Unions - Good or Bad?

stupidcorporatewhore

know1 wrote:

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

wrong, as usual.

to be competitive with third world nations one of two things would have to happen

1.we would have to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws. we cant compete at 7.00 per hour with half our workforce in elementary schools.

2. our government would have to punish companies for taking their wares elsewhere (like in England). OOps, the corporations control our government, so..not going to happen.

I take it you support these things.

bottom line:

corporations aren't interested in a good product or enriching the economy in which they live.

they don't care where a product is made, who makes it, whether it's a quality product or what it's made of.

they only care about one thing, making a product as cheaply as possible and selling it for as much as they can.

"that's capitalism", I'm sure you'd say. I call it slavery.

p.s. I've edited my sig again for you.

Commy

dg1979us wrote:

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.

that's why we have unions, to even things out. If labor can stand up as a group they become more important to the company than the ceo. If they stop work the CEO has no company to run. I would say labor is more valuable to the company, thanks to unions.

dg1979us

Commy wrote:

that's why we have unions, to even things out. If labor can stand up as a group they become more important to the company than the ceo. If they stop work the CEO has no company to run. I would say labor is more valuable to the company, thanks to unions.

Yes, labor as a group can be more important. Individual laborers are not. Unions have, and still do, provide a lot of good for workers rights, I dont argue that for a minute. Some unions do at times take it a bit far IMO, but overall I think they are good. But that still doesnt mean that a CEO isnt justified making much more than the workers. I do agree that some CEOs make well more than they are worth. But when you consider that there is only one CEO, and far fewer managers than laborers, then I think it certainly justifies a difference in pay between the 2 sides. Why should someone pushing a broom make $20 an hour? That is a job that many people can do, and would be willing to do for a lot less. Its not justified in paying that person that type of money.

Kel Varnsen

There was an interesting item in the Global National News in Canada tonite. The Canadian federal budget came down and there was a bunch of money directed to the Canadian manufacturing industry, which is not doing as good as it did in the past because of the high Canadian dollar and lower profits by North American auto companies. At the end of the news they had piece about a family where both parents worked for General Motors and made a combined salary of $140,000 per year. They were worried that they were likely going to be laid off in the near future and they were upset that the government wasn't doing enough to help their industry with things like either propping it up or retraining people. I couldn't help but ask the TV what their union was doing to help retrain them, or even what they a family making $140,000 was doing to make sure they wouldn't have to struggle during hard times in the future.

Eliot Rosewater

Good for humans.

Bad for those who profit from exploiting humans.

Kel Varnsen

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Good for humans.

Bad for those who profit from exploiting humans.

Unless the ones profiting are the people in charge of the unions.

angryyoungman

unions= good (for the working man)

fuck corporate america. . .for the most part they dont give a shit about the people who built there companies

freedomboy

dontloseyourheat wrote:

This seems like a big issue as all of the candidates talk about unions, some support them, some don't.

I just left the labor movement as a Union Organizer, to get more active in local/community activism...

As the labor movement currently stands, the pros and cons are as follows:

Pros:
* A grievance procedure
* A legally binding contract that the employees and the employer have agreed upon.
* Better benefits and wages.
* A sense of solidarity with your co-workers (if you work for it).

Cons:
* Unions tend to put their hired hierarchy before the dues paying members, which can lead to back door deals, and the members losing control over THEIR union's future.
* Unions tend to be leaning towards a corporate structure which will end up depleting the labor movement, rather than strengthen it.

Myths:
* Outsourcing is the fault of Unions. NO! You can only blame the corporation who did the outsourcing for their crime! They make record profits, and move overseas to make MORE!
* Union members are lazy! NO! The grievance procedure is set to give balance to employees and employers. If a member is in the wrong, stewards and representatives are trained to tell them when they are wrong, and that they will be wasting members' dues.
* You must pay fees! Depends on the state... In Illinois, there is fair share... Which means that if you don't want to be represented by the union, you must still pay a "fair share" since you are reaping the benefits of having that union.
* Unions promote time spent vs. hard work! Depends on how YOU negotiate YOUR contract! If it comes time for negotiations, and a majority of you feel that seniority should only stand for issues such as vacation time, but promotions, etc should be merit based, THEN NEGOTIATE IT!

Eliot Rosewater

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Unless the ones profiting are the people in charge of the unions.

Even if they're profiting, they're not exploiting the humans. They're helping. No problem in profiting from good.

jeffbr

Wow, this board seems to be populated by people who can't do for themselves.

Labor is simply a comodity. It's value is simply whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. If you need a union to get you ahead, maybe you need to figure out why.

Here's an interesting little factiod regarding unions and the steel industry:

The facts are revealing of the role unions have played in the steel industry. Almost every U.S. mill in bankruptcy now is organized by the United Steelworkers union. No non-union steel companies have failed in the United States. Do the math. Over the years, unions made impossible wage and benefit demands on steel management, which capitulated under the rationale that the government would bail them out from their hollow promises.

for the whole article: http://www.freetrade.org/node/239

sponger

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Even if they're profiting, they're not exploiting the humans. They're helping. No problem in profiting from good.

That is until union leaders go softy on the contract negotiations so that they don't lose money on a strike. Or when they neglect the lower wage earners because they aren't paying the same dues as the higher wage earners. Or when member dues are spent on union election campaigns and smear projects as opposing union leaders square off for control.

And that's just the stuff that's actually allowed by law. That doesn't include the kick-backs from corporations for silent cooperation.

When you consider that most unions have a promotion/raise system based on seniority alone, the people who get screwed are the hard-working dependable employees who end up making the same wages and receiving the same raises as people who just do the bare minimum to keep from getting fired.

Kann

jeffbr wrote:

Wow, this board seems to be populated by people who can't do for themselves.

Labor is simply a comodity. It's value is simply whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. If you need a union to get you ahead, maybe you need to figure out why.

Here's an interesting little factiod regarding unions and the steel industry:
for the whole article: http://www.freetrade.org/node/239

I don't like unions because they have the bad habit to get between me and my commute, but you have got to be kidding me :
1 - Correlation IS NOT causation. 3 out of 4 corporations with unions here have a president named gerald ==> therefore unions use name discrimination. Do the math.

2 - Labor is not a comodity. Unless you consider that the human being is a comodity. Philosphy and moral values evolve through time, what was true 2000 years ago is not true in todays society. Today a work defines who you are and what is your place in society. It is so much more than a simple comodity it's a reason of life for bilions of people.

3 - If labor is a comodity and the number of people available keep rising then,according to the geniuses who work on economy, the price of that comodity will go down. Until where? Is that moral? Is it possible? Don't you think it creates unstability? How many bloodsheds (wars and revolutions) were started because of poverty and empty stomachs? Or, less melodramatic, is a successful society possible where poverty and quality of life goes down instead of up?

Kel Varnsen

PEPPER wrote:

Good when they started out, lost their purpose and are now horribly bad.

A good example of this is the Auto Workers Union.

The Auto unions are a bit nuts. I mean it is pretty crazy to ask for more money when the company you work for is losing money like crazy (and then threaten to strike if you don't get it). Do people not understand that no money at all is also an option?

I worked for a company that eventually had a similar situation. It was another pulp mill that ended up shutting down becuase it wasn't making money and had a ton of debt. Eventually I think some dude offered to buy it, but only on the condition that the union took a pay cut (in exchange for getting their jobs back). In exchange for the pay cut they would get profit sharing and a promise to return to their full wages if the place became profitable again. Yet the union turned down the offer since apparently they would rather have no paycheck then a lower paycheck (and this was in a town where there wasn't a lot of employment options). I think eventually union management got canned by the members (since with everyone out of work the only ones making any money were the union people).