only consideration. Skill, experience, knowledge and enthusiasm all play a part in finding the best person for the the job. Granted we know nothing of the bumpor, but the way the media is playing up the bumpee it certainly isn't shining a favourable light on the union. It makes one wonder as to just who put the papers on to the story?[/quote]

[zoo]

A great intelligent response. Nice to see. By the way, right on the first assumption.
After receiving my business degree, I found it very easy to progress upwards in my non-union national company. We were replacing the older managers very quickly. I thought it was because we were better. Maybe we were, but there was more.
We did not have families, were not big users of benefits. Had less holidays and we were more available. Not to mention, cheaper to use.
It's funny that everyone in the private sector always believe that they are such great employee's.
The position in question sounds like a great position. Nice that with little or no experience one can achieve such a good paying career. Which means then another should and could fill that same position just as easy.
We do not know what the others position was but, I am sure he/she still qualifies for this new position.
Yes, I too, do not like that one can have a union give them a secure life long position with out earning, or achieving proper work ethics.
But, at the same time, I have learned not to trust my non-union management. I have seen to many times that they have made decisions based on family, money and personnel feelings before who was right for the job.
One thing is for sure. When one can use the benefits of the union rules for their own gains absolutely everyone will, but when it does not aid oneself then there is an issue.

[Tero]

I get the feeling that you may be a union member yourself but your comment is refreshingly non union in content, to a point.

Seniority should never be the yardstick used to determine fit for a job. Seniority has zero to do (in and of itself) with qualifications which should be the yardstick used to determine fit.

This unrealistic and outdated ideal is the exact problem with unions. They insulate those that would otherwise not be able to make it on their own without the help of the CBA.

Before you decide to bash me about the head, I also believe that employers need a standard by which they govern themselves properly and that all people are given equal opportunity, if they so choose, at a better or simply different position.

Unions are largely a breeding ground for mediocre performance and how long anyone has been in a job means nothing unless they are qualified and motivated.


It would be hypocritical of me to say that length of time served (seniority) should not be a consideration in situations like this, but it shouldn't be the only consideration. Skill, experience, knowledge and enthusiasm all play a part in finding the best person for the the job. Granted we know nothing of the bumpor, but the way the media is playing up the bumpee it certainly isn't shining a favourable light on the union. It makes one wonder as to just who put the papers on to the story?[/quote]

Not sure if you're speaking to me, but I AM in a union. I have no choice for my job. Belong, or don't have this job (and I LOVE what I actually do for a living.) That being said, there are people who work with me who should be turfed on their assess about 20 years ago, but the union protects (and promotes) them based on the day they were hired. I prefer a system where you're promoted based on merit, additude, effort, teamwork, etc. Crazy, I know! Why bother, when I don't have to do any of that crap to get ahead? All I have to do is show up each day! **sarcasm**

[my5cents]

A great intelligent response. Nice to see. By the way, right on the first assumption.
After receiving my business degree, I found it very easy to progress upwards in my non-union national company. We were replacing the older managers very quickly. I thought it was because we were better. Maybe we were, but there was more.
We did not have families, were not big users of benefits. Had less holidays and we were more available. Not to mention, cheaper to use.
It's funny that everyone in the private sector always believe that they are such great employee's.
The position in question sounds like a great position. Nice that with little or no experience one can achieve such a good paying career. Which means then another should and could fill that same position just as easy.
We do not know what the others position was but, I am sure he/she still qualifies for this new position.
Yes, I too, do not like that one can have a union give them a secure life long position with out earning, or achieving proper work ethics.
But, at the same time, I have learned not to trust my non-union management. I have seen to many times that they have made decisions based on family, money and personnel feelings before who was right for the job.
One thing is for sure. When one can use the benefits of the union rules for their own gains absolutely everyone will, but when it does not aid oneself then there is an issue.

Yes, you are correct. All we hear about is the long time union member who has the security no matter what he/she does etc etc. There is another side of that story, and you have hit it.

I worked for a very large corporation that was mostly union with about 10% non-union, called "confidential" staff.

A perceived crunch came. The corporation implemented a "voluntary separation package". About 40% of the confidential employees were called in to a meeting and told that they were going to take the package OR ELSE. The selection was made on age, everyone 55 or over was at the meeting, and those who weren't liked by the present manager.

Anyone who took the package was given 3 weeks for every year they had worked. Those under 55, lost major benefits that they would have received had they "retired" after 55. In some cases only a year short.

Many thought "you can't (basically) fire me for being 55 or over", they were invited to seek legal help. Surprisingly they were wrong.

Those that got to stay, lost 16 annual vacation days with no change in wages. Lost a yearly profit sharing which was replaced by a performance based bonus system. Yearly vacation was cut for the long term employees and capped at a lower amount.

The result was a dog eat dog atmosphere within the management and confidential staff.

Oh, and the union segment ? They were offered the separation package, only those who benefited from it, took it. They didn't loose the 16 days vacation, there annual vacations were not capped, they still received the yearly profit sharing.

In a non-union environment, anyone can be fired for absolutely no reason at all, as long as a severance package is paid, that includes age.

Not the environment for someone who is supporting a family, especially in a job market like the Okanagan.

[mexicalidreamer]

Yes, you are correct. All we hear about is the long time union member who has the security no matter what he/she does etc etc. There is another side of that story, and you have hit it.

I worked for a very large corporation that was mostly union with about 10% non-union, called "confidential" staff.

A perceived crunch came. The corporation implemented a "voluntary separation package". About 40% of the confidential employees were called in to a meeting and told that they were going to take the package OR ELSE. The selection was made on age, everyone 55 or over was at the meeting, and those who weren't liked by the present manager.

Anyone who took the package was given 3 weeks for every year they had worked. Those under 55, lost major benefits that they would have received had they "retired" after 55. In some cases only a year short.

Many thought "you can't (basically) fire me for being 55 or over", they were invited to seek legal help. Surprisingly they were wrong.

Those that got to stay, lost 16 annual vacation days with no change in wages. Lost a yearly profit sharing which was replaced by a performance based bonus system (which is good. promotes results). Yearly vacation was cut for the long term employees and capped at a lower amount. (all of the aforementioned speaks to survival of the business. Unpopular but necessary).

The result was a dog eat dog atmosphere within the management and confidential staff.

Oh, and the union segment ? They were offered the separation package, only those who benefited from it, took it. They didn't loose the 16 days vacation, there annual vacations were not capped, they still received the yearly profit sharing. (this just makes the case that everyone except the union made sacrifices. How right is it that this is allowed to happen? How do you think the non-union workers felt when all they see is that they are being asked to make concessions when the unionized workers don't have too? Maybe the overall impact would have been lessened if everyone did their part to help through the downturn)

In a non-union environment, anyone can be fired for absolutely no reason at all, as long as a severance package is paid, that includes age. (they can be terminated without cause as long as the employer is willing to pay out severance).

Not the environment for someone who is supporting a family, especially in a job market like the Okanagan.

[/quote]

I hope that that isn't the strongest argument you can make if you're a union employee? All you have done is too state a reality that exists in both worlds.

The labor laws are set up in such a way as to protect both workers and employers from things like wrongful dismissal, harassment, exploitation, poor performance and a myriad of other situations which may arise during an employment arrangement.

Depending on which party seeks out the boards help when warranted only suffices to ensure that the losing side is disgruntled and thinks that the board has failed in it's responsibility to them as would have been the case with the people you worked with who were surprised to find that the company can indeed force early retirement or whatever you want to call it provided the company has met or exceeded the criteria as set forth by the labor laws of the Province at the time.

If you were one of those caught up in the net, it is entirely understandable that you would feel that you were being treated unfairly but in the end, fair has little or nothing to do with it. The company has the right to protect itself in order to survive and with labor being one of the very few controllable expenses in a business, the people get hit first, usually.

Unless you are working under a union contract. Then the company has pretty much no right to protect itself because it can't make decisions regarding staffing which may be contrary to the agreement. Many companies have simply ceased to exist because the union fought for their rights and dug in until the company had no choice but to close the doors.

Unions are all about protection. Protection of all who pay dues even in the face of poor performance. In many cases union labor costs can lead to companies becoming noncompetitive in their markets. What do you do then when there is no work coming through the door because labor can't be negotiated?

Many may argue that union workers are subjected to discipline and termination which is true but if you have ever been part of the grievance process you may seriously question if it is indeed worth it to even try.

Short of actually killing someone, it's pretty tough to get rid of unionized employees and those who work in situations where they have no one but themselves to rely on when it comes to promotion and security :dyinglaughing: , understandably have issues with their unionized brothers and sisters who don't have to play by the same rules and live in a cocoon of indexed protection.

Bottom line, imho, is this; Unions have far too much power and control over business and private business seems to be able to get away with sometimes egregious behavior. It's tough to fight injustice in the workplace so many simply don't.

Somewhere in the middle lies a world where people are unilaterally treated with respect by their peers and hard work and dedication is recognized and rewarded. Only those who have created reasons to worry about their "security" and continued employment need be concerned.

Unions though, are not the answer.