In unionized employment, an employee is simultaneously a company employee and a union member. To which does the person owe his or her allegiance? Or can a person serve two masters? What say you?
Please repond to each one of these bold paragraphs.
I wish could have met the positively motivated “gung-ho” employees. The word “gung-ho” has a negative connotation in certain cultures, this would typically describe someone who is actively and aggressively asserts his or herself into situations. I have not seen workers that are dedicated to a company’s mission, because they are constantly dissatisfied with benefits as well as rate of pay, and not if that wasn’t enough to deal with many are challenged by their coworkers negative or positive motivations on the job. I have seen many employees come to work and “kick the cat” because their home life situations are unproductive. Castro, Cramer, Leviton, and McWhirter (1989)“Among those surveyed, 57% said companies are less loyal to employees today than they were a decade ago, while 63% said workers were less loyal to their firms. … Many employers, in fact, view an accordion-like staffing policy as appropriate long-term strategy, hiring workers to meet demand and shedding them just as quickly to trim costs” (para. 5).
Perhaps the facts are evident today most employees are concerned with self-preservation. What would you say?”
I believe that most unions do not support “employee engagement” because they feel as if the employers do not show how they appreciate their employees. Managers are not protected by unions, hence the reason they should be skeptical because at any moment the manager can be against an employee. For a manager, it is either the manager’s job or the employee job…What do you think the manager would choose? If there is no employee engagement and everyone just work then the managers would not be able to find out all the “gossip”. Managers sometimes can use information against employees.