It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When does Obama not care about worker's rights and protections? When they work for Mrs. Obama

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
It would seem that the same labor "rights" the administration demanded for the state workers in Wisconsin are not deemed necessary nor appropriate for the government workers on the First Lady's staff, whom she routinely fires or pushes folks out of their jobs for not meeting her high standards.

The churn of staff is the result of certainly voluntary departures, but also numerous firings. I guess that these folks are not entitled to collective bargaining, tenure, work rules nor have the right to go see their union boss when times get tough on the job.

I don't begrudge the First Lady for running a tight ship and from what I understand she does just that, having a very professional, highly efficient staff. I do mind the hypocracy however when the administration would expect that the taxpayers don't deserve the same level of performance out of the rest of their government.


"Less than three years into the job, first lady Michelle Obama is on her third chief of staff and third social secretary. She is on her second communications director, the White House chief usher recently departed, and her press secretary’s last day is Friday."


"Sources familiar with the East Wing, who asked not to be named discussing internal dynamics, described the first lady’s office as a challenging workplace, where grueling hours and the expectations of a formidable boss intensify the demands of managing a popular first lady’s schedule, image and agenda."



“The first lady is a lovely woman, but she’s tough as nails, and that can be hard for some people,” said a source familiar with the office. “She has really high expectations.”


Read more: www.politico.com...



edit on 28-5-2011 by dolphinfan because: (no reason given)

 
Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
edit on Sat May 28 2011 by Jbird because: Added ex tags




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I cannot think of anything worse than having to keep a bad employee because it is politically correct. It is a shame so many people have their jobs even though they reach a level of inefficiency and incompetence just because their right to work is constitutionally protected. I would hate to be an employer in today's climate.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
A quick side note: in regards to her image (kind of) anyone else think she looked like an easter egg on the recent appearance in the uk?

In response to the turnover, she seems to have the corporate programming down at this point, if the employee doesn't devote their life to hers it seems they can't continue to be employed. Who cares about their life and their concerns, until a machine can be built to replace them the policy seems to continue to be "run them into the ground until they break." A private war of attrition against the staff members! Who knows, maybe she's trying to fix the unemployment numbers by herself and cycle as many through the system before they can jump on unemployment. It's a fairly disturbing look at how those in power really view their employees. Even more, she is merely the wife of the president, she shouldn't receive a full entourage to furfill her personal agenda unless she's paying completely out of her own pocket.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Be interesting to see how many of these folks sue for wrongful termination! Most states have an "employment at will" law, the intent being that someone can be dismissed at anytime for any reason. The reality on the ground is a bit different. Extensive documentation, preparation with lawyers and over-riding of manager decisions by human resources is common practice. In many cases, it is simply a better business decision to tolerate the poor employee and make their lives miserable hoping that they will self select out. In the corporate world, the other common tactic is looking to push the poor performer onto a different manager, passing the problem.

EEOC rules are federal and thus trump state employment law, so unless the person you are looking to can is a Christian, straight, White male under the age of 40, you better get ready to jump through hoops to dismiss them other than in extreme circumstances.

"you are not making the grade, see you later" works for the First Lady. It does not work for the rest of us, public or private sector.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Caji316
 


Your comments are offensive unless you're attempting to be sarcastic. The point is that she is acting with a level of discretion and freedom denied to others in the business of managing others in the world today.

Different standards from folks who believe that everyone outside of their little shell should be held to the lowest common standard. Folks who also have an immediate bias against the employeer as evidenced by their actions and commentary.

Thats the point



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
It would seem that the same labor "rights" the administration demanded for the state workers in Wisconsin are not deemed necessary nor appropriate for the government workers on the First Lady's staff, whom she routinely fires or pushes folks out of their jobs for not meeting her high standards.


Unions are allowed in Texas, but are voluntary. I imagine teh same must be the case in D.C. So no union means basically "at-will" employment.

I don't see the issue...




top topics



 
3

log in

join