Hot Topics | |
---|---|
Wage Slave wrote:I was talking to someone the other night about this. He strongly maintained that Japanese companies never want to fire an employee. If they do:
1. They have to pay some severance
2. The employee is in a stronger position when meeting new companies
3. The company loses face
4. The employee can claim unemployment benefit straight away instead of waiting months
They want you to resign and can play long and hard to try and get you to do it. The person I spoke to said the meeting to discuss his case went on over 3 hours and he only finally got them to fire him by losing his rag and kicking a few tables and chairs around the room. Only then did they finally relent and agree to dismiss him. This after a sustained campaign of isolation, bullying and humiliation had failed to elicit the desired resignation.
So I think the union rep is right. Them knowing you are a union member will not make a dismissal any more likely. It will remain unlikely. It might however, cause them to be a bit more careful about being accused of constructive dismissal.
Thing is - Has the relationship broken down? Do you really want to stay? Is there any point? If not, then actually you want them to fire you for the reasons above.
pragmatic wrote:If you say that my termination will remain "unlikley" then what is the advantage of declaring you union membership then?
GomiGirl wrote:Remember that the unions have their own agenda that is not necessarily always to help you out.
Wage Slave wrote:GomiGirl wrote:Remember that the unions have their own agenda that is not necessarily always to help you out.
Could you explain a bit more?
GomiGirl wrote:Wage Slave wrote:GomiGirl wrote:Remember that the unions have their own agenda that is not necessarily always to help you out.
Could you explain a bit more?
It has always been my experience that Unions are more interested in getting people to align with them and not with their employer and creating an adversarial environment in the work place thus creating a need for them as a third party in the relationship. Their agenda is self preservation of the Union.
As an employer myself, I have more respect for somebody who comes to me to discuss their needs rather than using a third party threat to supply "what is owed to them".
Wage Slave wrote:I was talking to someone the other night about this. He strongly maintained that Japanese companies never want to fire an employee. If they do:...
2. The employee is in a stronger position when meeting new companies...
wagyl wrote:Wage Slave wrote:I was talking to someone the other night about this. He strongly maintained that Japanese companies never want to fire an employee. If they do:...
2. The employee is in a stronger position when meeting new companies...
I don't entirely (= at all ) understand this
wagyl wrote:My personal view is that if a job environment is toxic, it is best to plan your own exit strategy, not engage in a bloody-minded war of attrition, trying to force the other side to make a move. There is certainly a better job environment out there. You spend too much of your life at the workplace to spend it in misery.
I am not sure that the OP is at this stage: in fact, I am unclear just what his issue is.
GomiGirl wrote:As an employer myself, I have more respect for somebody who comes to me to discuss their needs rather than using a third party threat to supply "what is owed to them".
wagyl wrote: As far as downsides of mentioning union membership go, I feel that if the relationship between you and your employer is still amicable it may convert it into an adversarial, antagonistic relationship. It might be a useful tool for you to have, but I would think carefully about when you choose to use it, maybe when you are getting close to making last ditch efforts..
Doctor Stop wrote:GomiGirl wrote:As an employer myself, I have more respect for somebody who comes to me to discuss their needs rather than using a third party threat to supply "what is owed to them".
So if one was to come up to you and say, hey GG, back enroll me in the social insurance you haven't enrolled them in would you respect them for saying that and enroll them or come up with some excuse why not to?
If one would ask for a 3% raise to compensate them for the upcoming consumption tax hike, would you respect them and say yes?
wagyl wrote:Wage Slave wrote:I was talking to someone the other night about this. He strongly maintained that Japanese companies never want to fire an employee. If they do:...
2. The employee is in a stronger position when meeting new companies...
I don't entirely (= at all ) understand this.
As far as downsides of mentioning union membership go, I feel that if the relationship between you and your employer is still amicable it may convert it into an adversarial, antagonistic relationship. It might be a useful tool for you to have, but I would think carefully about when you choose to use it, maybe when you are getting close to making last ditch efforts.
Reading between the lines in the OP's other posts, I am assuming we are talking about an industry-wide union, rather than the common Japanese single-enterprise union, which acts as go-between between management and labour in the one company only. I wonder if the OP is on permanent staff, or on a contract renewed each year. The most usual thing I would think if management is not happy, is to wait until the contract is up for renewal and make the decision not to do so. To go shifting a contract employee around midcontract to encourage them to resign seems like either overkill or deep, deep, sudden dissatisfaction on their part.
pragmatic wrote:wagyl wrote:As far as downsides of mentioning union membership go, I feel that if the relationship between you and your employer is still amicable it may convert it into an adversarial, antagonistic relationship. It might be a useful tool for you to have, but I would think carefully about when you choose to use it, maybe when you are getting close to making last ditch efforts.
Reading between the lines in the OP's other posts, I am assuming we are talking about an industry-wide union, rather than the common Japanese single-enterprise union, which acts as go-between between management and labour in the one company only. I wonder if the OP is on permanent staff, or on a contract renewed each year. The most usual thing I would think if management is not happy, is to wait until the contract is up for renewal and make the decision not to do so. To go shifting a contract employee around midcontract to encourage them to resign seems like either overkill or deep, deep, sudden dissatisfaction on their part.
I think these are all valid points. I have tried to talk to them. They are nice to me. However, everytime I ask them whether or not I will have a job for next year they all keep telling me "I dont know, its not my decision". I am wondering if everything is really what is seems. I believe if I declare my union membership and dont call the office and make demands all the time, I think it will remain amicable.
However, any constructive feed back is useful
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests