Was that "union rules" or "the way the company had agreed to comply with their agreement with the union"? Because 'work to rule' can be a double-edged sword, and in my experience companies just love to blame their own chosen behavior on the union. "We have to fire you if you're late five times this quarter, because the union" really means "after we frequently and arbitrarily abused employees under the excuse of 'attendance' the union insisted we have a uniform attendance standards and this is what we came up with".
Think about where the company's interest lies. Without the union, of course they would want their employee to just plug the thing in. They wouldn't agree to such a silly stricture if it wasn't forced upon them by the union.
This is a very simplistic assumption that there’s one company interest which everyone understands and supports. I’ve seen many places where it would be as simple as department A owns that function and they care about making their lives easier, not your productivity. That’s basically the norm for large company IT departments, with nary a union in sight.
Remember, there’s been a well-funded campaign pushing back against the New Deal for longer than most of us have been alive. Unions are not perfect but there are a lot of misrepresentation and urban legends circulating and most of the stories you hear are likely either wrong or leaving out key details (e.g. the union got adamant about certain tasks after management tried to avoid honoring their contract). Unless you have first-hand experience or lots of documentation, be skeptical.
Again, you could be surprised by some IT departments.
There's this perspective that the best way to keep a system working is to make it unusable, so that nobody uses it, and thus nobody breaks it, and so you don't have to keep fixing it. It's something I've seen parts of organizations navigate into without any union-related involvement.
Again, “company” is not the same as “each distinct political group within the company”. Anyone with experience at a large company will probably have examples of groups behaving against the perceive global because that was better within their group’s incentive structure.
As a simple example, how often is purchasing inordinately expensive because something was abused in the past and that group was told to make sure it never happens again? Or a sales group setting engineering up for failure because they personally had a huge financial incentive to do so?
But if as a low-level manager I can gain sympathy and build relationships with my superiors by blaming my inefficiency on the union-devils, why not cause a petty delay with passive aggressive rules.
The union might be a corrupt and self serving enterprise. They may just be reacting to abuses by management.
Perhaps the company kept getting fines from the fire marshal for unsafe use of extension cords. Management tries to use that as an excuse to harass or fire their electrical workers. The union responds by saying that their electricians never saw nor approved the use of the cords and that they had no way of knowing they were in use. After enough hostile interaction, you wind up with a rule that nobody can plug their own computer into an existing outlet.
The places where I hear about the worst red tape, are places where the relationship between the unions and management are really antagonistic. Both sides need to remember that everyone wants the employer to be successful, because then there are more profits for everyone to share.
And without a union, employees might tell people who report sexual harassment to get bent.
Yes, unions can make things less efficient. Yes, unions can cause unnecessarily stupid systems that harm people. But so do employers! I'd rather have one I can at least vote in.
This is really a problem of unintended consequences. And it's not "union rules", it's a collective agreement that both the union and management sign off on. Union shop or not, we can all point at absurdities in work life - just as many come from management in my experience (which doesn't include much work with unions).
It's a bit like the tax code or some complicated piece of bureaucracy. Some of the stuff in there sure seems stupid but you can bet it was put in for a reason that, at the time at least, looked sensible. In the case of things like "only an electrician is allowed to do that", it's a pretty safe bet that at some point in the past management tried to do an end run around the agreement and have cheaper labor do something they weren't trained or compensated for. In the US at least the system is so adversarial you end up with hard lines being drawn on both sides.
No, it's "union and company rules". The nature of a negotiation is that both sides have agreed on the result. Getting people to accept calling this sort of bullshit "union rules" is propaganda.
The alternative to enforcing rules pedantically is enforcing them arbitrarily, which is what happens in non-union environments. One set of rules for Billy, another set of rules for Sally.
