Are unions outdated? Is striking really effective in our current society?

Kel Varnsen

Striking seems like extortion to me, especially in places where a company has no choice but to deal with the union when it comes to staffing. I mean say there is an imaginary car company and there was a second imaginary company that controlled 100% of the market with respect to tires. Now imagine if the tire company told the car company they were going to raise the price of tires, and if the car company didn't pay well then too bad, they wouldn't be able to make cars and they would go out of business. People would say that is fucked up and is an illegal monopoly and crap like that. But if the UAW did the exact same thing with respect to employees that would be called a strike and is the kind of thing that happens all the time. It makes no sense.

PJ_Soul

Striking seems like extortion? Well, then I guess it's fair to say that telling people that they are going to lose their benefits or that their salaries will not stay even with inflation - in other words, their lives are going to be made worse and more difficult yet they still have to put in the same effort and time - and that if they don't like it they can leave, while they depend on their job to feed and clothe and shelter themselves and their families, is also extortion. So I guess they're even.

rgambs

lukin2006 said:

blueandwhite said:

lukin2006 said:

blueandwhite said:

lukin2006 said:

If unions are so great why do they need legislation to get union dues? if their so effective then people should want to join and voluntarily pay dues. People voluntarily join organizations all the time and pay for the priviledge ... we pay to be members here, some pay to be members of the legion ... all voluntary of course. Except Unions ... hmmm ... I think they are like the government and leach off the productivity of others.

If people could get the receive the benefits of belonging to a union without paying for them then nobody would pay for membership and the union would disappear. I suppose that for many anti-union activists this is the ultimate goal anyhow. Personally I'm not a big fan of modern unions but an economy where labour has no organized voice scares the hell out of me. Globalization has already muted the voices of many workers as jobs are being driven overseas to developing markets with fewer safety standards and a lower cost of living. As for the abuse of productive workers; I think multinational corporations do a far better job leaching off of the productivity of others than any union could ever hope to.

In the end it probably doesn't matter; unions are likely going to lose this battle as we watch the middle class continue to erode over the next few generations.

So all the pro-unionist would quit paying Union dues if given the choice? If that's the case, they really aren't that committed, I'd gladly pay no Union dues and they can send me a bill for when they've increased my wages and benefits ... This would be far more fair. From what I can see unions have no problem with legislation that requires automatic deduction of dues and membership (in Canada called rand act or formula I believe),but cry like little babies if anyone mentions legislation that would require unions to be more accountable and transparent to their members ... If they want forced membership then their should be legislation holding unions accountable.

Would you be committed to paying a union if you could reap the same benefits without having to pay into the pot? This is why the Rand formula was introduced in the first place. The fact is, people tend to be selfish and short-sighted.

As for unions themselves; I'm not going to pretend that unions aren't full of corrupt, self-entitled members who abuse the system. We know that this is commonplace in many unions. At the same time, I'm reasonably comfortable knowing that many employers are every bit as wretched. I would love to see unions held more accountable to their members, but in places like Canada much of the complaining isn't about accountability to union members but rather accountability to the public at large.

I know why the rand formula was introduced ... it was also a very different era back when it was introduced ...

Like I said ... send me a bill when you can prove on paper that you've improved my life with increased wages and benefits and I'll gladly pay up. But the truth of the matter is that cost of living has far exceeded wage increases ...

Would you prefer your wages to stay the same? Cost of living rises steadily regardless of wages. If this wasn't the case repubs would be out there showing the facts and figures to prove that wages drive up cost of living at each round of wage increase legislation. The figures don't exist so they rely on emotional arguments that make sense but aren't supported by the facts.

catefrances

Unions are necessary because corporations exist. Anyone who thinks corporations operate with their employees best interests in mind is delusional.

know1

Unions are very effective at speeding up corporations sending their jobs elsewhere. Other than that, they have no real role in modern society.

rgambs

know1 said:

Unions are very effective at speeding up corporations sending their jobs elsewhere. Other than that, they have no real role in modern society.

Not very well thought out! In modern society, corps send their jobs elsewhere because the unfortunate workers in the elsewheres don't have collective bargaining rights. The role of unions in modern society is to keep corporations from paying starvation wages like they do when the send jobs to China, Malaysia, Vietnam, and elsewhere. If those workers had unions, the jobs wouldn't go anywhere so you really sort of validated the role of unions with this idea. We are all human and we all deserve a living wage for a hard days work. Besides that, if our politicians wanted to protect us from that, they could easily increase import taxes on select commodities.

oftenreading

catefrances said:

Unions are necessary because corporations exist. Anyone who thinks corporations operate with their employees best interests in mind is delusional.

The primary goal of a corporation is to make money for their shareholders. I don't think they keep this a secret, so I'm sure not many people believe that they operate with their employees' best interests in mind, nor have I seen anyone arguing that here. The issue as I see it is whether unions are effectively protecting/improving workers' positions overall (rather than just the position of the union heads) and specifically whether striking is an effective way to do that.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

know1 said:

Unions are very effective at speeding up corporations sending their jobs elsewhere. Other than that, they have no real role in modern society.

Not very well thought out! In modern society, corps send their jobs elsewhere because the unfortunate workers in the elsewheres don't have collective bargaining rights. The role of unions in modern society is to keep corporations from paying starvation wages like they do when the send jobs to China, Malaysia, Vietnam, and elsewhere. If those workers had unions, the jobs wouldn't go anywhere so you really sort of validated the role of unions with this idea. We are all human and we all deserve a living wage for a hard days work. Besides that, if our politicians wanted to protect us from that, they could easily increase import taxes on select commodities.

Nope. Not very well thought out at all.

It's actually greed and a willingness to exploit people that has corporations sending their jobs elsewhere.

It's ironic that companies rely on outsourcing their labour and manufacturing... then rely on the very people they don't wish to pay to purchase their goods: we don't wish to pay you... but will you buy our product?

If people could ever get their shit together to operate as an informed and conscientious consumer base... companies would have a challenging time operating as ruthlessly as they do. If the government actually concerned itself with the masses instead of corporate interest... said companies would find it challenging as well.

lukin2006

oftenreading said:

catefrances said:

Unions are necessary because corporations exist. Anyone who thinks corporations operate with their employees best interests in mind is delusional.

The issue as I see it is whether unions are effectively protecting/improving workers' positions overall (rather than just the position of the union heads) and specifically whether striking is an effective way to do that.

Well said ... thats the exact case where I'm at. Have not had a pay increase in 3 years, but the union heads continue to go to every union convention held. Yup tough times unless your in the union executive or higher up, they continue to hold/go to just as many conventions as they always had ... really sad. The problem is that so few people are really informed, just like real life, they go along with whatever bullshit line their fed.

In general I'd have no problem with unions if there was legislation in place that held them accountable, forced them to put all financial documents on the web or forced that they automatically provide all members such documents, had to inform all member when conventions are held/attending how much was spent/why, etc...

In order to hold them accountable there needs to be a process put in place that allows for grievances to be heard ... fully funded by unions but totally independent of unions. In order to make this work sanctions need to be applied, everything from fines for small infractions to the removal of exectives from office.

As far as outsourcing these companies will always find a way to get cheap labour, there always be somewhere in this world that offer cheap labour ... you'll never unionize enough of the world to stop this.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

lukin2006 said:

oftenreading said:

catefrances said:

Unions are necessary because corporations exist. Anyone who thinks corporations operate with their employees best interests in mind is delusional.

The issue as I see it is whether unions are effectively protecting/improving workers' positions overall (rather than just the position of the union heads) and specifically whether striking is an effective way to do that.

Well said ... thats the exact case where I'm at. Have not had a pay increase in 3 years, but the union heads continue to go to every union convention held. Yup tough times unless your in the union executive or higher up, they continue to hold/go to just as many conventions as they always had ... really sad. The problem is that so few people are really informed, just like real life, they go along with whatever bullshit line their fed.

In general I'd have no problem with unions if there was legislation in place that held them accountable, forced them to put all financial documents on the web or forced that they automatically provide all members such documents, had to inform all member when conventions are held/attending how much was spent/why, etc...

In order to hold them accountable there needs to be a process put in place that allows for grievances to be heard ... fully funded by unions but totally independent of unions. In order to make this work sanctions need to be applied, everything from fines for small infractions to the removal of exectives from office.

As far as outsourcing these companies will always find a way to get cheap labour, there always be somewhere in this world that offer cheap labour ... you'll never unionize enough of the world to stop this.

I can relate to what you have written here. The BCTF takes in $41 million per year... PER YEAR.

They held a strike vote to which members voted overwhelmingly in favour of. Now it could be said that the members themselves are to blame for voting 'yes'; however, most members voted 'yes' to give the negotiating team a tool to place in their back pocket to work with (let management know they are serious). Not many members imagined that the executive would serve strike notice the very moment they tallied the votes without making attempts to negotiate first... but they did.

And, despite the $41 million per year (PER YEAR)... the union executive placed its members on the picket lines with only $3.5 million to pay out in strike pay. In short... they ran out of money after two days. The strike lasted through June and commenced throughout the first three weeks of September. This means teachers weren't paid for 4 months (give or take). I challenge any household to deal with that.

Reckless and foolish.

After all that... the BCTF signed a deal that was very comparable to the first one offered. It was as if teachers acted like spoiled brats in a supermarket because they were getting Shredded Wheat instead of Lucky Charms. After the crying, tantrum, and pouting... they ended up with Shredded Wheat... but lost their dignity in the process (not to mention a net of $9000).

To what you were saying, Lukin... where did all that money go? This situation begs for an external audit of the BCTF's fiscal activities.

oftenreading

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

lukin2006 said:

oftenreading said:

catefrances said:

Unions are necessary because corporations exist. Anyone who thinks corporations operate with their employees best interests in mind is delusional.

The issue as I see it is whether unions are effectively protecting/improving workers' positions overall (rather than just the position of the union heads) and specifically whether striking is an effective way to do that.

Well said ... thats the exact case where I'm at. Have not had a pay increase in 3 years, but the union heads continue to go to every union convention held. Yup tough times unless your in the union executive or higher up, they continue to hold/go to just as many conventions as they always had ... really sad. The problem is that so few people are really informed, just like real life, they go along with whatever bullshit line their fed.

In general I'd have no problem with unions if there was legislation in place that held them accountable, forced them to put all financial documents on the web or forced that they automatically provide all members such documents, had to inform all member when conventions are held/attending how much was spent/why, etc...

In order to hold them accountable there needs to be a process put in place that allows for grievances to be heard ... fully funded by unions but totally independent of unions. In order to make this work sanctions need to be applied, everything from fines for small infractions to the removal of exectives from office.

As far as outsourcing these companies will always find a way to get cheap labour, there always be somewhere in this world that offer cheap labour ... you'll never unionize enough of the world to stop this.

I can relate to what you have written here. The BCTF takes in $41 million per year... PER YEAR.

They held a strike vote to which members voted overwhelmingly in favour of. Now it could be said that the members themselves are to blame for voting 'yes'; however, most members voted 'yes' to give the negotiating team a tool to place in their back pocket to work with (let management know they are serious). Not many members imagined that the executive would serve strike notice the very moment they tallied the votes without making attempts to negotiate first... but they did.

And, despite the $41 million per year (PER YEAR)... the union executive placed its members on the picket lines with only $3.5 million to pay out in strike pay. In short... they ran out of money after two days. The strike lasted through June and commenced throughout the first three weeks of September. This means teachers weren't paid for 4 months (give or take). I challenge any household to deal with that.

Reckless and foolish.

After all that... the BCTF signed a deal that was very comparable to the first one offered. It was as if teachers acted like spoiled brats in a supermarket because they were getting Shredded Wheat instead of Lucky Charms. After the crying, tantrum, and pouting... they ended up with Shredded Wheat... but lost their dignity in the process (not to mention a net of $9000).

To what you were saying, Lukin... where did all that money go? This situation begs for an external audit of the BCTF's fiscal activities.

Yes. I think people on all sides of this dispute and with all sorts of political opinions question the BCTF's performance and approach.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

As bad as the BCTF were, in fairness... the government (led by a dingbat) was worse. They are more than culpable for what happened given their willful ignorance.

Among countless grievous offences... when a government ignores the courts of our lands and shreds legally binding agreements to make ones they prefer... that's a problem.

cincybearcat

catefrances said:

Unions are necessary because corporations exist. Anyone who thinks corporations operate with their employees best interests in mind is delusional.

This is extremely generalized and just plain silly.

I don't believe we need most of the unions that exist. I do believe that some corporations do a very good job at taking care of their employees. To think all unions or corporations are the same is what is delusional.

lukin2006

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

lukin2006 said:

oftenreading said:

catefrances said:

Unions are necessary because corporations exist. Anyone who thinks corporations operate with their employees best interests in mind is delusional.

The issue as I see it is whether unions are effectively protecting/improving workers' positions overall (rather than just the position of the union heads) and specifically whether striking is an effective way to do that.

Well said ... thats the exact case where I'm at. Have not had a pay increase in 3 years, but the union heads continue to go to every union convention held. Yup tough times unless your in the union executive or higher up, they continue to hold/go to just as many conventions as they always had ... really sad. The problem is that so few people are really informed, just like real life, they go along with whatever bullshit line their fed.

In general I'd have no problem with unions if there was legislation in place that held them accountable, forced them to put all financial documents on the web or forced that they automatically provide all members such documents, had to inform all member when conventions are held/attending how much was spent/why, etc...

In order to hold them accountable there needs to be a process put in place that allows for grievances to be heard ... fully funded by unions but totally independent of unions. In order to make this work sanctions need to be applied, everything from fines for small infractions to the removal of exectives from office.

As far as outsourcing these companies will always find a way to get cheap labour, there always be somewhere in this world that offer cheap labour ... you'll never unionize enough of the world to stop this.

I can relate to what you have written here. The BCTF takes in $41 million per year... PER YEAR.

They held a strike vote to which members voted overwhelmingly in favour of. Now it could be said that the members themselves are to blame for voting 'yes'; however, most members voted 'yes' to give the negotiating team a tool to place in their back pocket to work with (let management know they are serious). Not many members imagined that the executive would serve strike notice the very moment they tallied the votes without making attempts to negotiate first... but they did.

And, despite the $41 million per year (PER YEAR)... the union executive placed its members on the picket lines with only $3.5 million to pay out in strike pay. In short... they ran out of money after two days. The strike lasted through June and commenced throughout the first three weeks of September. This means teachers weren't paid for 4 months (give or take). I challenge any household to deal with that.

Reckless and foolish.

After all that... the BCTF signed a deal that was very comparable to the first one offered. It was as if teachers acted like spoiled brats in a supermarket because they were getting Shredded Wheat instead of Lucky Charms. After the crying, tantrum, and pouting... they ended up with Shredded Wheat... but lost their dignity in the process (not to mention a net of $9000).

To what you were saying, Lukin... where did all that money go? This situation begs for an external audit of the BCTF's fiscal activities.

Thats the problem, no accountability...and anytime I've ever heard the mention of legislation to hold unions accountable ... they whine the loudest, and for some reason their membership gets behind them. Just like with politics and democracy, unions are only effective for their membership if the majority are informed, care about all the issues and not just the issues that effect them ... unfortunately in my union most can't be bothered to get informed and realize the union executive is full of lazy, spineless, cowards.

lukin2006

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

As bad as the BCTF were, in fairness... the government (led by a dingbat) was worse. They are more than culpable for what happened given their willful ignorance.

Among countless grievous offences... when a government ignores the courts of our lands and shreds legally binding agreements to make ones they prefer... that's a problem.

Same thing happened here in Ontario with the last round of contracts with the teachers and educational workers ... the government stripped benefits away from all employee groups. The unions threatened to take the fight to the Supreme Court of Canada, but in the end they whimpered away and lost benefits ... and they'll lose more benefits again at some point because the government knows the don't have the coconuts to fight them.

lukin2006

cincybearcat said:

catefrances said:

Unions are necessary because corporations exist. Anyone who thinks corporations operate with their employees best interests in mind is delusional.

This is extremely generalized and just plain silly.

I don't believe we need most of the unions that exist. I do believe that some corporations do a very good job at taking care of their employees. To think all unions or corporations are the same is what is delusional.

agree

Thirty Bills Unpaid

lukin2006 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

As bad as the BCTF were, in fairness... the government (led by a dingbat) was worse. They are more than culpable for what happened given their willful ignorance.

Among countless grievous offences... when a government ignores the courts of our lands and shreds legally binding agreements to make ones they prefer... that's a problem.

Same thing happened here in Ontario with the last round of contracts with the teachers and educational workers ... the government stripped benefits away from all employee groups. The unions threatened to take the fight to the Supreme Court of Canada, but in the end they whimpered away and lost benefits ... and they'll lose more benefits again at some point because the government knows the don't have the coconuts to fight them.

The government with an endless stream of tax revenue to squash anyone they want. It's a problem.

These very things are the only reason I don't laugh at Unsung and his kooky theories as much as I used to.

lukin2006

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

lukin2006 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

As bad as the BCTF were, in fairness... the government (led by a dingbat) was worse. They are more than culpable for what happened given their willful ignorance.

Among countless grievous offences... when a government ignores the courts of our lands and shreds legally binding agreements to make ones they prefer... that's a problem.

Same thing happened here in Ontario with the last round of contracts with the teachers and educational workers ... the government stripped benefits away from all employee groups. The unions threatened to take the fight to the Supreme Court of Canada, but in the end they whimpered away and lost benefits ... and they'll lose more benefits again at some point because the government knows the don't have the coconuts to fight them.

The government with an endless stream of tax revenue to squash anyone they want. It's a problem.

These very things are the only reason I don't laugh at Unsung and his kooky theories as much as I used to.

Hehehehe ... I agree there.

oftenreading

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

As bad as the BCTF were, in fairness... the government (led by a dingbat) was worse. They are more than culpable for what happened given their willful ignorance.

Among countless grievous offences... when a government ignores the courts of our lands and shreds legally binding agreements to make ones they prefer... that's a problem.

Well, that's another kettle of fish and one we are all responsible for ("all" being BC voters). The teachers are responsible for their union leadership and, I hope, will demand some changes.

i_lov_it

You could also say Unions are the last line of Democracy.