"Us Against Them"
LindaS
1,510 Posts
I'm sure many of you have encountered this problem and I'm looking for some insight on how to handle this situation.
We are a union facility and have an overwhelming problem with individuals electing not to "tattle" on their "union brothers and sisters". What then happens is that when we do have a problem that manages to make it to management's attention the first thing we hear is "so and so is doing this as well but they aren't getting in trouble". When I try to follow-up on what they are saying they refuse to give me names, dates, etc. of what happened. If I DO manage to get them to tell me the "who" the incident usually occurred months prior and it is too late to do anything.
For example, over the past week or so we have had someone spitting on our production floor. While the actual spit has been pointed out (and subsequently cleaned up properly) nobody has come forward to tell me who has been doing it. Well yesterday I had an employee in my office on an unrelated issue and they questioned why nothing was being done with the individual who is spitting. I asked who it was and they gave me a name and I then asked if they had seen the person doing it and they responded "no" but they knew of others who had witnessed it. I asked this person to tell me who saw it and they refused. I am then stuck because I cannot accuse someone of doing something without having an eyewitness statement.
This type of thing has happened with workplace accidents, individuals reporting to work under the influence of drugs/alcohol, not following safety regulations, etc. so it is a serious problem. Confidentiality is not an issue because I ensure confidentiality is maintained throughout an investigation and I have NEVER "thrown someone to the wolves". The issue is not wanting to tell on their union brothers and sisters.
Any advice?
We are a union facility and have an overwhelming problem with individuals electing not to "tattle" on their "union brothers and sisters". What then happens is that when we do have a problem that manages to make it to management's attention the first thing we hear is "so and so is doing this as well but they aren't getting in trouble". When I try to follow-up on what they are saying they refuse to give me names, dates, etc. of what happened. If I DO manage to get them to tell me the "who" the incident usually occurred months prior and it is too late to do anything.
For example, over the past week or so we have had someone spitting on our production floor. While the actual spit has been pointed out (and subsequently cleaned up properly) nobody has come forward to tell me who has been doing it. Well yesterday I had an employee in my office on an unrelated issue and they questioned why nothing was being done with the individual who is spitting. I asked who it was and they gave me a name and I then asked if they had seen the person doing it and they responded "no" but they knew of others who had witnessed it. I asked this person to tell me who saw it and they refused. I am then stuck because I cannot accuse someone of doing something without having an eyewitness statement.
This type of thing has happened with workplace accidents, individuals reporting to work under the influence of drugs/alcohol, not following safety regulations, etc. so it is a serious problem. Confidentiality is not an issue because I ensure confidentiality is maintained throughout an investigation and I have NEVER "thrown someone to the wolves". The issue is not wanting to tell on their union brothers and sisters.
Any advice?
Comments
After the disciplinary meeting is concluded, you can always say, "If you have something to report to management that management can deal with, with specifics, feel free to do that by contacting me or your supervisor."
Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.
We have had similar matters here, and worked really hard with the officers to show that these were matters that needed to be addressed and that it was bigger than one person...we created a few "incentive" programs with the help of the officers, to encourage cooperation.
The officers set the tone for how ee's will deal with management. If they feel that you'll be fair and upfront, they'll work with you....if they think that you're gunning for people .... no one will see nuthin'.
Good Luck...
Anybody who is or has been a parent is familiar with the 'everybody else is doing it' response to discipline.
But, back to your question. Union officers have no allegiance to the employer. They are elected and trained to represent the bargaining unit and the business agent and international rep drill that into them regularly. Don't get duped into accepting this 'we're here to help you' charade.