I don’t know how unions work in Poland, but here in Germany you should organize, when there are lay offs in your company.
Unions can bargain better conditions for the lay offs like higher gratuities (is there something like this on the states?) or create a point system, who gets laid off first (based on family status, age, the likelihood of finding another job…).
Man am I tired of being shafted for not having kids, the when it comes to holidays, covering for other staff and things, employees with kids always take priority and employees without don’t have an ‘excuse’. Extending that to layoffs is extremely toxic and punitive to younger workers.
I don’t have kids either, but to me it’s logical, that that this has to be taken to account. I mean, those are people who are dependent on the situation, it’s not like they could do anything on their own. I’m happy, that at least this is something, where humanity comes into play. And again: I don’t have children and I don’t want them in the future.
And like I said, there are also other points, like age, or how long the people are working for the company.
What would be your points, to decide if someone has to be fired? And no, firing no one at all is not an option in this scenario ;)
I’m all for unions, but identifying layoff targets based on these things seems like a sure way for the system to get abused. Single people and people without kids get stuck filling in for people with families already-taking layoffs for them is asking a lot.
Definitely agree on the spirit of your comment though- unionizing is pretty much always a good idea.
I don’t know how unions work in Poland, but here in Germany you should organize, when there are lay offs in your company.
Unions can bargain better conditions for the lay offs like higher gratuities (is there something like this on the states?) or create a point system, who gets laid off first (based on family status, age, the likelihood of finding another job…).
So: unions always make sense :)
Man am I tired of being shafted for not having kids, the when it comes to holidays, covering for other staff and things, employees with kids always take priority and employees without don’t have an ‘excuse’. Extending that to layoffs is extremely toxic and punitive to younger workers.
I don’t have kids either, but to me it’s logical, that that this has to be taken to account. I mean, those are people who are dependent on the situation, it’s not like they could do anything on their own. I’m happy, that at least this is something, where humanity comes into play. And again: I don’t have children and I don’t want them in the future.
And like I said, there are also other points, like age, or how long the people are working for the company.
What would be your points, to decide if someone has to be fired? And no, firing no one at all is not an option in this scenario ;)
Removed by mod
If I work hard and enrich the company, they will surely share their success with me /s
I’m all for unions, but identifying layoff targets based on these things seems like a sure way for the system to get abused. Single people and people without kids get stuck filling in for people with families already-taking layoffs for them is asking a lot.
Definitely agree on the spirit of your comment though- unionizing is pretty much always a good idea.
I feel like this would be considered descrimination