I got fired from CP of a guest's BS complainT!

Its happened before.
It happened to you.
It is going to happen again.

Such is the life of working at CP. While there are those that deserve to be fired.. They never do. And then legit employees get fired for no reason.

Granted, not everyone is innocent. Ill recognise that.
But CP is not all high-and-mighty, either. Every single one of these cases cannot be without some cause.

Ill argue it because Ive seen it happen before.

Cp may do some shady things but i agree win Ben in deleting this post. Cp has lots of little spys on the boards ppl have been fired for posting things..so managment will look at you with not so nice ness..Its not cool what happend but causing a big fus on a public forum will not help ya:)

You can delete forums?

Hopman, I'm sorry to hear that you were fired for, well, no reason at all. I wouldn't put it past the managers at CP to do that. Several Rides managers tried that last season, and almost succeeded in doing so. I'd like to hear your side of the story if you want to PM me. I've got a few of my own as well.

Unfortunatly, this is going to happen at CP. It won't stop until the people who work their wise up, or the state of ohio does something about it. In my own opinion, working 10+ hours a day, 6 days a week isn't fun. I was there for 3 season, and enjoyed most of my time there. I've seen the quality in supervision and management go downhill since '03. Half of the rides supervisiors now, wouldn't be sups in 03. I may have my beef with some of them, but others I like, and do a really great job.

Like Walt said, there are two sides to the story. CP's side and yours. Unfortunatly, your story doesn't put money into the park, the 13 year old girls does.

Unless there has been a major shift in corporate strategy when it comes to HR then I don't believe for one minute that you were fired for no reason.

When I worked at Cedar Point I gave people more chances than I should have because I was so concerned about getting through the season with enough help. It just doesn't make sense to fire folks for no reason, particularly in the hotels which will reach peak occupancy in in the next couple of weeks.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Agreed.

MrScott

Loopy said:
See, this is a prime example why we NEED unions in this country still. So many major companies are anti-union. It's only because the union protects the employee from being unjustly fired, as well as many other benefits.

Most unions do nothing but collect millions of dollars from workers. The unions from years ago were currupt and I seriousely doubt that has changed.

Ralph Wiggum a couple posts ago said:
"Unions also make it difficult or even illegal to fire employees that need to be given the boot. Just ask my dad who for 21 years had to do the job of all the union employees under him who refused to work and couldn't be fired"

This is very, very true. These employees have a "you can't fire me" attitude and know that they can't get fired, what kind of quality work do you think you get from them?

A prime example is Honda. Do you think unions want in there because they are worried the workers aren't being treated right?
Wrong-unions want the $$-that is IT.
If you know anyone who works at Honda, they work hard yes, but, they are treated fair, they make very good wages. And why would they want to give part of those wages to a union? That is why the workers are the ones who don't want the union.
Hondas are very pricey cars because it is a quality product and last forever, those workers are not union and look at the quality of the product. And before you ask, no, I don't work for Honda, nor do I even own a Honda.

My Dad worked union for 32 years. All it did for him was guarantee when the company closed he was one of the last to go. He felt ill when he saw how much of his $$ he had given to the union over 32 years and he himself said "I sure could use that chunk of money now"

Wow, sorry I went way off the subject-there just a few subjects which really get me ticked.

As for the subject on this thread, this employees complaint, I have to side with Walt that there are 2 sides to every story and I can't see CP just firing someone without a valid reason.

to your moms too fat to ride TTD:
the moderators can delete an entire thread (or a post if need be) If you were the one who started a thread, you can delete the whole thread by deleting your post.

Jo

Just watching what is going on with the auto companies in Detroit, the unions would rather noone have a job before letting some of their "people" lose theirs. Apparently having no job and no health benefits is better than having a job and reduced benefits.

That's quite true, John. However, many long-term and hard working (and yeah, there are actually hard working union members, believe it or not) UAW workers have built their lives by busting their butts and have made retirement plans and such based on promises made by the auto companies.

Imagine spending 30 years working your tail off, only to get a few years away from retirement and have the threat that you're going to lose damn near everything you've worked your entire life for.

But, yes, the double-edged sword that is the union is what has caused the inevitable downfall of the "big 3". That, and people buying imported vehicles, but that's another story.

I understand that part too. However, if the company folds, so does your retirement plan.

Perhaps, but how many GM & Ford executives are out on the streets these days? Or even sweating the economy, for that matter.

They were the ones who agreed to the terms of the deal, and didn't live up to their end of the bargain.

Promises made back in the 50's and 60's....

It's those legacy costs that got GM and Ford into trouble. However, there have been recent events pointing GM back into the right direction. It's Ford that everyone should be worried about.

No, not in the 50's and 60's. These promises were made as recently as the 80's in some cases.

And, things should be pointing in the right direction for both companies, considering how many they've hung out to dry.

I'm not saying the blame necessarily lies with one side more than the other. I won't, however, listen to people jump on the union-bashing bandwagon. Too many people like that bandwagon, when the only real experience they've had with unions is in the news articles they've read.

EDITED for claritin clarity.
*** Edited 5/23/2006 5:42:19 PM UTC by djDaemon***

I have been a member of the UAW at the Lake Orion, Mi plant where the G6 is assembled.

No one can justify paying someone $28 to start putting seats in a car. No one can justify $21.75 an hour for someone to come and turn a valve.

I was working in assembly, it was my job to have the steering wheels in a staging area where 2 people would grab the wheel, one would hold it, the other would balance and torque it.

2 people.

Sometimes there would be a stop. Maybe a color change, interior change... whatever. Some guy, who spent 2/3 of his 8 hour shift sitting and made $20 give or take a couple of dollars would come in and turn the color change valve and go back to doing what ever it is he did.

here is a quote from Bob Lutz regarding America's best selling compact the Aveo.

Unions affect the number of Aveos that can be built each year

'Theoretically, we have sourcing flexibility, but before we brought the Daewoo Kalos into the US from South Korea as a Chevrolet Aveo we sat down with the UAW leadership and we discussed it, explained to them the need for the car, explained the impossibility of building that vehicle in the US, showed them analysis to where it was not going to cost UAW jobs, etc. And then finally they sort of agreed to 100,000 a year. Because, let's face it, short-term, the trades unions can cause you a great deal of grief if you don't do things in concert with them. So while on paper we have sourcing flexibility, in reality it's severely constrained.'

*** Edited 5/23/2006 5:58:17 PM UTC by Coastern3rd***

If Ford turns things around, now is the time to buy a bunch of stock (6.84) and hope they turn things around. However, since thats a longer shot than Barbaro winning the Belmont, it might not be a great idea.

Hopman, PM me your story. I would really like to hear what happened. It almost happened to me working at Brandywine ski resort. They can fire you for just about anything these days.

Quite true. However, there is quite a difference between the long-term UAW guys and the newer ones. Many of the older ones may be flawed as well, but writing off the entire damn union structure as a whole is ridiculous, at best.

And for every story you can come up with there are others that can show how the union has protected a worker from a potentially bad situation. They were originally created to help create equality, and while they have grown out of control, that does not justify the actions of GM & Ford. Those contracts were signed by the company - plain and simple. What would happen if you signed a contract with GM to pay them $X/year for X years, and then all-of-a-sudden decided you didn't want to pay them anymore?

djDaemon said:
I'm not saying the blame necessarily lies with one side more than the other. I won't, however, listen to people jump on the union-bashing bandwagon. Too many people like that bandwagon, when the only real experience they've had with unions is in the news articles they've read.

I agree with you on that. The execs have as much blame, especially since after turning the plane towards the mountain they jump out with a golden parachute. However, when a common sense solution is cut some jobs here (at the plants) cut some jobs here (engineering) and cut some jobs/pay here (execs) and the unions won't do it because its the plants losing jobs, thats just backwards. You can't save the company by cutting all white collar jobs. However, the only way to cut the blue collar is just shut the plants down, which doesn't help anyone from the top to the bottom.

djDaemon said:
What would happen if you signed a contract with GM to pay them $X/year for X years, and then all-of-a-sudden decided you didn't want to pay them anymore?

They repo the car?

Also those contracts were signed under different economic times. Things have changed. Now does that excuse them (GM/Ford/Chry) from not honoring the contract? No. However what they are trying to do is renegotiate so that the company stays afloat. However, it seems that the Union leadership (the guys who haven't worked a day in their lives yet collect lots of money to "run" the union) is more interested in protecting a few jobs rather than all the jobs. It doesn't matter if you save a few jobs from the cutting block now if all of them are gone in 5 years.

*** Edited 5/23/2006 6:10:05 PM UTC by JuggaLotus***

I don't know, John. It sure seems as if the executives could take a much higher reduction both in numbers as well as actual pay before they'd feel the effects, as opposed to the blue collar guys. I agree that it is the common sense solution in a sense, but that doesn't make it fair or justified.

BTW - You are the master of metaphors.

:)

Also those contracts were signed under different economic times. Things have changed. Now does that excuse them (GM/Ford/Chry) from not honoring the contract? No. However what they are trying to do is renegotiate so that the company stays afloat. However, it seems that the Union leadership (the guys who haven't worked a day in their lives yet collect lots of money to "run" the union) is more interested in protecting a few jobs rather than all the jobs. It doesn't matter if you save a few jobs from the cutting block now if all of them are gone in 5 years.

That is a very good point, and one that I think is lost on a lot of people, unfortunately.

From the blue collar guys' perspective, the companies are trying to reneg on their contract, which is taken quite personally - especially when that could have devastating consequences on their future. Imagine having your entire life savings pulled out from underneath you when your 56 years old. Not only does that severly impact your life, but those around you as well. It has a domino effect that can cause a lot more problems than it might solve in the long run. However, that's more of an abstract topic/segway, so I'll leave it at that.

.
*** Edited 5/23/2006 6:17:29 PM UTC by djDaemon***

I don't disagree with the execs taking a bigger paycut, but when your negotiating "partner" won't accept anything that affects them, how do you negotiate? There is a middle ground to be found, and both sides are going to have to give something to find it.