Eastern Railroad Discussion > Unions face a new reality

NY Times reports on the changed environment for some union leadership in the #ME TOO era.

Legally required to defend their members, the leadership faces pressure when the complaints come from fellow members. Not from management.

Substitute "safety" for sexual harassment, and an impossible situation is created. Defending people with the contract may earn the leader a lot of enemies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/arts/metoo-unions-ballet-ramasar.html

Posted from Android

Where the railroads are concerned there are standards of behavior that the union cannot help you recover from. Generally we no more want certain kinds of people than the company does, and once they are identified...we are just as relived to see them go as the company and any perceived victims may be. Been there seen it happen....happy that no one has come back that was dismissed for such egregiousness. In fact we unions have our own standard of behavior apart from the company....if we toss you out of the union for violating those standards you are done anyway....we are a closed shop and NOT subject to State level "right to work" laws. 

That is well said. We do t like our dues to go for defending malcontents. The same guys stab their union brothers in the back. There are a few that are currently dismissed that I would rather not see return. Along with a few that got shafted and deserve justice.

engineerinvirginia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where the railroads are concerned there are
> standards of behavior that the union cannot help
> you recover from. Generally we no more want
> certain kinds of people than the company does, and
> once they are identified...we are just as relived
> to see them go as the company and any perceived
> victims may be. Been there seen it happen....happy
> that no one has come back that was dismissed for
> such egregiousness. In fact we unions have our own
> standard of behavior apart from the company....if
> we toss you out of the union for violating those
> standards you are done anyway....we are a closed
> shop and NOT subject to State level "right to
> work" laws. 

Leaving aside the fact that the original post about alleged sexual harassment amongst ballet dancers has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with railroads or unionized railroad employees, I really have to ask about how you define egregiousness when you say, ".happy that no one has come back that was dismissed for such egregiousness. I also have to laugh at the idea that unions hold high standards of conduct. Furthermore, unions are monopolies, and if you are engaging in blacklisting people, you are opening yourselves up to all sorts of lawsuits.

Bandito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> engineerinvirginia Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Where the railroads are concerned there are
> > standards of behavior that the union cannot
> help
> > you recover from. Generally we no more want
> > certain kinds of people than the company does,
> and
> > once they are identified...we are just as
> relived
> > to see them go as the company and any perceived
> > victims may be. Been there seen it
> happen....happy
> > that no one has come back that was dismissed
> for
> > such egregiousness. In fact we unions have our
> own
> > standard of behavior apart from the
> company....if
> > we toss you out of the union for violating
> those
> > standards you are done anyway....we are a
> closed
> > shop and NOT subject to State level "right to
> > work" laws. 
>
> Leaving aside the fact that the original post
> about alleged sexual harassment amongst ballet
> dancers has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever
> with railroads or unionized railroad employees, I
> really have to ask about how you define
> egregiousness when you say, ".happy that no one
> has come back that was dismissed for such
> egregiousness. I also have to laugh at the idea
> that unions hold high standards of conduct.
> Furthermore, unions are monopolies, and if you are
> engaging in blacklisting people, you are opening
> yourselves up to all sorts of lawsuits.

I dunno......we been taking care of our own over 100 years.