At what point do you stop protecting your partner?

Working for a company with a union isn't always better.

Here we have someone (person A) who refuses to work with another person (person B); everyone else has been told they will be suspended if they refuse to work with someone. But this A has done it, union won't back the B, wont go to bat for them so that they can find out why person A won't work with them. They won't push for a sit down so that it can be sorted out. Even though with any other problems between other employees management always makes the 2 people sit down with management and union rep and sort it out.
So just because you have a union doesn't mean anything
 
johnrsemt said:
Working for a company with a union isn't always better.

Here we have someone (person A) who refuses to work with another person (person B); everyone else has been told they will be suspended if they refuse to work with someone. But this A has done it, union won't back the B, wont go to bat for them so that they can find out why person A won't work with them. They won't push for a sit down so that it can be sorted out. Even though with any other problems between other employees management always makes the 2 people sit down with management and union rep and sort it out.
So just because you have a union doesn't mean anything
Click to expand...

Sounds like person A needs to graduate high school.
 
That is totally true Person A acts like his little kids, and I have told him that.

It used to be that if you refused to work with someone you got the day off on leave. Oops different person tries it and it is ok now but just for him
 
Brandon: yes, and keeping afloat in that sort of sea of pirañas is difficult especially without (as I had) the upon AND the civil service commission beside me. Not to mention I made it known (through the grapevine) I was prepared to sue personally (not the employer) anyone who did that sort of thing, and I conspicuously documented stuff. It can do wonders when you open your day planner and click your pen when asked to "come in, close the door". ;)

As for unions going overboard about keeping each and every body/member employed, our "union" is, legally, a professional association but with bargaining powers. They have a separate function, to deal with issues regarding quality of professional life among the members, and the quality of care being extended the patients. If the union called for an accounting from the program director as to why XYZ was going on, she might not be compelled to tell the truth, but she was compelled to at least appear and provide evidence; that is enough of a burr under the saddle to make most admins rein in their problem children.

I'm sorry OP this has become a union thread, but covering for others ultimately becomes a question of personal survival once the screw-ups are discovered.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, its fine... unionization is something else that has been a topic of interest around here lately too. Everyone is just too scared to initiate it....

But yeah, i guess what is kicking in for me right now is that cyoa instinct.
 
So, CYOA!
 
Too many replies to read but... I WILL PROTECT MY PARTNER ALWAYS. We both have an understanding of it. If they do something life threatening then of course its different. Anything short of that its too petty for me to be a giant d bag about it. No harm=no foul to me
 
Joe said:
Too many replies to read but... I WILL PROTECT MY PARTNER ALWAYS. We both have an understanding of it. If they do something life threatening then of course its different. Anything short of that its too petty for me to be a giant d bag about it. No harm=no foul to me
Click to expand...

How do you define harm though? Many policy breaches often harm the agency and it's operational capacities, do we care about the broader picture or just what happens in our own little world known as the ambulance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top