Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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?
-
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.
-
" 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
"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! ;)
-
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.
__________________
-
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
-
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...
-
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?
-
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"
-
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)
-
"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.
-
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.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by miko2d
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.
miko
Thank goodness management does not collude industrywide to artificially depress the market price of labor below the price that would result in a truly free market.
:rolleyes:
-
Where do you stand concerning Unions?
On my left foot with my right at a 45 degree angle. That's about the best I can do at my age. I hope this answers your question.
-
They care only for themselve$ these days and have political agendas.
and the bussiness they are bargaining with don't? :rolleyes:
here's a little secret, everyone looks out for their own best interest and everyone has a political agenda, are you saying that you don't? why shouldn't unions have an agenda?
the main reason for a union is to gain an equal footing while bargaining for wages (and other compensation). employers complain about the union having a virtual monopoly on labor, what they don't take into acount that how many people you compete with and how many jobs are available, the employer has much more of a monopoly on employment than any union has on work-force.
all of the company whinning about unions hurting them is just that, whinning.
here's a couple facts-
1.
whine: I always treated my employees fairly we have no need of a union.
Fact: you won't have a union forced onto your company unless more than half your employees feel they need one to be dealt with fairly, less than that and a union couldn't get voted in)
2.
whine: all of these complaints about people refusing to do a job that is within the jurisdiction of another union, and other 'union' rules that seem to get in the way of production and efficiency.
Fact: a union can't just 'make rules' for an employers work place. however certain things are open to bargaining, [some of these are working conditions, rate of pay, seniority (and other rules pertaining to hiring/firing), benifits, job description (what type of services can the employer expect for their dollar. like should a guy who gets paid minimum wage to sweep floors, be told to go do plumbing work for the same rate of pay), and other issues there are a couple more. ]
anyway all these things are negotiated, just like any contract you sit down and play 'lets make a deal', the employer throws out something like "I can't afford cost of living increases this year", the union responds with "fine, but in exchange for that I want you to only use our members to change your lightbulbs (or whatever)". it's all give and take. so when I hear an employer whine about the contract rules (that is the corect term btw, the term 'union rule' is just used to make unions look bad by implying that the stupid situations are the fault of the union), anyway when they whine about the rules it tells me one of 2 things, either the guy is just a whinner and blames his problems on the union, or he's a lousey bussiness man if he can't even negotiate an aceptable contract. if a contract issue causes some problems for an employer you can bet that he recieved consideration for it somewhere else in the contract. just like every clause in that contract that benifits you, was paid for buy something you sacrificed. the idea that companys bargain egually and suposedly in good faith to agree on a contract, and then whine and cry when they have to live up to there end. how long would you keep a guy on as an employee if he *****ed and moaned every time he had to do the work that earns his pay?
3
the whine: the idea that the union requires employers to keep bad employees.
the fact: unions can not stop an employer from firing a man for cause. what a union does do is stop unfair firings, if you've done something to deserve termination there is nothing the union can do for you. if however you get fired one night because a mistake your boss made is comming back to bite him in the prettythang, and his coke suplier is running late, so he throws a tantrum and fires somebody for no reason (seen it happen many times), then the union will send a rep (usually the shop steward) to get your side of the story, ask witnesses some questions, and get the bosses story. if the witnesses suport your side of things and the firing is thought to be unfair the union will file grievances for you and provide legal representation for arbitration, and if you win you get your job back, plus any wages you missed out on while unemployed. the other thing a union does is provide you with the same caliber of legal representation available to employers, buy pooling the money of many thousand members, we can have the money to fight on equal terms with the employer when they abuse the rights of our members, also through examples set in this way we can discourage these abuses from happening in the future, as employers will know that the victims can fight back.
-
More importantly we need to keep American companys in AMERICA:D
-
We will allways need some form of collective barganing and contracts between workers and managment. Human nature forces us to.
lazs
-
Toad: Thank goodness management does not collude industrywide to artificially depress the market price of labor below the price that would result in a truly free market.
What you say contradicts theory and history.
First, they could not possibly artificially depress the market price of labor. Anyone breaking such deal or a new start-up would hire the best workers by offering a bit more. Labor is just a factor of production and every factor of production receives the value of it's marginal contribution to the final product. If one factor is underpriced, entrepreneurs would exploit that by opening new businessas - and driving the prices up.
How come they cannot "artificially depress" the price of other factors like capital, raw materials, time but only labor?
Second, such attempts of collusion can only be made (not successfully) with government involvement. Anyone familiar with recent history knows it has been done.
In the 40s there were mandatory wage controls intended to keep the salaries down in a misguided attampt to keep costs down. The companies inwented a whole bunch of tricks to compensate workers above the mandated wage limits in competition for labor - that's how company-paid health-care and insurance benefits originated.
Second, the policy of steady inflation conducted by the government since Keynes is explicitely intended to lower the real wage rates and thus keep unemployment down and allow real wage rates in different industries to adjust to accomodate market demand.
The reason given why inflation is needed to bring the wage structure in correspondence with realities of demand rather than let wages fluctuate is exactly that wages are less downward-adjustable due to union practices.
The state supports unions with one hand, enabling their monololy to existm and undermines them with another hand by lowering their real wages through inflation.
miko
-
mrblack: More importantly we need to keep American companys in AMERICA:D
Some things americans do well, others poorly - less efficiently, more costly or of worse quality. If american consumers do not want to buy products of inefficient american producers of certain goods and want to buy them cheaper overseas, why prevent them?
The inefficient businesses would fail and their labor/capital will be free to produce what we do best - which will be exported to pay for what we buy outside.
Division of labor is what makes all prosper. Oranges are better grown in Florida and airplanes built in Washington. Even if Florida can make as good airplanes, Washington cannot grow as good oranges, so the florida labor is better used to grow oranges and excgange for airplanes. This way we get more oranges and more airplanes than if we tried to be self-suficient.
Same is true on every level - from individual to family to countries.
Free trade is always balanced - you cannot possibly buy stuff from foreign country without selling them equal value of stuff you produce. You cannot lose jobs to foreign trade.
If we get cheap steel from Pakistan (we suck at making steel), we can produce cheaper cars, which will be in more demand and we would have to expand production of them. Then we can sell cars to pakistan and other countries who cannot make them as well - they will be cheaper and more competitive.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Toad: Thank goodness management does not collude industrywide to artificially depress the market price of labor below the price that would result in a truly free market.
What you say contradicts theory and history.
miko
I think you need to review the history how and why unions were organized in the US. Also, how the owners of the industries acted against them.
The history is what contradicts your theory.
-
I haven't belong to a Union since.... 95, as always thought the subs were a waste of money. Especially when I was learning to fly at the time. :-)
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
-
Unions are communist organization with the sole purpose of underminding the free world, capitalism and the freedom of peace loving people.
Well except for the Teamsters... they're just mobsters who love America, in their own special way.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Toad: Thank goodness management does not collude industrywide to artificially depress the market price of labor below the price that would result in a truly free market.
What you say contradicts theory and history.
First, they could not possibly artificially depress the market price of labor. Anyone breaking such deal or a new start-up would hire the best workers by offering a bit more. Labor is just a factor of production and every factor of production receives the value of it's marginal contribution to the final product.
miko
Baseball Players sued MLB because the owners were trying to keep labor costs down. They were found guilty of collusion. Collusion happens all the time, but some have a union to help them fight it.(money makes the world go around)
-
against.
-
one of the reasons people think these abuses by employers don't happen is that when it's a union shop most cases are handled by the steward telling the company that whatever they are doing isn't acceptable. if the company refuses (very small % of the time) then you go through a grievance process which usually settles the issue. it's extreamly rare that a problem gets bad enough to require courts or publicity.
and then of course there is the non-union shops where you never hear of the abuses because the employees either don't even know that the abuses are ilegal, or have novoice to complain.
I know some of you have said that we don't need unions anymore to look out for our rights in the workplace. afterall we have OSHA, and the NLRB to handle that. how many of you really have confidence in a gov't agency to completely look after your legal rights for you? do you really think they are enough protection? if so, do you also count on Social Security to completely plan for your retirement income?
-
Toad: I think you need to review the history how and why unions were organized in the US. Also, how the owners of the industries acted against them.
The history is what contradicts your theory.
Not really. The state intervention makes monopoly possibe and both industry and labor took advantage of that. The important thing is that abuse from both sides do not compensate each other but hurt non-union workers and consumers.
Sixpence: Baseball Players sued MLB because the owners were trying to keep labor costs down. They were found guilty of collusion. Collusion happens all the time, but some have a union to help them fight it.(money makes the world go around)
First, the storts francises are exampt from anti-trust legislation and follow different regulations. Second, people always try to collude and form a monopoly. Except in a free market it could not work, even if we did not have anti-trust legislation. The monopolosts must alwasy by support of the state to keep cometition away. Steel unions and indistry bought the state support to keep cheep imports away. Lumber bought support to keep imports away and limit logging.
Consumers and workers who lost jobs due to expensiove steel/lumber are the ones who suffer.
Union certainly have positive role - in education, training, representation, etc. Not in fixing wages though.
miko
-
"First, the storts francises are exampt from anti-trust legislation and follow different regulations."
But collusion is not one of those regulations.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
The state intervention makes monopoly possibe and both industry and labor took advantage of that.
Horsepuckey. Management had the monopoly long before the state intervened and/or supported it. Like I said, time to put down the theory books and read the history books. That the state supported management only underlines the extent of the monopoly.
Second, people always try to collude and form a monopoly. Except in a free market it could not work, even if we did not have anti-trust legislation.
More horsepuckey.
1. There is not, has not and will not be a "free market" that matches the one described in your theory books. The pols would never let it happen.
2. Without anti-trust, you'd be right back to the sweatshops days.
miko
But, enjoy the dream. I'm out.
-
Toad: There is not, has not and will not be a "free market" that matches the one described in your theory books. The pols would never let it happen.
That's what I've been saying all along. The government intervention is the cause of the problems.
There is not, has not and will not be a "free market" that matches the one described in your theory books. The pols would never let it happen.
I've read it. All those monopolies were the result of state interventions. Every single one. Railroads, indistry protection, tariffs, fractional reserve currency - started in 1788 and went downhill from there.
But, enjoy the dream
??? I've been saying we have no free market. You seem to agree. How come I am the only one dreaming?
miko
-
Big oil companies are not a monopoly, but they can collude to control prices.
-
Union certainly have positive role - in education, training, representation, etc. Not in fixing wages though.
unions don't 'fix wages' they negotiate with managment to get as close as possable to a fair wage.
-
Well, I have been reading this thread for awhile and I just can't stay quiet any longer. Capt. Apathy and others have tried to explain certain aspects and have done quite well, probably better than I am about to.
First of all I am a Union member-very involved in my Union-that is the key-involvement. ANY Union is just that-the members' Union, even the people at the very top of ANY Union have to answer to their members, executive boards, and yes the government. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) governs both management and labor and is administered by the Dept. of Labor.
ANY member in good standing has the right to vote for leadership, ask questions, demand answers, look at "the books" to see "where the money goes". For that matter bills and expenditures are normally read aloud at Union meetings and approved paid by the members in attendance. Members have complete say in the direction for the Union, and when it comes contract time the members vote on acceptance of their collective bargaining agreement.
I will be the first to admit that not all is perfect. In the beginning the basic premise of a Union was-you pay us a decent wage, treat us fairly, give us a voice in the workplace and we will give you a hard days work, work of quality that you can market. Now ofcourse over the years that has changed-the Union has made it better for it's members by bargaining benifits-you know-the little things, like health care, retirement benifits. And yes through our collective effort we have pushed an agenda that protects ALL workers and laws are in place now like OSHA, FMLA, and the NLRA-that protects ALL workers not just Union shops.
In a Union environment you have rights and are able to excersize them, in a NON-Union environment, you are an "at will" employee, you are only employed at the will of the employer. If your employer hedges and cuts costs by sacrificing safety-OSHA comes in and conducts an inspection-fines your employer for violations (over something you have complained to your boss about). Probability is high that you will lose your job-you COMPLAINER! OR-if times get tough-the boss won't take a cut in salary-but you will-if not be phased out completely.
Yes there are worthless, lazy, diruptive, you name it employees (or members) in any Union. You know what-the UNION DOES NOT HIRE OR FIRE. That worthless, lazy SOB was hired by the employer, went through his probation period-still retained employment-became a Union member-and now yes we have the legal duty to represent this person just as we would ANY Union member.
Bottom line is; Are Unions needed?-absofrigginloutly. Those of you that have posted here against Unions are either 1) management, 2) were not involved in YOUR Union and therefore did not provide direction-never attended a meeting, never asked questions, 3) had bad leadership that you should have replaced, OR 4) you screwed up in such a way that it was beyond the Unions capability to help you, and you probably worked a year longer than you would have at a non-Union employer.
I have worked in both Union and Non-Union environments. Am I suggesting that all workplaces be Unionized-absolutly not. If an employer treats you fairly, listens to your concerns, pays you decently, provides for your safety, health, and retirement. Well this is a place that a Union would likely never be voted in.
Well that's my nickel-I could go on all day but I'm sure through the replies, I will get a chance to continue.
-
Originally posted by Mike_2851
Bottom line is; Are Unions needed?-absofrigginloutly. Those of you that have posted here against Unions are either 1) management, 2) were not involved in YOUR Union and therefore did not provide direction-never attended a meeting, never asked questions, 3) had bad leadership that you should have replaced, OR 4) you screwed up in such a way that it was beyond the Unions capability to help you, and you probably worked a year longer than you would have at a non-Union employer.
Mike,
I disagree, my time working a union was an example of union corruption at it's best. I was not in management at that time; I did attend meetings and did speak up; leadeship was not the issue, it was getting to them after the problem; I never screwed up, I eventually left the job, and the union after my example of how they allowed a problem to go untouched, and their BS strongarm ****.
As for other union baloney, it goes on all the time. People getting fired for using commosense like picking up a wrench off the floor and returning it to a tool crib, all because they did not get the steward so he could get the guy who left it there to put it away!!! That is assinine, and there is tons more. Unfortunately corporate leadership leaves so much to be desired, it is a toss up as to who is worse nowadays, but in my book, the union is the worst. They will forever be blamed for NAFTA's creation.
-
We will allways need some form of collective barganing. There is nothing inconsistent about that with having a free market. Both managment and labor form their own unions and/or collective barganing units.
Ones that work or are needed last... those that don't and aren't....don't.
lazs
-
As for other union baloney, it goes on all the time. People getting fired for using commosense like picking up a wrench off the floor and returning it to a tool crib, all because they did not get the steward so he could get the guy who left it there to put it away!!! That is assinine, and there is tons more. Unfortunately corporate leadership leaves so much to be desired, it is a toss up as to who is worse nowadays, but in my book, the union is the worst. They will forever be blamed for NAFTA's creation.
that really sounds more like a company regulation. property control, (acountability for tools you check out, so as to reduce loss and theft), with no benifit I can see for the union.
the steward is not there to bully the employer, he represents the employees when they have a problem. he also is responsable to make sure the employees live up to their end of the contract. the steward was probably required to oversee returning a tool that wasn't checked out by that employee, so that the tool was accounted for, that the guy who did check it out wouldn't be required to replace it, and the guy who picked it up wouldn't be accused of stealing it if someone saw him pick it up.
part of a stewards job is to be an 'official witness' in situations that are often messy or troublesome (firings, discpilinary meetings, accidents).
and finally, the union cannot fire anyone (except the people who work in the union office), and I've seen dumber firings in non-union shops.