Unions - Good or Bad?

Commy

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Sure it is a matter of greed. Canadian labour laws protect against things like overtime, worker safety conditions and what you can be fired for. Everything else a union might fight for is money. The difference between the CEO and the guy pushing the broom is that if the CEO fucks up it affects the whole company if the broom pusher fucks up there is dirt on the floor. As far as whether or not he is worth it or now, how do you justify a broom pusher making $20/ hour in a union operation while a broom pusher somewhere else make $8.50. All the inflated wage does is make the union job really hard to get (which is why they all go to supervisors kids not the people who could use them the most).

Not to menion I have read enough books about The Mafia to know that unions are still a huge money maker for them.

Its all relative tho. If you believe in democracy and freedom than you should believe that it should apply to the workforce. Granted, a fuckup is a little more important at the ceo's level but if you recognize labor's worth...without the people running the mill, the workers actually doing the work, THERE IS NO MILL to run. That is what unions were created to protect.

I dont' know much about the mob ties, but its seems fairly obvious that unions have had to give kickbacks to the mob (Jimma Hoffa probably refused).

soulsinging

SilverSeed wrote:

Can you explain further? I'm not familiar with at-will employment or it's difference to our system.

My take on unions is that they were very important in the early 20th century in terms of creating safe, sanitary, and fair working conditions. The politicization of the unions and their tendency to get caught in the cogs of the system have weakened them relative to their original cause. I do believe they have their place in society but they need to think about whether they should be mainly a political entity or one seeking first and foremost employee rights.

in the most simplistic terms possible, at-will employment means you can be fired for any reason or no reason. if the employer decides he doesn't like you, or thinks you're agitating too much, he can fire you.

for cause means essentially that when you are given a job, you are entitled to keep it unless the employer has a reason for firing you. that can be anything from business need to the worker screwing up.

there are a whole host of nuances and effects, but basically it means employers don't have unfettered discretion to do whatever they want to workers.

Commy

soulsinging wrote:

in the most simplistic terms possible, at-will employment means you can be fired for any reason or no reason. if the employer decides he doesn't like you, or thinks you're agitating too much, he can fire you.

for cause means essentially that when you are given a job, you are entitled to keep it unless the employer has a reason for firing you. that can be anything from business need to the worker screwing up.

there are a whole host of reasons, but basically it means employers don't have unfettered discretion to do whatever they want to workers.

I worked at an at-will restaurant (coming from a chef position in a restaurant that made 11 million dollars a year). I flipped burgers for a few weeks, and familiarized myself with the system. It was a recipe for disaster, and the restaurant will be closing soon. I figure if they can fire people at any time, then i could leave at anytime, which I decided to do. Can imagine the GM trying to run that kitcen.

Terrible idea imo. at will employment.

sponger

I worked as a supervisor for UPS for awhile. UPS laborers are unionized by the teamsters.

Unions have their pros and cons. The pros are the obvious such as good pay, benefits, worker conditions, respectful treatment from management, and so on.

UPS drivers are the highest paid in the courier industry, and all UPS employees including the part-time employees get unparalled benefits. In spite of the extra costs that go into employee welfare, UPS still turns a profit and maintains a consistently strong stock value.

So, with that in mind, it's safe to say that other couriers could easily pay their employees more without going out of business, but don't because their employees aren't unionized.

On the other hand, there are some real piece of shit employees at UPS who continue to work there because they are nearly impossible for management to fire. We had one employee who was allergic to hard work, was always late, and was constantly absent.

On top of that, he had a real shitty attitude toward other employees and was just basically an all-around douche. I can respect an employee who is just unfriendly. I think we all have a right to be unfriendly. But, he was beyond that. He would go out of his way to start conflicts and get under peoples' skin.

On one occasion he forgot to bring his boots to work, so he "borrowed" another driver's boots without asking. In my book, that's stealing. But, even that couldn't get him fired.

So, after putting up with his bullshit for so long, and after trying to reason with the guy time and again, I started the paperwork on him. This meant keeping a detailed log of his infractions and logging official "talks" with him about those infractions.

That's when the union harassment began. Suddenly I had Teamster reps showing up at my office and sometimes out at my dock giving me a hard time about how I treated my employees even though there was nothing they could specifically point out. I would hear shit like, "From what I can tell, you need to do a better job of managing your employees," and so on and so forth. It was vague shit that had no merit, and had the sole purpose of making me uncomfortable.

I had shop stewards circling my area and looking for anything they could give me shit about.

At UPS, there's a rule about management and the handling of packages. Per the Teamster contract, non-unionized personnel (aka management) were not allowed to physically aid in the progress of package movement. This was so unionized laborers could be ensured the most work hours they could get.

But, as anyone at UPS will tell you, this is an impossible rule to follow. Sometimes there just isn't enough time to call a laborer over to move this box or that box when that laborer is already doing something else.

In fact, it's a rule that is rarely enforced by the union -that is unless they want to harass somebody. So, low and behold, I became the only supervisor at that UPS facility who couldn't touch packages. The second I picked up a box, union foot soldiers would swoop down and chew a big chunk out of my ass.

Of course, that's something I would respect if they applied that consistently. But, again, it was a tool of harassment for them, not an angle of upholding worker rights.

Eventually, because that POS employee fucked up so much and so often that it became possible for us fire him, even the union reps realized that they were backing a major douchebag and they backed off.

But, that whole experience is just one example of how the teamsters union makes it so that it becomes impossible for management to do its job while lazy, shiftless employees make the same dollars as hard-working employees with little standing in their way.

Commy

the power of the union, thats as it should be, dont' fuck with the unions;.\\


A friend of mine is a superviser at a local UPS facility, and he can't touch a box, due to the union. What's basically happened is the Unions have fought for their employees, ensuring they have a job regardless of managemnet, If you as a manager have time to unload boxes then maybe your job isnt' needed, whereas in the past that would mean firing an employee doing the grunt work.

sponger

Commy wrote:

the power of the union, thats as it should be, dont' fuck with the unions;.\\


A friend of mine is a superviser at a local UPS facility, and he can't touch a box, due to the union. What's basically happened is the Unions have fought for their employees, ensuring they have a job regardless of managemnet, If you as a manager have time to unload boxes then maybe your job isnt' needed, whereas in the past that would mean firing an employee doing the grunt work.

Wow, that's an interesting argumentation style you have there. Do you mind if I try it?

Unions are bad, and if you need a union, it's because you're a lazy worker.

Hey, that was kinda fun. I can see why you resort to it. There's nothing as exhilirating as making general statements without having to really explain them or probably without having to really know what I'm talking about. Maybe after you graduate from high school or just pass a basic writing & composition course, your posts will change.

unsung

They are good.

OutOfBreath

Like most institutions that can wield some power it can also be abused. But overall a good thing, as it enables workers to have some influence and security in their jobs. Historically, the labour unions in coalition with labour parties and other social movements have been invaluable in shaping the current society so that workers also get something out of it, and that the middle class were able to grow so big.

Depending on the union, they may be over-zealous as in sponger's story, but they did back down eventually when they realized they were in the wrong. But overall it is important that workers also have some power they can wield.

Peace
Dan

cincybearcat

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

Yay for shitty products and the "third worlding" of America!

here's some other things you are against:

a fair wage

overtime

fair hours

humaine and safe working conditions

health benefits

pension

You can have all that without a union. Unions had their time and place, and except for a very small % of companies, unions are no longer necessary.

know1

Commy wrote:

Its not a matter of greed. Its relative. How can a CEO justify making 100-or 1000 times that of an employee when the employee works just as hard or harder than the CEO. Why shouldn't a guy puching a broom make 20$/hour? Who determines what he is worth?

The market should determine the worth. If they can't find anyone to push a broom for $5/hr, and they really need someone to push a broom, then they go to $6....etc.

baraka

I think Unions have done brilliant things for workers in the past. They were absolutely necessary. I, however, wonder though if they have outlasted their usefulness. On the other hand, if they disappeared today, would we revert back to a 'sweat shop' style work force? I don't know. What I do know, where I work, the Union somewhat promotes an anti-competitiveness atmosphere and benefits poor workers. They have done harm to the idea of merit and allow some workers to take advantage of the system. I don't know what the answer is to this one.

know1

baraka wrote:

I think Unions have done brilliant things for workers in the past. They were absolutely necessary. I, however, wonder though if they have outlasted their usefulness. On the other hand, if they disappeared today, would we revert back to a 'sweat shop' style work force? I don't know. What I do know, where I work, the Union somewhat promotes an anti-competitiveness atmosphere and benefits poor workers. They have done harm to the idea of merit and allow some workers to take advantage of the system. I don't know what the answer is to this one.

I think that due to the improved communications, transportation and the prevalence of lawyers, we would not revert back to a sweat shop style workforce. Conditions have improved.

As I said before, they may have their place in developing countries, but not here.

Kel Varnsen

Commy wrote:

Its all relative tho. If you believe in democracy and freedom than you should believe that it should apply to the workforce. Granted, a fuckup is a little more important at the ceo's level but if you recognize labor's worth...without the people running the mill, the workers actually doing the work, THERE IS NO MILL to run. That is what unions were created to protect.

I dont' know much about the mob ties, but its seems fairly obvious that unions have had to give kickbacks to the mob (Jimma Hoffa probably refused).

I do agree that freedom should apply to a work force, I just don't think that someone who has a pretty unskilled job should get paid more just because they are alligned with skilled people that can hold a company hostage if they don't get their way.

As far as some worker working harder than the CEO it also depends on how valuable your skills are. If you work hard doing a job that requires very little skill and that even a trained monkey could do, I don't think you deserve to be paid a lot, even if you have to work really hard (you don't deserve nothing but at the same time I don't think you deserve an inflated salary because of union membership). At the same time if you are a CEO with a very specialized skill set that not a lot of people have, then you deserve to be paid a lot since someone with your skills would be rarer and harder to hire. Besides I think people don’t realize how much high level executives work. A while back the CBC did a show where they had low level people from a company switch places with Presidents and CEO’s. The one I remember was a waitress from Boston Pizza switching places with the CEO. He had a difficult time getting used to being a waiter, but she was run ragged since for the 3 days she had the CEO job pretty much any time she wasn’t asleep she was on the job.

http://www.calgarysun.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=126771&x=articles&s=showbiz

As far as the mob goes, it is a lot more than just mob kickbacks. In the past mafia guys have infiltrated unions and made it so that their union gets the sweet contract with little or no competition, then does shoddy work and usually skims off the top for themselves. On top of that the mob in the past has had control of union bank accounts (Union Pension Fund’s run by the mob built a bunch of the old school casinos in Vegas).

stupidcorporatewhore

cincybearcat wrote:

You can have all that without a union. Unions had their time and place, and except for a very small % of companies, unions are no longer necessary.

bullshit.

corporations only give things if they are made to give them. Either by government (as it is it Britain for example) or by unions.

You and I live in two very different Americas

I work in an in industry where they would work us until we die unless someone interceeded.

just curious, have you ever been the recipient of union benefits?

stupidcorporatewhore

know1 wrote:

I think that due to the improved communications, transportation and the prevalence of lawyers, we would not revert back to a sweat shop style workforce. Conditions have improved.

As I said before, they may have their place in developing countries, but not here.

Just curious what you do for a living, know?

I've edited my sig just for you BTW

Pacomc79

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

bullshit.

corporations only give things if they are made to give them. Either by government (as it is it Britain for example) or by unions.

You and I live in two very different Americas

I work in an in industry where they would work us until we die unless someone interceeded.

just curious, have you ever been the recipient of union benefits?

There are plusses and minuses to both systems. Unions work really well for specialized industries and low wage less skilled workers by and large. It's not the be all end all. In some cases they deliver very well for the workers and in other cases they hold them back.

They work really crappy for high performing corporate employees for instance. If you have highly marketable skills, unions are generally bad news, because you can pit companies against each other. If you're in a union you get stuck with the same contract as everyone else in the union and because you're a group they just can't pay you more or give you more incentives because it prices them out of the market especially if they had to give it to everyone. Sales people, account executives etc... they do this almost daily. It's just like you as a consumer. You can spend your dollars on anything, but you want to buy the best in your price range. If you can find one piece to improve your safety, bottomline, compliance etc instead of hiring an entire group who may have good performers and bad performers you can improve your entire company.

Market driven jobs don't work for all people and union jobs don't work for all people. I tend to believe we need some of both in a healthy economy just like we need rules and regulations to make corporations do right we need to have positions available where individuals are rewarded for exceptional work. Those types of individuals aren't going to thrive in a union environment, they simply aren't going to work as hard because there isn't any incentive.

Wages at top levels often have a lot to do with risk and how much people are willing to take. That's why you can't pay an uneducated guy that pushes a broom 20 bucks an hour. It's irresponsible because globally people who aren't doing as well can and will do that job for a hell of a lot less money because there relatively is nothing to it. You have to keep the quality high and the wages/benifits competitive and then the market has to be willing to recognise quality as a reason to buy. Currently we don't give a crap largely about quality just price, that's why we have so many jobs being shipped overseas, that and our prohibitive tax code.


Big problems in these systems are that people are unwilling to take risks. Tarriffs, Price Supports, standing pat with education... it all hurts someone somewhere.

West Africa could produce cotton a lot cheaper than the US but we have Price Supports and Tarriffs. Cuba could eat into US tobacco and sugar big time but we have price supports, tarrifs, embargos...etc.

The US has a terrible trade deficit. We do need more Quality manufacturing back here and that means unions, but we've also got to be sensible about those contracts and make sure we stay competitive globally.

These systems can work very well with open dialog and truthful good business practices. Corporations and Unions both need checks and balances to keep the system healthy for all.

Get_Right

there was a time when they were necessary
but not anymore, they are just an extra layer of fat in most cases

although I make an exception for the the teachers union-as they are still not fairly compensated for what they do (in most cases)

know1

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

Just curious what you do for a living, know?

I've edited my sig just for you BTW

Work for a small graphic design and multimedia company who is a partner to some marketing and medical education companies.

Your signature would be more accurate if it was something to the effect of "Work Union, Lose Job to 3rd World Country"

dg1979us

Commy wrote:

Its all relative tho. If you believe in democracy and freedom than you should believe that it should apply to the workforce. Granted, a fuckup is a little more important at the ceo's level but if you recognize labor's worth...without the people running the mill, the workers actually doing the work, THERE IS NO MILL to run. That is what unions were created to protect.

But the labor of the mill is a combination of all of the laborers work. The CEO is in a position by himself. One laborer isnt going to be productive enough to keep a mill or factory a float. So, who is more valueable to the company? A laborer who is one of hunderds, possibly thousands, or the CEO who is one of one and has over sight over the whole operation? I do agree that CEOs often times make more than they should, but there is certainly a different skillset involved when comparing a CEO to a laborer. The CEO is going to be more difficult to replace than a laborer in almost every situation, which is why the CEO should make quite a bit more than a laborer.

Kel Varnsen

Songburst wrote:

That was the main reason that I went into consulting. I couldn't handle being salaried and not getting paid for every hour I worked. Consulting is actually more stress than mill engineering because the workload is insane but it is infintely more challenging and infinitely more rewarding.

Are you still working at pulp mills? Do you need a good E&I consultant? I'm always looking for more work for our company - haha.

The pulp mill jobs were only Co-Op jobs while I was in university. I decided I did not want to go into that type of field when I graduated since I did not want to be stuck in a small town for the rest of my life.