NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a problem that my union helped solve.

A bit over a year ago, Japan passed a law regarding priavcy that, in short, says companies are not allowed to pass personal information about employees or customers on to third parties without the explicit permission of the first party. The company has made a big to do about this, in regards to customer information.

About three weeks ago, I turned up at work and discovered that a number of employees at a branch had been issued "elevator passes" for the "staff elevator". These were issued by a third party, the building owner, which the branch office had provided personal information to without the employee's consent.

I contacted my union rep, and there was some discussion. This am, I got the following reply:

In mid-May many members working at <branch office> School raised concerns over being issued with <branch office building> ID Cards and that this may violate the new privacy laws.

<Company> has replied saying that is it a requirement of <branch office building> management that employees of tenants be issued with ID cards to use the staff elevator.

After investigating the matter <company> General Personnel has found that there was indeed lack of consideration regarding privacy of personal information.

<Company> Personnel has instructed the School Director to rectify the problem, and take action to prevent a re-occurrence.


This matter is not specifically covered under my employement contract. It is covered under local privacy laws. The matter almost certainly (99.9%) would not have been properly addressed if individual employees had approached the management with their concerns.

So, would you have agreed with and/or supported the union in this case?

Well, if they are doing something wrong then the union is fully right in doing what is necessary to bring the company back in line with the law. Unions are useful for righting legal and economic wrongs, and I appreciate their work in those fields.

However, the main problem I have with unions is their tendency to ask for money and benefits they do not deserve and would not recieve at the market rate, which can lead to the company being unable to compete and grow with the result being eventual bankruptcy and the destruction of the company. Delphi is a perfect example of a union demanding too much, and they are now facing massive job cuts because of it.

bump

However, the main problem I have with unions is their tendency to ask for money and benefits they do not deserve and would not recieve at the market rate, which can lead to the company being unable to compete and grow with the result being eventual bankruptcy and the destruction of the company. Delphi is a perfect example of a union demanding too much, and they are now facing massive job cuts because of it.

It goes both ways. Look at the exxon ceo. I could have sat in his position and seen the same profit levels.

Job cuts is now a standard of business. I have seen a few stocks go up in value when layoffs were announced.

I don't know if the union was even needed in this situation. The company violated a national law probably because somebody was stupid.

They probably would have done it even without the union talking to them.....

It goes both ways. Look at the exxon ceo. I could have sat in his position and seen the same profit levels.

I'd have to agree. Organic growth+luck does not equal a talented CEO, especially not one with a pay package like Ratmond's. Mark Hurd is a lot better example of a deserving CEO than he is...

Job cuts is now a standard of business. I have seen a few stocks go up in value when layoffs were announced.

Only temporarily; the performance of the stock afterwards is pretty much dependent on what the company does with the cuts. If they increase revenue and profit along with reducing costs and increasing operating margins, they will perform much better; however, if they don't the stock will tank further because job cuts can be a sign of longer-term trouble, even bankruptcy. It all depends on what companies do with the cuts, not the cuts themselves, that determines stock performance.

Plus, the nature of job cuts is changing. In many cases where it isn't vital to cut jobs, companies will prefer to freeze hiring or perform attrition cuts (where the company simply doesn't replace employees that leave until the target is met) in order to save money on the cuts themselves and to hedge against the risk that there will be a sudden upswing in business, resulting in higher expenditures for retraining and hiring.

The labor market is simply too tight to give up skilled employees unless absolutely necessary; during a recession it is different but right now too many fields are suffering labor shortages for a company to risk a big layoff. Even outsourcing is becoming too costly for a lot of companies, and some are even forced to relocate their employees and hiring to the US due to the high cost of outsourcing...it's literally becoming more expensive to hire and retain workers in India than to hire them in the US for an increasing number of occupations .

Also, I forgot to mention that one of the problems facing outsourcers is the huge turnover at many companies; there is such demand for skilled workers that employees are quitting after months or even weeks of work for a better offer. It's like San Jose in 1999...but in Bangalore.

Originally posted by Black Forrest
I don't know if the union was even needed in this situation. The company violated a national law probably because somebody was stupid.

They probably would have done it even without the union talking to them.....
Not true. Employers will often ignore laws safe in the knowledge that individuals (or even groups of individuals) will either be unable to afford to take on the organisation in a court, or afraid to make themselves unpopular with management. The Union is often the only threat an employer will react to as it has muscle and the finances to back it up.

I would describe myself as union-neutral. I am anti-government protection of unions, tho, which is what I think you mean.

This matter is not specifically covered under my employement contract. It is covered under local privacy laws. The matter almost certainly (99.9%) would not have been properly addressed if individual employees had approached the management with their concerns.

So, would you have agreed with and/or supported the union in this case?

Umm, what about a class-action lawsuit? Do they have those in Japan? Usually that is what they would do in America, unions or not (or they would just live with it).

I would only say further that, were I completely and totally against unions (as I said before, I'm not), I still might agree with the action taken.

Not true. Employers will often ignore laws safe in the knowledge that individuals (or even groups of individuals) will either be unable to afford to take on the organisation in a court, or afraid to make themselves unpopular with management. The Union is often the only threat an employer will react to as it has muscle and the finances to back it up.

Are you saying German companies ignore the privacy laws?

I'm pretty much anti union. Many years ago, I could see the union being a positive addition.. but now .. not so needed. My brother just went through this in RJ Reynolds. He was pro union. But from what I got of it, they were just being whiney babies.. they make big money.. for not doing shit. I supported him ofcourse, but basically told him to get over it. Union didn't get in btw.




as for this case. not enough information for me to make a choice.

Oh.. and nowadays in most cases, I believe they are nothing but trouble makers and trying to line their pockets.

A strongly workded ceise and desist? a classic.

A few quries RE some interesting votes:

Blu-tac: Why wouldn't you have supported the union in this case?

The State of Georgia: Why do you think the law is bad? Are you against privacy laws? If so, on what grounds?

Ellick Higson, Fangmania, Kinda Sensible people, and Luo Lua: What's your other option?

I don't know if the union was even needed in this situation. The company violated a national law probably because somebody was stupid.

They probably would have done it even without the union talking to them.....

As Llanarc (and myself) pointed ouit, I would have been unable and unwilling to take the employer to court.

I essentially view my Union as a co-op lawfirm. :D

But in regards to this, and other comments re lawsuits, it was a fairly minor occurance - it's questionable if a proper full on lawsuit - especially filed by non-Japanaese under the Japanese system, would have been worth the effort. Simply having recourse to a lawyer who simply pointed out that the employers actions were problematic seems to have worked nicely.

Originally posted by Black Forrest
Are you saying German companies ignore the privacy laws?
If they thought they could make some money out of it and get away with it then yes. The chances are that even if they got called on it, they'd get away with a smack on the wrist, if even that.

Here's a small example of an organisations disregard for laws designed to protect the individual. The department I work in in the Scottish NHS (Health Service) was requiring some members of staff to work overtime which is against the law. The Union pointed out the situation to management and entered into negotiations to ensure the service would still be provided without requiring compulsory overtime. As a show of good faith, the union members involved agreed to man the rota (which was still technically illegal) untill the situation could be resolved. Two years later, managemnt stalling had succeeded in getting us nowhere! We finally got a system worked out that got rid of compulsory overtime and replaced it with a marginally more expensive out-of-hours deal. Management then declared it was not going to implement the new system and stay with the old one .... even though it was illegal and they knew it was! The Union members then withdrew their good will (after two years remember) and threatened to withdraw from the rota unless the new rota was implemented. Strangely (:rolleyes: ) management caved within 48 hours as they knew they had not a legal leg to stand on.

Ironically, had the Union not been willing to work with management to resolve the situation amicably, and just gone for industrial action (withdrawing labour), the whole thing would have been sorted years earlier and much protracted bad will would have been avoided. Another nail in the coffin of my trust in management :( .

I just won't work for a union right now because I'd be working part time and temporarily so they don't really benefit me. I can see it being good for later on when I've got a career going.