Quote:
Originally Posted by hyunelan2
We lost 5 more people to layoffs today. Some union, some non-union. I have a friend high-up in the finance department who has shared some information. The salaried employees are all taking a 2% pay cut (about the equivalent of a one-week's pay). Union contract negotiations are underway currently. They asked the union for the same concession and the reply was "we'd rather have layoffs than any reduction in pay."
I think that's horrible. I'm sure those who are getting cut feel their union dues were well worth it, since the union threw them under the bus to save their co-workers paycheck. With people being laid off left and right here, they can clearly see it wasn't some managment negotiating tactic. The fact is, the city is broke, we need to pay less: that is either less to each person or less people.
I am in the very small portion that is not union, but not salary. I'm an hourly worker without union representation. There are only about 4-5 of us in that situation.
|
That's just the way it goes. Unions are more willing to do whatever it takes to protect the more experienced workers, even if it comes at the expense of the less experienced. Seniority rules.
My company/union, like many others these days, now has a tier system, which in a nutshell means nothing changes for the senior employees while the new hires get the shaft. The newer guys, even if they stay with the company 30 years, will never get the same pay, vacation time, or benefits as the higher tier people.
In a way, it does make
some sense. Newer, younger hires have less to lose and it would theoretically be easier for them to transition to another job. And lets face it, those men and women who have been with a company for decades and/or are near retirement aren't really going to be willing to make sacrifices on behalf of the new guys.
With that said, I totally agree - "throwing them under the bus" describes it perfectly. It isn't fair, but cuts and concessions always seem to start at the bottom.
Linear Mode
