Structual Ability: Look at process flow and space utilization. Are there external factors working against your teams ability to get the job done. What are the Data Streams at the floor level? Are there visual cues to encourage doing the right thing? I would like to suggest to this manager to start taking classes regarding how to manage employees. It is easy to give excuses but when there is a Union there is a contract and yes there are issues that if employees do not follow the manager has the right to document each instance starting with a verbal counseling follow up by written counseling and so on.
It is important that managers know the Union contract by heart in order for them not to feel intimidated by employees who do not care their responsibilities. Also Managers are in charge to write each employees Performance Plan and it is the manager responsibility to review it with the employee when appropriate and when managers believe employees are not performing at a fully successful level. Managers life will be easy is they recognize that they need to learn about behaviors and job performance.
You can write up the employees for not doing the job according to their Performance Plan. I know it is hard for manager to recognize issues that are supported by the Union and those that are not. Other important reason is to learn how to recruit new employees in order for manager not to repeat same mistakes.
I always said that life in a company no matter which department or what kind of employees you manage, it is up to the managers to have a nice and pleasant environment to work for everyone under their supervision. Also managers shall be fair and do not need to show disparate treatment in an organization. You suggest explaining rationally what needs to be done.
Yet many times these people are not rational, literally. Ever tried to raise a teenager? Dave Logan hits the nail on the head when he says , when your audience consistently rolls their eyes at what you are saying, get a new audience. Your suggestions keep the struggle and frustration in place.
Remember the story of Walt Disney going down to Orlando and secretly buying the land needed to build Disney World? I appreciate your response David. I think there are lots of folks who are in this position. I would add one thing though — my experience with disciplining union employees is that it is difficult, but not impossible.
The best supervisory training I ever had was given by an employment lawyer who taught us how to address performance issues, how to document, and how to discipline up to and including termination.
I believe the American worker wants to a good job. However, managment fails to resolve problems that employees face everyday and they are repeated day after day. I would recommend you review the W. Edward Deming site ww. Then read Stephen M. You will find a change in attitude in the Union people and reps and you will become a team.
Having faced this type of situation on 2 memorable occasions in my management life, I offer this: it takes LOT of effort to reverse the momentum or get the engine started of intractable thinking and behaving. The outlined suggestions and steps are imminently doable and do produce change, but I found myself lacking the time to take the steps because the lack of productivity made immediate change an urgent priority.
Escalation of the consequences was unacceptable; my managers washed their hands of responsibility for any institutional issues and were not interested in large scale, time consuming change strategies that would have fixed the productivity problem similar to what was intimated regarding the sticky, black goo.
In every collective bargaining agreement disciplinary procedures are outlined. Management has the right to discipline its workforce. As a union rep I have found that management often does not do its job in following its own disciplinary policies by documenting poor performance. No union wants slack workers-it reflects poorly on everyone.
Confused and Bewildered would be wise to look into the specifc problems and not lay blame for lack of leadership on the union.
Stacy Allen is correct. What she points out is so well known that it is a banal assertion. More Kindle book s:. Home Top Menu Quick Links. You can name the authority, particularly if the person named is known and has a high position. Example Sorry, I only have the authority to spend up to a thousand. I'll have to ask your mother about that. I'd love to give you that, but I don't think I'd get away with it.
Discussion When you claim that you do not have authority to make a decision, then this effectively prevents the other person from disputing your decision, as the authority person is not there. See also Non-negotiable , Mandate. Consequently, so far as voting is concerned, the other five-sixths can have given no pledge that they will support the Constitution.
Of the one-sixth that are permitted to vote, probably not more than two-thirds about one-ninth of the whole population have usually voted. Many never vote at all. Many vote only once in two, three, five, or ten years, in periods of great excitement. No one, by voting, can be said to pledge himself for any longer period than that for which he votes.
If, for example, I vote for an officer who is to hold his office for only a year, I cannot be said to have thereby pledged myself to support the government beyond that term. Therefore, on the ground of actual voting, it probably cannot be said that more than one-ninth or one-eighth, of the whole population are usually under any pledge to support the Constitution. It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support the Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his part.
Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part of any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity imposed upon them by others, than one of their own choice…. As we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from choice, and who from the necessity thus forced upon him, we can have no legal knowledge, as to any particular individual, that he voted from choice; or, consequently, that by voting, he consented, or pledged himself, to support the government.
It utterly fails to prove that the government rests upon the voluntary support of anybody. On general principles of law and reason, it cannot be said that the government has any voluntary supporters at all, until it can be distinctly shown who its voluntary supporters are…. The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution.
It is true that the THEORY of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets.
But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit.
He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave…. For this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.
That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the future. To suppose that they would do so, is just as absurd as it would be to suppose that they would take his money without his consent, for the purpose of buying food or clothing for him, when he did not want it.
That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury.The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago.