Unions?

[kerosene]

I think unions seem like they would be good and would work for some industries but from what I have seen and heard, they seem to be another excuse/opportunity for corruption.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by kerosene

I don't know about hotels/motels. I found this list, though for Colorado.

Interesting. The closest union motel is 50 miles away in Farmington, New Mexico. They actually claim to pay overtime and have sick leave benefits. What a concept! I suspect that if Carmen reaches the point where she can no longer fulfill her duties here, Bill-the-Scum will either sell this place or allow it to degenerate into a third rate flop house.

Other than my genuine concern for Carmen, I couldn't care less what becomes of this place. I hope Bill goes bankrupt in his old age and ends up alone in a sleazy room in his former property. This situation here is a perfect example of why unions were created.

I have an appointment with voc-rehab on Wednesday, and you can bet that I'll tell them all about conditions here. In fact, I'm required to report the working conditions and pay I get from any job I'm attempting to work in order to move off disability. I'm certainly not going to jepordize any assistance I might qualify for just so Bill can keep cooking the books.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Unions have done a great job, increasing workplace safety, shortening the work week, and reining in first line management, usually by reporting their behavior to the people that actually own/run the company. I know there have been many cases of unions, usually the trade unions, keeping women and blacks out, but once they were let in, the unions made sure they were paid and treated equally by management.

The union's Achilles heel is that they are run by elected people. That sounds good until apathy settles into the membership, then the union leaders become nothing more than politicians. Democracy and unions are both great ideas, when the people are engaged and involved.

Unfortunately Americans, having it "too good for too long", have been so involved with "me", they've let control slip away. Now political & union elections have become, money talks, discourse walks. So the unions have declined parallel to the nation.

Blaming unions for driving manufacturing out of the country is ludicrous, how many Americans do you know that will work even eight hours, for a dollar a day? Same goes for quality, face it, skill level will vary, but every employee must work to the standards the company has set as acceptable, or they're gone, union or not.

If you cite a case of a substandard employee being protected by the union, it's because of lazy management not doing their job and blaming it on the union. Any union employee can be terminated for violating company standards, the union can only make sure the company documents those violations, so supervisors can't just fire somebody because they don't like their lifestyle, religion, or politics. No matter how good the contract, the law is the last word. Then if the company and union don't agree, the national labor relations board decides.

Right now, killing unions is the target of the Money-Class that's taken over politics. Not because of wages/benefits, but because they are organized groups that could hold political power. So they convince the non-union people that unions are bad, divide and conquer, stamping the last possible voting bloc they don't control.

Goodbye unions. Goodbye democracy. Welcome your new money-class overlords.

[footfootfoot]

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

[DanaC]

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.

I have 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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Djupvd

I think they are essentially parasites.

As are the business school graduates who make those unions necessary.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Djupvd

I think they are essential [deleted here] parasites.

Fixed that for ya.

[lookout123]

I grew up in a UAW family (dad was a steward for 20+ years). I've seen lockouts and strikes, the union defend employees that should have been fired years earlier, rules meant to protect the employees twisted to screw other employees.

I also worked for a company that was strongly anti-union but had union employees in some states. This company made public the details of every contract signed through collective bargaining side by side with the non-union employee plans. In every single category the company made a point of giving higher pay, better benefits, and greater incentives to the non-union employees. The company's point was "we have X amount of dollars sest asided for compensation, if we don't have to spend some of that screwing around with union leadership you will benefit".

I think generally the unions are beneficial in factories and labor oriented trades, but pointless in most other areas. Public sector unions, imo, are a scam. The large union leadership has lost touch with the employees they "protect". They are politicians intent on gathering more power to themselves.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I grew up in a UAW family (dad was a steward for 20+ years). I've seen lockouts and strikes, the union defend employees that should have been fired years earlier, rules meant to protect the employees twisted to screw other employees.

I also worked for a company that was strongly anti-union but had union employees in some states. This company made public the details of every contract signed through collective bargaining side by side with the non-union employee plans. In every single category the company made a point of giving higher pay, better benefits, and greater incentives to the non-union employees. The company's point was "we have X amount of dollars sest asided for compensation, if we don't have to spend some of that screwing around with union leadership you will benefit".

I think generally the unions are beneficial in factories and labor oriented trades, but pointless in most other areas. Public sector unions, imo, are a scam. The large union leadership has lost touch with the employees they "protect". They are politicians intent on gathering more power to themselves.

Some interesting points. But I do wonder if that company didn't have the union paradigm with which to compare; if unions simply did not exist, would they still have offered better pay and set aside money for compensation?

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Some interesting points. But I do wonder if that company didn't have the union paradigm with which to compare; if unions simply did not exist, would they still have offered better pay and set aside money for compensation?

Well, the comp plan was in place before union negotiations began so I'd have to say yes. If it was just to combat unions the pay might be lower in non-union states but that isn't the case.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

In every single category the company made a point of giving higher pay, better benefits, and greater incentives to the non-union employees. The company's point was "we have X amount of dollars sest asided for compensation, if we don't have to spend some of that screwing around with union leadership you will benefit".

It sounds to me that the union helped not only themselves, but the compnay's non-union workers, too. If the union had not been there at all, the workers would have gotten minimal. Because the union negotiated X, the non-union workers got X+Y. If the union negotiated X+1, the non-union workers got X+1+Y.

[Spexxvet]

There are all kinds of stories about a union worker who should have been fired. There are at least that number of stories about a worker who got screwed by the boss when s/he didn't earn it.

Lookout just had his own example (allegedly)

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Lookout just had his own example (allegedly)

Are you really so insecure you feel the need to make lame digs in every thread? Relax man, I'm sure your wife will tell you it happens to every man occassionally.

[BrianR]

I used to be pro-union. Then I learned to read. True. Soon after, I began learning how to do research. I listened to my mother (Bell Tel union) and my father (never union). I watched the news earlier than most of my peers. Then I entered the workforce. I saw firsthand. I learned faster. Now, I would outlaw unions if I could.

The day of the union is past. In the beginning, they were definitely needed. They have given us plenty to be thankful for. Unfortunately, they cannot be removed once installed. And they grow out of control. Eventually, the workers are being paid way more than they are worth and the union cannot win any more pay raises, so they go to shorter work weeks and better conditions. Eventually, the workers work in paradise and are paid triple their value to the company. Now what? They go for benefits too so they now have pensions ad health benefits that rival the US Congress. They get more days off than bankers. They do very little and what they do do is shoddy.

This I have seen myself. With mine own Mark I eyeballs. The day of the union is past. Long past. The unions made it possible and economic to ship jobs to China, Asia and Central/South America. They almost single-handedly destroyed the electronics industry, the textile industry, the Great American Manufacturing industry itself.

Not all the blame is on unions of course. Some falls on management and some on government interference. There is blame all around but I feel that a disproportionate amount falls on unions.

And don't get me started on the union itself, The bloated salaries, the confiscation of wealth to redistribute to political causes in violation of it's own charter. The total lack of any real productivity.

Here is another point of view from The American Thinker.