Reply With Quote
I think that those in Unions would agree that the sum-benefits of being in a Union far surpass the negatives of being in one.so, I think unions can be bad for employees...
Not always true. I used to work in a union facility and the employees I managed all wanted to get rid of the union that only protected their "lazy co-workers". Unfortunately, they were not the best educated folks and as management I couldn't answer their questions on how to go about getting rid of the union. The union did supply its members with dues that were raised higher than the increases the union negotiated for them, and slashed tires for all those who didn't want to participate in a sickout scheduled when the management/employee relationship was at an all time high according to worker satisfaction surveys. Come contract time, the employee representatives actually kicked the union reps out of the negotiations because of their childish behavior and outlandish demands. Not to mention some of the most sorry assed defense given by the reps during grievance hearings. On a grievance for a termination that I was involved in, the reps ONLY defense was "Oh, you have to understand that I'm an honest person and I don't lie. So everything I tell you is true and can't be challanged."
so, I think unions can be bad for employees...
I think that those in Unions would agree that the sum-benefits of being in a Union far surpass the negatives of being in one.so, I think unions can be bad for employees...
And this morning the Councilwoman had published in the E-N her side of the story.
Chain of events clarified
On Thursday we suffered a tragic loss in the passing of George erson. My thoughts and prayers go out to the erson family.
Since this has stirred great media interest, I want to make clear the events of last week. On Jan. 30, I received an e-mail from erson (from a Zachry server) regarding Graham Central Station, a nightclub adjacent to his neighborhood.
My staff contacted the Police Department to get more data on incident reports and request increased patrols of the area. I then scheduled a meeting with the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and the Police Department to determine the status of Graham's liquor license. My staff also is attempting to schedule a meeting with the management of Graham's to discuss how they can be better neighbors.
erson's e-mail contained statements that concerned me. I contacted Zachry to advise them that I had received, from their server, an e-mail containing disparaging statements regarding segments of our city and the people who live there. Zachry had been embarrassed by a similar e-mail less than a year earlier. E-mails, letters and all communication made to City Council members (and city offices) are subject to open records.
Late Jan. 30, I received word from Zachry that they had read the e-mail and were also concerned by the statements. I was informed that erson was going to be suspended.
On Jan. 31, I met with erson. Late that day, I received a message that Zachry had terminated erson's employment.
Feb. 1 at 8 a.m., I called Zachry to suggest an alternative to firing erson. I felt more could be accomplished with counseling and asking that he do some volunteering in the areas he had labeled "the bad parts" of the city. I hoped by meeting and working with people in the inner city, erson could see the greatness of San Antonio's diversity.
Thursday morning I received word of erson's passing.
It's unfortunate this became a media circus. As the Express-News reported, the media were contacted by a "third party" and not by myself or any member of my staff.
Whenever any member of our community reaches a point of despair where he turns to suicide, then we as a community have failed him. This tragic event is a reminder of the need to strengthen suicide prevention services. I ask that all of San Antonio join me in sending our prayers to the erson family.
Councilwoman Elena K. Guajardo
I have never read such a bunch of self-serving statements as this lady is trying
to put forth. She even tried to tell Zachry how they should punish the man.
I still do not see anything racist in his remarks, but I certain do in her actions.
She assumes he must be talking about minorities because he speaks of the
elements going to the club, she assumes he is talking about her area of town,
so who is the racist?
That still doesn't justify her actions. She should've met with him to begin with instead of acting like a drama queen.
From the Express-News:
You must have missed that part.On Jan. 31, I met with erson. Late that day, I received a message that Zachry had terminated erson's employment.
I don't think he did.
I think the issue is why Guajardo decided to approach Zachry before speaking with Mr. erson to understand what he wrote and why. By her own admission, she contacted Zachry the day before she spoke with Mr. erson. Had she waited to speak with the complainant before ratting him out, it may very well be that Mr. erson would have explained himself in a manner that would have eased Ms. Guajardo's concerns. That would have, appropriately, left issues concerning the propriety of Mr. erson's use of company e-mail services as a matter between himself and his employer.
It's also interesting to me that we have no information concerning the January 31 meeting. She could have met with Mr. erson and said "You are a racist, sir, and I'm not interested in your complaints," and still gotten away with saying she had a meeting with the man. She also could have heard him out, but it seems fairly apparent to me that she had already made up her mind about Mr. erson's purported motivations.
Ultimately, the choice to tattle on Mr. erson smacks (to me) of self-aggrandizing politics. Ms. Guajardo could gain political capital by approaching a major employer and standing up against apparent classism (and, perhaps, tacit racism). She chose to do that before taking the time to hear out her cons uent, despite his express plea that she keep the nature of his communication private. Essentially, Ms. Guajardo took a stand -- a stand that her political haymaking is more important than actually bothering to hear out the complaints of her cons uents. I may be old fashioned in my viewpoint, but that should never, ever be an acceptable practice by an elected representative.
I don't think it's a secret that Zachry has enough political pull that they can make or break you if your a city council-person. Maybe Ms. Guajardo was simply looking out for her own political neck since the e-mail could become public either way under the Texas Open Records Act. Let's say that she did try and keep this whole matter between herself and Mr. erson, if Zachry, the Media, and the public had caught wind of this e-mail before the company had time to do PR control, there would have been political to pay for Guajardo.
There has definitely been an increased police presence in the area since Mr. erson's suicide. So you can't say that his concerns have been ignored by the City.
Oh, and as far as the timing of her meeting with Mr. erson, maybe it was just a scheduling conflict? The article doesn't really say. She does mention that she did not want him terminated over this e-mail though.
It is a bit of a stretch to believe that Guajardo was worried about Zachry coming under fire and the possible implications on her reelection.
It was what it appears to be -- political grandstanding. Too bad it backfired on her.
Again, what did she think was going to happen when a councilwoman notifies a business that relies on city contracts, in a largely minority city, and insists that an employee is racist?
What exactly did she stand to gain by making this incident public? Public scorn? ridicule? All for a little PR? I don't think so.
I don't know? Perhaps a memo detailing Zachry's business e-mail policies? Once she notified Zachry. it was out of her hands really, don't you think?Again, what did she think was going to happen when a councilwoman notifies a business that relies on city contracts, in a largely minority city, and insists that an employee is racist?
If the guy doesn't haul off and commit suicide, she comes out of this like a hero -- standing up to Mr. Northside White Guy and demanding respect for the "less fortunate."
The only snafu was that the guy lost his long-time job and killed himself.
Bet she didn't see that coming!
Oh, c'mon, you give her too much credit.
The only reason she contacted Zachry was so that they could reiterate their email policy to the employees? That's awfully nice of her to look out for Zachry in such a fashion.
My question is, regardless of what Zachry did, why did she need to contact Zachry in the first place?
Like I said before, the email could have become public under the Texas Open Record Act, as are all letters mailed to the City Council.My question is, regardless of what Zachry did, why did she need to contact Zachry in the first place?
It's bull . She's trying to get out of the storm she created for herself by alleging that she was only looking out for Zachry's interests when she contacted them.
Do you really buy this? She was only looking out for Zachry's interests?
No, clearly she was looking out for her own poltical interest, as all politicians do, but I can't say I fully blame her. It only takes about $100g's to own your own city council person.It's bull . She's trying to get out of the storm she created for herself by alleging that she was only looking out for Zachry's interests when she contacted them.
Do you really buy this? She was only looking out for Zachry's interests?
That would make sense if the concern was about Zachry. The concern was about a Zachry employee who expressed a concern about a local issue, albeit through his company's e-mail server.
How would Guajardo have been adversely affected if the e-mail had become public through an Open Records or a FOIA request? What would it have said about her? Absolutely nothing. If you're trying to insinuate that Zachry wouldn't have supported a re-election bid based on her failure to rat out a wayward employee, I think you're stretching far beyond any logical boundaries.
But my point goes beyond that issue. It's the order of things that is incomprehensible to me. Hear the guy out before you turn him in. Had a scheduling conflict? Wait until you can talk to him before you speak with his employer. It's not as if there was some incredible time lapse between the time that she received the e-mail and the time that she was able to meet with Mr. erson. It's also not likely that this would have become a significant issue had she waited until 1/31 or 2/1 to approach Zachry about her concern, if she approached Zachry at all. She certainly could have given Mr. erson the choice to own up to his violation of company policy (and, I'd argue that if the policy was that important to Zachry, it would have someone monitoring e-mails to ensure that there are no similar problems) and face those consequences based on his own admission. Whether she took matters into her own hands to grandstand or to save her political hide, neither is a justification for her self-serving response to this situation.
So the worse we could fault her for is lousy timing. She followed through on the e-mail, which is what I would expect any council-person to do. Remember that no matter her emotional response to the e-mail, Zachry thought there was enough cause for concern in the contents to terminate Mr. erson, even against Ms. Guajardo's expressed wishes. I'm sure the company investigated this incident so it could legally 'cross the t's and dot the i's' before it made it's decision for termination.
I wouldn't agree with that at all: it's far more than lousy timing, it's incredibly poor judgment.
And I sir, think you are full of BS. Zachry has their hand out for monies
from San Antonio. God only knows what this most wonderful councilperson
told Mr. Zachry in their conversation about said money. She is a racist!
Oh I most certainly do. Happen in SA all the time.
Oh, really. I don't think so. Recent revelations shows you could own one
for a few thousand dollars. Short memory or just doing you normal thing, Dan.
I'm done with this.
So this means we have to close the thread? Good riddance.,
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions