how would you feel?

I work at a manufacturing facility - it's huge.  we have Union represented employees here for skilled and unskilled labor jobs.  The Union and the Company renegotiate contracts every 3 years.  In the case where they can't agree on a contract, the Union strikes, which means they don't come to work, but the rest of us who are non-represented employees do.
 
Since the Union members perform certain jobs which are required to be done daily, those jobs still have to be done by someone when the represented employees are not here to do those jobs.  for example, air conditioning and boiler room maintenance still needs to be performed, bathrooms still need to be cleaned, trash from everyone's cubicle still needs to be picked up and taken out, a number of other daily tasks still have to be performed.
 
some tasks don't get done, like the actual assembly work on the manufacturing facility floor.
 
however, during the strike, non-represented employees are required to fill positions which are needed for daily tasks.  so engineers, management support and other salaried (non-represented or "exempt") employees are working those jobs.  the management chooses (supposedly at random) employees to fill positions to perform those tasks.
 
so all that set up to ask the question:  if you were a non-rerepresented employee such as an salaried engineer, how would you feel about being assigned to clean toilets?
 
this is of course completely hypothetical - I'm not judging the Union or the Company in this post and I'm hoping you won't either.  this is simply a discussion regarding the situation I have presented.  I would appreciate it if you did not begin bashing Union or non-Union employees either way.

My personal view is that anyone should be prepaired to do any job their employer asks them from their pay grade downwards.  With the caviat they they must be qualified/capable as required.

If an employer is happy to pay senior manager rate to a senior manager to sweep the floor, then it must be important that the floor is swept...

I agree with Karyn also.  It is hard not to do anything we are asked in this economy.  I do know what you are saying though Reece and I would feel weird inside about it but I wouldn't show it in the work place.

Rimshot

Pushing the broom is prefferable to being laid off for the duration of the strike. It's a tough environment, particularly if you find a good friend on one side of the fence while you're on the other.

I'd currently view being selected for cleaning the toilets as a promotion.

I agree with all of you!  I did not get selected to do any of those tasks, but if I had, I would have done it without reservation.  If they want to pay me the same pay for cleaning terlits or sweeping the floor, that's fine by me. 

Last contract negotiation I was selected to do some kind of janitorial work, but they didn't strike, so I wasn't needed.  this time they didn't choose me.  I have no idea how they choose.

I had a very lengthy reply, full of snark, but I reconsidered it and deleted it.

Fine.  I accidentally clicked the little red X in the upper right corner, okay?

Anyway, the only reservation that I have about taking on other roles during a labor shortage is that I have seen far too many instances of Executives demanding that I do these other tasks in addition to my normal day job without taking more time or getting any compensation.  It usually seems to stem from an Executive with dreams of Global Conquest deciding that I will work 3 jobs for the price of 1 without missing any of my own deadlines.  When something has to give, the Spotted Dictator (you can picture him with a rash if you'd like) takes it out on the lowly employee rather than deal with the consequences of his decisions. 

I have no problem with the idea of doing another role for awhile if the company needs me to do it.  I have an immense problem with bosses who make unreasonable demands and then vent their hostility at me.

I know there will never be a time when an Executive will remember how I've helped out the company through a rough time, or that I sacrificed to help him succeed, or that I somehow managed to get everything done on time in spite of the increased workload.  What the Executive will remember is that I proved to him I would put up with his abuse, do multiple jobs for free, and still make him look like a hero in the end.

No more for me.  If they want me to do some other job temporarily, that's fine with me.  I'm happy to help.  I do require, however, that they decide up front what other tasks they are choosing to let slip while I'm busy cleaning.

There.  Aren't you glad I re-wrote this without any of the snark in my original post?

I know there will never be a time when an Executive will remember how I've helped out the company through a rough time, or that I sacrificed to help him succeed, or that I somehow managed to get everything done on time in spite of the increased workload. What the Executive will remember is that I proved to him I would put up with his abuse, do multiple jobs for free, and still make him look like a hero in the end. No more for me. If they want me to do some other job temporarily, that's fine with me. I'm happy to help. I do require, however, that they decide up front what other tasks they are choosing to let slip while I'm busy cleaning.

The guy who now works for me used to work for an abusive place like that and there was no union involved. I know... there are places where the company will absolutely abuse you. I get your point too.

J

Yeah, I agree with all of the above, especially as I've been a stay at home mom for the past ten years, so cleaning toilets, wiping bottoms, and being senior management is all the same job.  Having said that, I also worked at a public University for near the same amount of time, where I was a systems trainer, project manager, etc. Even then, I considered it part of the job to do whatever needed doing. 
I feel like if you consider anything to be "beneath you", you aren't qualified to be a manager.

Do what you're asked to do and do it the best you can.

I have worked in Union shops in the past and since NC is a right to work state I was not required to join and pay dues so I didn't. My problem with the union was my pay check was determined and limited by the union, and the contract they had negotiated for all employees. not by my abilities, talents and skills. 

Crg


It's a loaded question Beagle, one with no good answer for either side. When solidarity between a group of people depends on a contract that only some of the people have, the others are left unprotected and bound by their employment agreement. It's never nice for either side or for management and the business owner. I've been a Union hand for over twenty years so my principles have to be there. I've seen abuses on both sides during such events and all you can really do is stick to your principles and do what you can for the greater good for all. I'm sure you have friends on both sides of the fence and only the resolution of the conflict will tear down the fence.

I do have friends on both sides.  that's why this question wasn't about whether it was right or wrong to strike, whether Unions are good or bad, whether NOT having a Union was good or bad.  I tried to make that clear in my OP.  So, you focused on the set up of the question and not the question itself.
 
The question - bottom line is:  If your employer needed you to perform manual labor tasks (assuming you normally don't perform those tasks) because the regular employees who perform those tasks are not available, how would you feel about it?
 
For Bubba, Bub and others who have said they are concerned that the employers would take advantage of the situation and expect these tasks from you every day from then on - I understand your concerns.  In this particular case, that's very unlikely to happen for us.  even if the company tried to do something like that, the media would have a field day and it would be changed OR, we'd lose business and massive layoffs would occur.  the company knows that and there's no way they'd go down that road.  I know that's not the case for everyone - but where I work that's how it would happen since this is a very high profile, very large corporation and constantly under government and tax payer scrutiny.

If my employer tried to get me to do tasks far more junior than my position and a long way outside what I was there for, I'd consider it, of course. Not averse to everyone pulling together to sort things out in a crisis or whatever. However, I wouldn't do it by default, and I wouldn't accept an employer's assumption that they could make me. Of course, one of the reasons I'm confident in that position is because I'm a union member.

Guitarhacker


Do what you're asked to do and do it the best you can.

I have worked in Union shops in the past and since NC is a right to work state I was not required to join and pay dues so I didn't. My problem with the union was my pay check was determined and limited by the union, and the contract they had negotiated for all employees. not by my abilities, talents and skills. 

The reasons unions were a great idea at the outset was because of the unscrupulous behaviour of many firms exploiting their own workforce.

In a reasonably affluent society where employers play fair they become less useful.

When hard times fall again however the temptation for firms to become exploitative again and unions start to show real worth in defending against that kind of thing.

I'm by no means a 'closed shop' union man but the idea of trade unions was borne out of oppression and I'm certainly glad that they've survived as representative bodies over many years of deliberate policy to try to eradicate them.  I'm pretty sure we'll see a re-emergence of them as being forces to be reckoned with again in the near future, and not because of the 'trouble-makers' on the shop floor but because management once again gets more tempted to resort to sharp practice as history has proved time and again that it will when times get harder.

I'm pretty much in the "if you really are going to pay me for doing this, I'll do it" camp.  Particularly, if it's a short term, necessary situation.  I'm a technician at a computer manufacturer.  Sometimes, I just shake my head when I see engineers or technicians doing non-technical tasks, but I realize that it's something we have to do to stay in business.  Mostly, that kind of stuff happens when we have inventory audits, certification (such as ISO) audits, or when we have relocated.  I've swept floors and moved equipment in these situations.  

I would draw the line if something like that became abusive, but I haven't had to that.  

space_cowboy


I would have different feelings for the employer versus the striking employees. 

As an employee, where someone is writing me a check every 2 weeks, I feel an obligation to do whatever is needed.  I would have no issue with the employer's request

However, I would be furious with the striking workers.  

Depends on the size of the cheque you get I guess.