Unions - what purpose do they serve these days?

[stoshuaj]

ok, I'm admittedly ignorant to things union but

1st, the rant:

Car manufacturers are bleeding like stuck pig. Trying to purchase 3 Chevy TrailBlazers. They were suppossed to be in on March 15. Why aren't they here yet? Because the company that makes the axles is on strike.

2nd: ok, so common sense tells you, if somebody doesn't want to do the work for you, go find someone else who does. How hard can it be to find another company to make a frigging axle?

nope, can't do that, union. (did the car companies really sign a contract with the unions which states: "if we decide we don't want to do the work, you can't go find anyone else"?)

3rd: ok, so unions protected the workers back in the day. With all the worker protections in place, (that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the unions, I get that) what's the rational for continuing with what seems to be an outdated, cumbersome method of doing business?

[Thiebear]

Teachers Unions don't appear to be helping in my little bubble of life.

i.e. riffing a teacher that won 2 of 3 state titles because a guy that couldnt keep his class full had 1 more year on him. So the failure gets the award winners job, the award winner was given the now part time job to fix the failures mistakes.

awesome.

[Corcaigh]

They serve the interests of their average members, sometimes to the detriment of the higher performers (compensation is redistributed rather than increased). Here's a BLS report showing that unionized workers do better than non-unionized employees.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20050616ar01p1.htm

[stoshuaj]

but if it's a detriment to the higher performers, ultimately, isn't that a detriment to the consumer? (not sure if that matters to the unions but....)

so, if I'm a higher performer, I have to accept mediocrity around me in order to keep my job? This so that the average worker can make more but I have to take less than what may be my open market worth and ergo, remove all incentive to continue to be a high performer? I don't get it.......

[dockeryfan]

Without unions, employers would take advantage of the labor force. It's just a fact that there have to be checks and balances.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Unions don't prevent companies from firing people per se. The whole point to a union is to give the workers an opportunity to be heard at the negotiating table. That's it.

[Guest sith lord]

Unions don't prevent companies from firing people per se. The whole point to a union is to give the workers an opportunity to be heard at the negotiating table. That's it.

Bingo. As far as I'm concerned, "some" unions are there just to make sure the company doesn't get sued. After the ordeal I went though a year ago, I'm sure of this.

[Corcaigh]

but if it's a detriment to the higher performers, ultimately, isn't that a detriment to the consumer? (not sure if that matters to the unions but....)

so, if I'm a higher performer, I have to accept mediocrity around me in order to keep my job? This so that the average worker can make more but I have to take less than what may be my open market worth and ergo, remove all incentive to continue to be a high performer? I don't get it.......

The average worker does do better in terms of benefits as research shows.

You are assuming that there is always an opportunity to be a higher performer in your job. For example, I am a fan of teachers having some performance incentives, but such a system would be very difficult to construct given the very different levels of ability of the kids coming into the system.

[Duckus]

I had a job a little while back in which I worked pretty close with unions at times. If you look at the hour wages of guys highly trained in unions vs. guys not in unions their wages are extremely different. A place like NY or NJ, where unions are strong, a person like a brick layer makes a lot more money than you think and has a pretty nice pension plan. They get these because unions spend a lot of time with lawyers fighting for these things.

I am 50-50 on unions. I have seen an incredible amount of waste and corruption first hand, but I have also seen what a difference they can make in pushing companies by using power.

The same people who hate unions interestingly usually also hate minimum wage laws. They usually say things like it is up the employee to determine what they will work for and if someone will work for that little then that is the market at work. Well, when you do that you have employees create unions to fight for the wages they think they deserve. If you hate unions, then embrace raising minimum wages, that makes more and more unions obsolete.

[stoshuaj]

Unions don't prevent companies from firing people per se. The whole point to a union is to give the workers an opportunity to be heard at the negotiating table. That's it.

eh, guess I've just never had a problem being "heard at the negotiating table" as an employee.

and, it just strikes me as odd, considering all the whining and fussing about the economy, that a union can essentially hold a company hostage and the company is not even "allowed" to seek alternative labor to continue their pursuits.

and,,,,,,I just want my frigging trucks!!!

[Thiebear]

Without unions, employers would take advantage of the labor force. It's just a fact that there have to be checks and balances.

Yet somehow 90% of the workforce has no unions?

[Guest sith lord]

Yet somehow 90% of the workforce has no unions?

And I bet, most of that 90% is taken advantage of. I'm a union employee and our union is probably one of the weakest in the country, but I know that I benefit from having one.

[Corcaigh]

Yet somehow 90% of the workforce has no unions?

It's very debatable whether unions are good for business or the economy, but they greatly benefit the worker against exploitation, either financial or safety-wise.

[stoshuaj]

And I bet, most of that 90% is taken advantage of. I'm a union employee and our union is probably one of the weakest in the country, but I know that I benefit from having one.

would you mind making me an axle or 3?.................please

[Corcaigh]

would you mind making me an axle or 3?.................please

I'm not disagreeing for one minute that militant unions have caused great damage to the US and British auto industry. But bad management has to take part of the blame too.

[redskinss]

i worked for a company for eleven years that was spawned from a company about fifteen miles down the street.

both companys are identical in what they manufacture.

i started at 8 dollars an hour and after alot of very hard work i eventually got up to 20 dollars an hour and i was the most reliable operator and one of the best in the plant.

the company down the street started its employees at 17.50 an hour and after just two years you would max out at 24.50 and that doesnt include the incentives like an extra 10 dollars an hour to run two machines, or 5 dollars an hour extra to run a machine and the rewinder.

guess which of these two companys is union and which one is not.

some say unions cause greed but who's pocketing the extra money made when there is no union protecting its employees wages, thats right the corporate fat cats and that in my opinion is greedier than the employees wanting a bigger piece of the pie.

[redskinss]

eh, guess I've just never had a problem being "heard at the negotiating table" as an employee.

and, it just strikes me as odd, considering all the whining and fussing about the economy, that a union can essentially hold a company hostage and the company is not even "allowed" to seek alternative labor to continue their pursuits.

and,,,,,,I just want my frigging trucks!!!

they can seek alternative workforce there called scabs, now those people wont be treated very well by the picketers but they can do it.

[81artmonk]

mostly political. Especially the teachers union. They are largely political. Here in california, they have endorsedand funded advertising for bills and policy that have nothing to do with education.

My wife is a teacher and most of the publications she gets only point out that the teachers union is merely a player in the leftwing of the democrat party!

[stoshuaj]

they can seek alternative workforce there called scabs, now those people wont be treated very well by the picketers but they can do it.

ok, so again, I admittedly don't know squat about union/labor/management negotions/contracts.

Why can't the company just hire the "scabs" and make them the new workforce and just broom the union picketers?

At some point, who cares if the picketers treat you poorly, you have a job, and eventually the picketers have to eat. So they go down to McDs for a job, not the "scabs" problem. Now the picketers that were treating you poorly are serving you your Big Mac.

[Popeman38]

ok, so again, I admittedly don't know squat about union/labor/management negotions/contracts.

Why can't the company just hire the "scabs" and make them the new workforce and just broom the union picketers?

You can't sweep out the union workers. If you could fire them for striking, the union would have zero purpose.

At some point, who cares if the picketers treat you poorly, you have a job, and eventually the picketers have to eat. So they go down to McDs for a job, not the "scabs" problem. Now the picketers that were treating you poorly are serving you your Big Mac.

I am pretty sure that when you go on strike your contract prevents you from taking another job. Could be wrong, but I would think that would allow the employer you are striking to fire you.

[redskinss]

ok, so again, I admittedly don't know squat about union/labor/management negotions/contracts.

Why can't the company just hire the "scabs" and make them the new workforce and just broom the union picketers?

At some point, who cares if the picketers treat you poorly, you have a job, and eventually the picketers have to eat. So they go down to McDs for a job, not the "scabs" problem. Now the picketers that were treating you poorly are serving you your Big Mac.

they can but its not that easy to train a new workforce and be profitable.

every union is different also, for example my wife is in a nurses union and they cant strike which makes the union just shy of useless not to mention the fact that nurses dont need unions they are protected by the law of suply and demand most of the nurses around here that are non union make more than the union ones.

its not just about having a job, sometimes its about making what you believe is a fair share. what you said about "who cares if the picketers treat you poorly you have a job" is exactly what management wants you to think so they can pay you as little as possible.

If theres one universal truth its that companies will pay you exactly what they think they can keep you at and not a penny more.

every company is different and quite a few treat there employees fairly but there are plenty more that dont.

your mcd's example was absolutely perfect, they pocket billions of dollars every year while paying there employees minimum wage.

walmart is an even better example why should these companies be able to make billions while there employees are on public assistance just because the threat of being replaced by other employees exists.

[dfitzo53]

The average worker does do better in terms of benefits as research shows.

You are assuming that there is always an opportunity to be a higher performer in your job. For example, I am a fan of teachers having some performance incentives, but such a system would be very difficult to construct given the very different levels of ability of the kids coming into the system.

As a teacher, I can't imagine the nightmare that systematizing a fair incentive system would entail.

[artmonkforHOF]

They serve the interests of their average members, sometimes to the detriment of the higher performers (compensation is redistributed rather than increased). Here's a BLS report showing that unionized workers do better than non-unionized employees.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20050616ar01p1.htm

All that says is union workers save more money so when unemployment time comes they are not the first ones hitting the welfare line. If Union workers actually produced at a better rate than non union workers, It would be the non unionized steel mill in my town that is up for sale after bankrupcy and not the unionized steel mill that is in fact up for sale.

I no longer lump all unionized workers into the one stereotypical lazy class, as I know a lot of union workers who do a great job, but even they will say they don't like their union because of the bad name it gives them. Unions are still in place for one simple reason: they make a lot of money.

I cant stand hearing our auto workers union rep whine and cry to our govenrment all the time about how it is so uncompetitive to build cars in Canada and that some manufactures might be forced to leave our province if we dont hand out X millions of dollars to save their plant. I would tell that fool to go to the 2 non unionized auto makers in the province who are not only producing cars at a faster rate and with higher quality, but they can do it at a lower price and in turn increase their profits. And their workers have more take home pay and benifits than the unionized workers.

[redskinss]

All that says is union workers save more money so when unemployment time comes they are not the first ones hitting the welfare line. If Union workers actually produced at a better rate than non union workers, It would be the non unionized steel mill in my town that is up for sale after bankrupcy and not the unionized steel mill that is in fact up for sale.

I no longer lump all unionized workers into the one stereotypical lazy class, as I know a lot of union workers who do a great job, but even they will say they don't like their union because of the bad name it gives them. Unions are still in place for one simple reason: they make a lot of money.

I cant stand hearing our auto workers union rep whine and cry to our govenrment all the time about how it is so uncompetitive to build cars in Canada and that some manufactures might be forced to leave our province if we dont hand out X millions of dollars to save their plant. I would tell that fool to go to the 2 non unionized auto makers in the province who are not only producing cars at a faster rate and with higher quality, but they can do it at a lower price and in turn increase their profits. And their workers have more take home pay and benifits than the unionized workers.

sounds great but where i live the union workers make more no matter how dedicated the non union workers are, its just the way it is.

[stoshuaj]

You can't sweep out the union workers. If you could fire them for striking, the union would have zero purpose.

I am pretty sure that when you go on strike your contract prevents you from taking another job. Could be wrong, but I would think that would allow the employer you are striking to fire you.

to your point 1: yeah, guess I'm still trying to grasp the "purpose". Workers have more inherrent benefits now than ever before. (and yes, I understand that this is at least in part, b/c of unions) But once unions have served their "purpose" don't/can't they actually become a deterrent?

to your point 2: so if I'm a union worker and I'm flat-ass broke and my kids need new shoes, I'm not "allowed" to go make a buck? do wha??

"they can but its not that easy to train a new workforce and be profitable."

did I mention that all I want is a an axle. I don't need a space shuttle here. Just a cylindrical hunk of metal.

and right now, I see the union as keeping ME from being profitable. Well, maybe not so much more profitable but how about looking good while a make a profit? and I need all the help I can get when it comes to making myself presentable.