Unions?
 

Are you with them against them or neutral? Why? What aspects of unionization don't get reported in the press?

I used to be pretty hard-core anti-union, but I've seen too much class warfare from the right in the name of (faux) free markets to maintain that universal opposition. Free markets are only free if large corporations and the rich can fail too.

I saw a brilliant recruitment advert for a union once. Let me see if I can find it on Youtube.

Before I do though: I am absolutely supportive of the labour and union movement. They are the only thing that shifts the balance of power and offers protection for workers.

That some unions are not fit for purpose is an unfortunate fact. That some unionists act for their own, rather than their members' interests is also an unfortunate fact. But every protection that is currently afforded to workers is there because of unions. They arose out of an extreme need for that protection. Want to see how employment would work if unions had never developed? Look back in history at what happens when they're illegal.

Here it is:




I read an interesting quote taken from a programme about the British workplace the other day:


The employers shouldn't be demonised. But nor should the workers. In recent decades the balance of power has shifted further from workers and towards employers than it has in the previous century. There is a class war. It's quiet and it's couched in unwarlike language, but do not doubt it is being fought. By them.



Here's another interesting little clip.

What have the Unions Ever Done for Us?

Exactly.

I hadn't seen the "What has the union movement ever done for us" ad. Thanks Dana.

At best, unions are a double edged sword. They only protect people who can't say NO.

I've seen too much damage caused by unions to think they can help. Like all power organizations they are susceptible and afflicted with corruption. I think they are essentially parasites.

For every point brought up in the video there is a corresponding negative point.

I'm for them, especially after reading up on Colorado State Law to see what the penalties are if someone turns Bill-the-motel-owner (also known as "yas-suh") into the DA for forcing his employees to work 3 back to back 14 hour shifts with a payCUT instead of OT as required by law.

Poor little Billy can get fined around $200 per employee and be forced to give us backpay amounting to double what we should have been paid. So in my instance that would come to a whopping $640.00 for one week. He MIGHT also have to go spend a few days playing poker with his buddies down at the County Jail. Maybe.

But that's only if we file an official complaint within 60 days. If we don't, he's off the hook. And although he's not supposed to retaliate against employees who report him, Colorado is an "at will" State, meaning the boss can come up with any reason he wants and fire you on the spot. It's a Mercenarian paradise. :mad:

So, the unions you favor have given you a toothless law purporting to offer you recourse. I'm guessing, despite this 'law', you will not report Billy.

Unions are not perfect - nothing is. There has to be something on the other end of the seesaw when employers are abusive. Individuals can't do it alone.

Why do you assume that the unions have given a law?

Not being sarcastic at all, am keen to hear your point of view...

Sure they can. They are not slaves. They can quit.

That's getting off the seesaw, not combatting abuse.

getting off the see saw ends the game, combating abuse perpetuates the game.

I started off with an anecdote, but thought a general comment was more appropriate.

If you've always known where your next meal is coming from and you've always had options, then that argument works. If you're in a situation when quitting or taking issue with the boss over unfair conditions to the point where you lose your job means that you can't feed yourself or pay your bills, then you're at the mercy of whoever is your employer. The worker isn't always necessarily right, but neither should the employer be able to call all the shots.

My support of unions is not blind. They have bene responsible for some pretty awful shit. As a woman and a historian I am painfully aware of the role unions have played in the past (and actually more recently in a few cases) in perpetuating and even exacerbating sexual discrimination. During the 1840s it was the Union movement that insisted that women should not be allowed to work in a variety of crafts and trades. It was the unions who perpetuated the notion of the 'male breadwinner ideal'.

Time and again the sisters of the movement have been ushered to the back of the room and told to stay quiet. Laughed at when they tried to address their brothers in arms, derided for their work. Though always expected to show their support in other womanly ways.

Even as recently as the 1970s the male dominated unions in my country argued vehemently against the relaxation of laws prohibiting women from working nights in many fields or from working underground.

Sometimes protection becomes protectionism, and the unions loyalty to their base membership leads them to engage in exclusionary tactics agains other, even less protected workers than their own.

None of this changes the fact that without worker protection the employer class (and it is a class) is able to call all the shots. More importantly, we can see from periods of low protection that this employer class cannot be trusted to take account of their workers' well-being without an element of compulsion.

The argument that workers have the ultimate sanction at their disposal, that of withdrawing their labour and going elsewhere only works if the opportunities for better working conditions exist. Without worker protection those conditions fall away across the board.