Author Topic: Where do you stand concerning Unions? (Read 769 times)

Bodhi · « **on:** October 09, 2003, 01:04:29 PM »

I was just curious where most of you stood concerning Labor Unions?

I have worked both in a union and outside of one, and with one exception I found them to be much too self serving now.

What do you people think? Should they be left alone, be forced to change, or go away?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #1 on:** October 09, 2003, 01:08:42 PM »

They care only for themselve$ these days and have political agendas.

OTOH, I've been in a situation where a supervisor would have had 11 of us fired if there had not been a union to step in and chill this dude. He was out of line (and an ex-Drill sergeant at that)

Ya gotta sleep with the devil if you want alittle piece of heaven.

Oh, and I was IAW Union for 10, SPEEA (Engineers Union) for 4 years, and now I've been salary for 4 years. I've increased my pay by 1/3 since going salary (you get pay raises for performance)...where the union you're limited to contract. Best thing I ever did financially was go salary.

Westy · « **Reply #2 on:** October 09, 2003, 01:15:57 PM »

" Should they be left alone, be forced to change, or go away?"

How about option 4? They should leave me alone and not try and force me into one.

I've never had a use for them, been in two and the only benefited the "corporation" that they themselves had become.

Now I enjoy getting raises and promotions based on my performance now. Not due to some lame bellybutton time in position standard.
And I've dodged the layoff bullet eleven times in this company because I know what I'm doing, try my best and have a positive, helpful attitude. I can truly say I've only seen dead weight get cut here. People who sat on thier fat arses and did the minimal amount needed to get the job done or *****ed about eveything they could as if they were getting a paid commision on every gripe they could they could summon up.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #3 on:** October 09, 2003, 01:23:25 PM »

You said a mouthful there Westy. At Boeing, we once had a union that was not closed shop. They actually "worked" for you. Once Boeing went closed-shop union, they union stopped working for its members (including crappy contracts) and the jobs started going out the door because the union wanted to negotiate more MONEY instead of better benefits because the union gets a certain percentage of money increase to increase their dues.

IMO, Unions suck. But, you need them in some cases. Its a catch 22.

Creamo · « **Reply #4 on:** October 09, 2003, 01:35:36 PM »

Arent you at work now Ripsnort?

Don't overproduce yourself out of a job this week posting on websites how your are so clever for going salary and unions are bad.

miko2d · « **Reply #5 on:** October 09, 2003, 01:45:03 PM »

Unions are monolpolies created to raise the price of their good (labor) above the price that would result in a free market. As with any product, increase in price results in reduction in demand. Fewer people are hired.

The labor union members are paid more because the contraction of production improves marginal proitability of the product. The gain of the union members comes at the expence of the workers forced into unemployment or employment at salaries lower than they could have received and at the expence of the customers receiving less products and at higher prices.

Since any company in a competitive economy afflicted with the union would go out of business due to extra expense, the industrial monopoly is essential to the successfull operation of the unions. Such monopoly is only possible with cooperation of the state because otherwise it would be illegal under anti-trust legislation and would not be viable on free market.

The labor representatives collude with the industry to persuade the legislators that special "protection" is necessary for that industry. With workers pushing for it the legislators are much more likely to approve monopolistic practices. Once the labor/capital monopoly is established, the capitalists do not care because their profits are protected from competition.

Early unions relied on direct violence while now they rely on the violence of the state to enforce their monopoly.

Since the only source of improved well-being for workers is growth of real wages due to increase in production and labor unions cause decrease in production (necessary to keep the price of teh product up), they not only redistribute wealth from lower-paid non-union workers and customers towards higher-paid union workers, but reduce general level of wealth in the society. They steal some and they waste more.

Of course the unions attributed to themselves the historical improvement in well-being of working people that occured naturally as a result of accumulation of capital and resulting increase of productivity and volume of production.

miko

Westy · « **Reply #6 on:** October 09, 2003, 01:46:14 PM »

"you need them in some cases. Its a catch 22."

I definately agree!
Back in the old days the workers in the textile mills, mines and railroads (for three examples) who had to endure ungodly low pay and horrible work conditions, on top of the all too common ruthless and sadistic supervisors and managers, the Unions were essential.
And sorry to hear that happened at Boeing. The people who tend to gain any tangible rewards in that situation are the union management people. Ironic.... And it's leaching of the worst kind.

"Arent you at work now Ripsnort?"

I am too. But I'm able to multi-task. Here there's no union directive telling me I'm only to work on the left wheel widget and that anything else is someone else's union job!

Sixpence · « **Reply #7 on:** October 09, 2003, 01:52:30 PM »

From a previous anti-union post

Originally posted by Mini D
But I also believe they are a refuge for people adept at hiding within the system that were long overdue for termination.

MiniD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't quite work like that anymore. Take the local 103 electricians for example(or the local 22 laborers), if you call in sick too much, or they don't like your work ethic, they will not hire you for their next job. They will ask the hall for someone else.

How do unions work for you? Unions allow you to pool your money, therefore getting alot more for your money. Local 103 puts $8.00 an hour into your pension(a pension safe from the likes of Enron). Medical and dental(dental!), and school twice a week(union school and experience for your license is more demanding than the state requirements). Not to mention a good wage. When companies hire workers from the 103, they know they are getting well educated workers and quality work.

Let me give you an example of non-union work. I worked for a glazing company in St. Pete, Fl. I got hired for a little more than minimum wage. I was sent to the job(no training whatsoever). We were screwing in the metal frames of windows in a new building(lakeland). I would stand on a foot ladder on one floor holding in the frame(almost half way out the opening) while the person on the next floor adjusted the top and put in screws. Well, on the 6th floor, the person working on the floor above lost his grip. I still had a grip on the lower section. It happened fast, but someone up top yelled "let it go!" I let go and grabbed the ledge and pulled myself back in. The frame fell to ground level with quite the crash. The (supervisor of the site?) was looking over plans with a few gentlemen in suits(and hardhats). I'll never forget the look on his face. He marched up to the building like darth maul. He ripped my boss a new stunninghunk.
The only benefit I had was a life insurance policy(required by the state for the type of work I was doing).

Unions worthless? Hardly. As a nation we are a union, if we are not united, we regress.

__________________

miko2d · « **Reply #8 on:** October 09, 2003, 01:53:55 PM »

Westy: Back in the old days the workers in the textile mills, mines and railroads (for three examples) who had to endure ungodly low pay and horrible work conditions, on top of the all too common ruthless and sadistic supervisors and managers, the Unions were essential.

Why did they abandon their previous jobs and switched to the worse ones? Would not it be ligical to assume that their lives were even worse before they were given opportunity to get those jobs? Like subsistence farming in over-populated agrarian economy, having to work in horrible outdoor conditions for bare sustenance? Not being able to afford to marry and have children, because only one son could inherit the plot of land that could not be split any further?

Forcing the price of labor higher increased prices of products and reduced return on invested capital and thus caused production to be lower than it would - with fewer people hired away from hellish rural conditions than could be.

The terrible life in overpopulated rural area was certainly not the fault of early capitalists. Denying some poor pesants a chance to get employment at wages he found acceptable and go back and die in the countryside made liberals feel good since they did not observe or think of his conditions.

miko

Eagler · « **Reply #9 on:** October 09, 2003, 01:54:51 PM »

they need to move to where they are needed ..ie the Philipines, India and China and in turn price US labor back into the market they have priced it out of...

Sixpence · « **Reply #10 on:** October 09, 2003, 01:56:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
they need to move to where they are needed ..ie the Philipines, India and China and in turn price US labor back into the market they have priced it out of...

Why, would you rather be working there?

Eagler · « **Reply #11 on:** October 09, 2003, 01:59:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
Why, would you rather be working there?

I think the question should be

"would you rather be working here for less but still working"

Sixpence · « **Reply #12 on:** October 09, 2003, 02:01:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
I think the question should be

"would you rather be working here for less but still working"

I'm working, this is America, if are not working, you are not looking.(lots of people do not work in China either)

Westy · « **Reply #13 on:** October 09, 2003, 02:10:05 PM »

"Why did they abandon their previous jobs and switched to the worse ones? "

Well. they didn't. Most were immigrants that came with promises of a better life or to escape an even worse one back in the "old country." And yes, that "appearance" was propogated by the American industry to help induce more cheap labor to her shores. Instead most immigrants ,who were not "well off" to begin with, discovered that what awaited them were septic tenements and very low paying work. And depending on the "bogotry of the day" some found it even hard to get work period (ex/ theIrish).

However, please don't mistake my distaste for modern day unions as any kind of indirect approval for current or past management excesses. I work for a company that should be coming out of Chapter 11 soon and what the upper management did with was horrible. Prison would be too good for them. So would crucifixion to borrow from M. P.
But a union here would not have made one positive difference at all. It would have made matters worse IMO with the behind closed doors bargaining as union management scrammbled to save what they could for themselves and thier favorite stewards.

Bodhi · « **Reply #14 on:** October 09, 2003, 09:02:43 PM »

I agree that unions do serve some good, but for the most part they seem to be to self serving and IMHO are the main reason corporations allowed NAFTA to become a reality.

I guess the end all is that they are here, they are horribly corrupt for the most part, and when they are as embedded as they are now, there is little chance the workers in a union will boot the fat cow that suckles them with unrealistic wages, and that ilk. As long as they are happy, screw the rest...

Sadly, though, they fail to realise that they are screwing themselves.