Sure, pay people a good wage, be patient with their life difficulties, whatever, but some employees consistently perform markedly well or poorly regardless of structural disadvantage, etc., and it should remain possible to promote, reward, penalize, or fire based on individual merit.
It is a problematic policy - that I've seen from both ends of the spectrum. On the management side - you can't get rid of mediocrity or lazy workers, who clock in, chat on their phones, clock out on time, and don't add much. And on the employee side, you are hampered and often penalized by rules targeting the idiots management can't get rid of. This was obvious during the pandemic, when the folks ill-equiped to work from home tried to bring everyone else into the office with them - so they didn't have to be by themselves. Or in regards to not getting any performance reviews, I have no idea how well I'm doing, or where to improve - except in side comments, which aren't helpful.
Yet, OTOH, if you don't have protections in place - employees can be overworked, fired at will (due to favoritism or personality conflicts - I mean a change of managers could end your job like that). Or abused. Or they can bully them into resigning. Let's face it - the union is attempting by this ruling to level out an uneven power balance. It's the result of manager's abusing their power to fire employees. And a lack of job security in an ever-changing and at times perilous work environment due to an increasingly incompetent and narcissistic management.
In more recent years, people defending "defund the police" as a slogan would be another typical instance. I support the underyling message but I do not think that being a victim means that one should not be criticized for using messaging that is misleading and costs the votes required to actually effect positive change.
My brother and sisinlaw are major proponents of the concept, while my mother is upset by it. I think that the phrasing is all wrong, and that the proponents no more want there to be "no police" (if they think about it) than those opposed. What they want is a police force that they can trust to keep them secure and aid them in times of crisis. Which say what you will about NY's crazy ex-Governor, he kind of understand and attempted to educate and make happen, unfortunately his own unsavory and "demonic" impulses got in the way of that and the message was lost. I mean, unfortunately human beings don't handle power well - and the US has a long history of "romanticizing" lawlessness, guns, and community policing. The far left says it wants government involvement but only on certain things, and the far right says it doesn't want government involvement at all - but again only on certain things. Truth of the matter is both sides want to choose what their government gets involved in, and only towards their benefit and furtherance of their own rights, and their way of life - presuming that everyone else wants the same things and has the same priorities and values that they do - and if they don't, exterminate the bastards or something to that effect. And I'm sorry that's not how things work, nor should they. In order to have a truly free society - everyone has to compromise their rights a little and often in ways they may not want to.
I think we do need to scale back some of the "power" cops have, and a lot would be gained if we were to get rid of guns completely. I know seeing a gun on a cop's belt scares me. That person has power over me - they have a gun and have permission to use, also various other weapons on that utility belt. Yet, on the other hand, I'm glad they have those weapons, because seeing them on subways or at the subway can provide a sense of safety. The difficulty is they are under paid, and treated with disrespect constantly, so have copped an attitude of sorts, and recruit various folks who abuse their power. The abuse of power issue is the main one - and how do we resolve it? I don't know. Defunding is too simplistic and academic an answer - it's clearly a solution an academic came up with, outside of an urban environment. It's easy to resolve an issue - if you are sitting outside of it. OR if you see yourself as the victim of it - and just want it to go away. Less easy if you are forced to look at all sides of it, constantly. Defund the police - is a slogan devised mainly by academics and victims of police brutality, but it's ignoring all those who benefit from the cops being present, and require them. By ignoring the later, nothing gets down, except more violence and discord. You can't just ignore the other side when negotiating or meditating your way out of a difficulty. Particularly when the other side outnumbers you.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2021-11-28 03:08 pm (UTC)It is a problematic policy - that I've seen from both ends of the spectrum. On the management side - you can't get rid of mediocrity or lazy workers, who clock in, chat on their phones, clock out on time, and don't add much. And on the employee side, you are hampered and often penalized by rules targeting the idiots management can't get rid of. This was obvious during the pandemic, when the folks ill-equiped to work from home tried to bring everyone else into the office with them - so they didn't have to be by themselves. Or in regards to not getting any performance reviews, I have no idea how well I'm doing, or where to improve - except in side comments, which aren't helpful.
Yet, OTOH, if you don't have protections in place - employees can be overworked, fired at will (due to favoritism or personality conflicts - I mean a change of managers could end your job like that). Or abused. Or they can bully them into resigning. Let's face it - the union is attempting by this ruling to level out an uneven power balance. It's the result of manager's abusing their power to fire employees. And a lack of job security in an ever-changing and at times perilous work environment due to an increasingly incompetent and narcissistic management.
In more recent years, people defending "defund the police" as a slogan would be another typical instance. I support the underyling message but I do not think that being a victim means that one should not be criticized for using messaging that is misleading and costs the votes required to actually effect positive change.
My brother and sisinlaw are major proponents of the concept, while my mother is upset by it. I think that the phrasing is all wrong, and that the proponents no more want there to be "no police" (if they think about it) than those opposed. What they want is a police force that they can trust to keep them secure and aid them in times of crisis. Which say what you will about NY's crazy ex-Governor, he kind of understand and attempted to educate and make happen, unfortunately his own unsavory and "demonic" impulses got in the way of that and the message was lost. I mean, unfortunately human beings don't handle power well - and the US has a long history of "romanticizing" lawlessness, guns, and community policing. The far left says it wants government involvement but only on certain things, and the far right says it doesn't want government involvement at all - but again only on certain things. Truth of the matter is both sides want to choose what their government gets involved in, and only towards their benefit and furtherance of their own rights, and their way of life - presuming that everyone else wants the same things and has the same priorities and values that they do - and if they don't, exterminate the bastards or something to that effect. And I'm sorry that's not how things work, nor should they. In order to have a truly free society - everyone has to compromise their rights a little and often in ways they may not want to.
I think we do need to scale back some of the "power" cops have, and a lot would be gained if we were to get rid of guns completely. I know seeing a gun on a cop's belt scares me. That person has power over me - they have a gun and have permission to use, also various other weapons on that utility belt. Yet, on the other hand, I'm glad they have those weapons, because seeing them on subways or at the subway can provide a sense of safety. The difficulty is they are under paid, and treated with disrespect constantly, so have copped an attitude of sorts, and recruit various folks who abuse their power. The abuse of power issue is the main one - and how do we resolve it? I don't know. Defunding is too simplistic and academic an answer - it's clearly a solution an academic came up with, outside of an urban environment. It's easy to resolve an issue - if you are sitting outside of it. OR if you see yourself as the victim of it - and just want it to go away. Less easy if you are forced to look at all sides of it, constantly. Defund the police - is a slogan devised mainly by academics and victims of police brutality, but it's ignoring all those who benefit from the cops being present, and require them. By ignoring the later, nothing gets down, except more violence and discord. You can't just ignore the other side when negotiating or meditating your way out of a difficulty. Particularly when the other side outnumbers you.