Why does there have to be more to the story? Why can't it just be there are several whiny, self absorbed jerks that think they're entitled to more?

 

One anyway.

Exactly and to think that some Union Stewards and others don't go out of their way to file them as a way of "Putting it to the company" is naive also.

Filing multiple grievances usually occurs because management won't address earlier, often more important grievances. When the work environment has deteriorated this far, often the best course of action is to bring in a professional mediator.

 

As far as Run to State's "whiny, self-absorbed jerks": Whether the workers complain or not doesn't mean a whole lot. Complaints typically don't make it past a grievance committee unless there's a contract violation and a workable solution. So here we would need to see what the contract language says about the company providing "adequate lunches" in certain situations -- at job sites, for instance, that are in the middle of nowhere.

Filing multiple grievances usually occurs because management won't address earlier, often more important grievances. When the work environment has deteriorated this far, often the best course of action is to bring in a professional mediator.

 

As far as Run to State's "whiny, self-absorbed jerks": Whether the workers complain or not doesn't mean a whole lot. Complaints typically don't make it past a grievance committee unless there's a contract violation and a workable solution. So here we would need to see what the contract language says about the company providing "adequate lunches" in certain situations -- at job sites, for instance, that are in the middle of nowhere.

 

This is a very important part of the process. A grievance can't be filed unless there was a violation of the contract. The company can deny the grievance if the grievance is found to not have a contract violation in it. You have to provide the exact article of the contract which was violated.

As for PizzaGate, this is where things get cloudy between companies and unions and I see both sides. Company "tries to do something nice" someone from the union "takes offense" and files a grievance. Company gets mad and refuses to throw unions a bone anymore. Union gets mad and files more grievances when given an opportunity.

 

I see both sides but honestly I'd be upset if lunch was offered and I only was allowed two pieces of pizza. What are we? 8 years old? At the same time, I wouldn't have filed a grievance on it nor would I have suggested it but I get it. If two pieces is all I get I'd likely let someone else have my two slices and I'd go buy my lunch on my own.

PP2 that would be a reasonable response but remember, it wasn't the company, it was out of the guy's pocket.

Did anyone measure the slices ? Sometimes the pizza manufacturing company could be libel for slicing it unevenly . Some nice pieces and some smaller pieces . The union could consider suing the pizza place . Would serve them right for decades of unfairness . I for one would sign into a class action suit to make someone pay for this .

PP2 that would be a reasonable response but remember, it wasn't the company, it was out of the guy's pocket.

Info is missing. We don't know whether this was (a) a "pizza party" for a job well done paid for by a supervisor, or whether this (b) constituted an inadequate company-provided lunch at a distant job site or such. If the answer is (a), then I don't see how a grievance could be filed because acts of generosity aren't covered in a written contract. Which is why I said from the start there's more to this story because a grievance was filed.

Info is missing. We don't know whether this was (a) a "pizza party" for a job well done paid for by a supervisor, or whether this (b) constituted an inadequate company-provided lunch at a distant job site or such. If the answer is (a), then I don't see how a grievance could be filed because acts of generosity aren't covered in a written contract. Which is why I said from the start there's more to this story because a grievance was filed.

 

CWB made it plain the supervisor provided the lunch out of his own pocket. You simply choose to ignore it.

PP2 that would be a reasonable response but remember, it wasn't the company, it was out of the guy's pocket.

 

In that case the company should have thrown away the grievance. If it wasn't spent with company money then it isn't a grievable offense.

CWB made it plain the supervisor provided the lunch out of his own pocket. You simply choose to ignore it.

 

I didn't choose to ignore it. I skimmed through the thread and missed it. TTP could have done the same. Amidst all of the union bashing taking place in thread it is easy to lose sight of things that were said earlier.

CWB made it plain the supervisor provided the lunch out of his own pocket. You simply choose to ignore it.

You miss the point. Reread post 82. The fact that the pizza was paid for by a company supervisor is not relevant. CWB made his initial post (#7) to add gasoline to the union bash then under way. I challenged his management version of the pizza story and asked for more info. Didn't get any.

You miss the point. Reread post 82. The fact that the pizza was paid for by a company supervisor is not relevant. CWB made his initial post (#7) to add gasoline to the union bash then under way. I challenged his management version of the pizza story and asked for more info. Didn't get any.

 

You miss the point, it's the only thing that is relevant.

 

Your repeated attempts to justify this fool's whinny response tells me everything I need to know about why the guy felt that he could file a grievance and not get laughed off the property.

You miss the point, it's the only thing that is relevant.

 

Your repeated attempts to justify this fool's whinny response tells me everything I need to know about why the guy felt that he could file a grievance and not get laughed off the property.

I have offered up a plausible reason why this grievance proceeded. Your anti-union bias is getting the better of you. Sounds like the next time management needs to honor the contract and furnish an adequate lunch, foot-long Subways might make more sense than two slices of pizza per person. Big men framing houses burn a lot of calories in this weather.

Hey TTP -- you on that union clock right now ? Or do you clock out before sharing your wisdom on BGP's ?

 

You tell him! All those non union workers never use that computer at work for anything except work!

OK. I have read it all. Here is my thought.

 

Unions would not exist if companies valued and respected their employees. Unions have overstepped their bounds and behaved just as poorly as the company management they fight against. I know of a business where the union was so adversarial the company eventually closed the plant. I know of another business where the union is so embedded with management that they may as well not be there and good workers in poor conditions lose jobs without a peep from the union. There is plenty of blame to go around. I think unions serve a very valuable place and can help a business thrive if they function properly. The difficult part is finding that proper delicate balance where workers perform at their highest level and are satisfied with their working environment.

 

Bottom line on the question at hand - if business truly cared about their workers, unions would not exist and there would be no need for them. Since that is so rare, I believe unions should be in all businesses, but not as adversaries. They should be there to help the company be as profitable as possible, make sure the workers get their fair share of the profits and working conditions are safe and not abusive.