Word: authored
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...author condemns Harvard's "interference" in the employee's consideration of the union proposition. Does this author really believe that it is more "moral" to sit back and not fight for an opinion, be that opinion personal or organizational, when the outcome of the battle will definitely affect the lives of 3500 people, eight hours a day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year? The administration's so-called interference is a moral and responsible effort to present the other side of a controversial and significant issue...
...author also implies that the Harvard administration's "business attitude" towards unionization is lowlier than a "moral" prounion attitude. What is immoral about a business-like decision? We are discussing people's jobs here; you can be damn sure a business attitude is important to everyone concerned. Perhaps the editor is unaware that a union is a marketed, strategically organized business itself--what else are union dues for? And should the author be thinking of the union drive as a completely spontaneous call to the masses, perhaps he or she should note that union drive handbooks advise organizers that...
...author states, "the University has been engaging in a campaign to persuade employees to vote against the union...the University has held `information' meetings for employees." I have been to these meetings; no one tried to persuade me to do anything. The meetings were advertised as, and indeed were, very objective presentations of exactly what types of relevant effects unionization could conceivably have on the current Harvard personnel policy. There was no finger-pointing, no muckracking, and no paternalism...
...author notes that the University administration often held "information" meetings (to which employees are sent written invitation) on work time and with managers encouraging staff employees to attend, while organizers "must meet with employees on personal time." The author declares, "Often, the departmental personnel representative sits on these meetings, which some employees claim discourages them from asking tough questions." The author seems to consider these meetings a form of intimidation. Well, one is invited to attend these meetings, and I have yet to see anyone standing at the door taking down names. It is very clear from the wording...
...union, on the other hand, has asked employees to sign and turn in a card declaring support for an election to decide the unionization question, with the rider that voting to hold an election is a "moral commitment" to voting to unionize. Then, does the author think that the union organizers are forced to huddle in the smoking lounge, hoping to catch one's attention with a few desperate pleas for a moment of one's time? In my office, the union organizers are considered--and treated--with friendly respect. Organizers come around every few weeks, yes, during work time...