Quote:
Originally Posted by spk7951
It is not easy to get rid of bad employees in either the private or public sector, especially if they are union. That statement is not meant as anti union but based on experience. I spent some time as a union officer and saw cases where someone really deserved to be fired but the NLRB would almost always rule in our unions favor by saying "progressive" discipline had not been applied. Friends that worked for the state of CT experienced the same. Salary workers had less protection in the private sector.
Back in CT one of the things I really did not like hearing was during a snowstorm whatever governor we had would come out and say that non-essential state workers did not have to report to work. Really! To me that really sounded kind of de-meaning to be telling people they are non-essential. Never understood the need for that phrase.
|
No need to feel insulted or demeaned! I have to believe that no slight was intended.
As a now retired 33 yr employee of a SoFla city I experienced many hurricane response situations. At our agency- and I have to presume at any other agency- the term "non-essential personnel" directly referred only to those employees who did not perform emergency response duties.
For example, an accountant in the Finance Department is "non-essential" when
the job task is to clear storm drains during rain squalls in advance of a storm.
Using another analogy, firefighters would be "non-essential personnel" in the e
an IT network malfunction.
I presume that "non-essential personnel" is understood to apply to the particular situation, not the employee. I suppose that the Gov or whoever is in charge could change the reference from "non-essential" to "those personnel who are not members of the agency's emergency response teams..."
But that's not a suggestion that one would make during storm preparation or storm recovery modes.