Happy New Year Bermuda. Let’s hope that 2013 sees things improve.It is always good to thank and acknowledge the bloggers, the contributors, those who take the time to voice their opinions on my submissions.Different views increase creativity, inclusiveness and will likely produce results that represent a greater percentage of the population.People whose positions are not based only on emotions can appreciate constructive criticism, different opinions and perspectives without being threatened or offended by them. Too many of us base our positions and decisions around emotion as opposed to logic and common sense.I will ALWAYS raise the controversial topics. I like controversy. It brings out the truth and gets people discussing issues that many know are problematic but few are willing to discuss publicly. So please expect more controversy and for me to say what many others think but are afraid, for whatever reasons, to say publicly. That’s the beauty of living in the age of freedom of speech. Thank God for it.Most bloggers usually comment on one sentence or paragraph in a submission instead of the entire article.I appreciate BPSU president Kevin Grant’s Letter to the Editor in response to my piece on the ’union mentality‘. Mr Grant basically said that the unions don’t want lazy workers with a poor work ethic and, to the contrary, want their members to do right and be model employees. I agree with that completely.However, as an individual suggested to me on reading Mr Grant’s letter, the unions may intend certain things but some of the members have developed the ’union mentality‘ I described, in spite of the fact that the unions promote and desire better behaviour. I call this an ”unintended consequence“ of trade unions and their success over the years.In the spirit of balanced journalism, an employer did something stupid recently that made the case for the retention of unions, as I stated in that piece a few weeks ago. I was more than happy to be the person who called the union in to address this matter. What I did was not putting your foot in your mouth. I was simply calling a spade a spade.When an employee exhibits what I called the ’union mentality‘, that employee must be called out, disciplined and punished. When an employer violates an employee’s rights, human rights, or best/fair practices, that employer must be called out, disciplined and punished. There cannot be two sets of rules.The problem that objective people have is in the following questions:1. Will unions call out an employee who appears to be violating a policy or procedure, as I was just willing to call out an employer who could be violating the Employment Act 2000 and/or other labour legislation, or an employee’s rights, human rights, or best/fair practices?2. Are unions willing to correct an employee with the same level of enthusiasm that unions typically use to correct or fight against employers?3. Will the unions support and uphold employers‘ disciplining employees who appear to be violating a policy or procedure?If the answers to these questions are YES, then we can have a healthy and fair working relationship between employees, employers and unions. We will also eradicate the ’union mentality‘ wherever it exists. If the answer to any of those three questions is NO, we cannot have a healthy and fair working relationship between employees, employers and unions. Moreover, we will essentially be enabling and encouraging some people to develop or continue to practice a ’union mentality‘; even though the unions have publicly stated that this is not what they want.People only expect what’s inspected and behaviour is only changed when there are harsh consequences for undesired behaviour. Don’t shoot the messenger; it is what it is.