Unions

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

If unions were all that was holding employers back, why don't we see their membership growing to combat the evil employers? And why do we not see press coverage of the private sector and the non-union public sector employer injustices?

1. Not all corporations are evil. There are plenty with bosses that do actually care a lot about the welfare of their workers.

2. There is a HUGE risk involved in unionizing. Many/most states are at will employment states, meaning that they can fire you without cause. If you don't have overwhelming support and can't spring it on the company by surprise, you stand a very good chance of simply being fired. Its exactly like a revolt against a government.. you need a critical mass of people willing to risk everything.

3. Some people have spent a lot of money for decades painting unions in the worst possible light. Kinda like the anti socialist rhetoric.

But in the modern era I'm not seeing the necessity.

The threat of unionization undoubtedly keeps some of excesses in check, and even if you don't need a union because you have a great boss/owner/whatever, you still have no power. You depend on your bosses good will, and if he changes his mind, or gets replaced, it can all go to shit.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

If that were the case why are there many workers without unions getting along just fine?

The reason you in your non-union job aren't expected to work a 10 - 12 hour shift, 6 days a week, for far less than whatever you're making right now is because of unions and the standard they set for workforces in the developed world. It's unions and government regulation that gives you your vacations and your weekends and your 9 - 5. If capitalism had its way, it would work you to death for a pittance and then simply replace you when you died at 40, just like it did in the good ol' days.

Anyway, none of this shit is actually about unions or money or what's fair for workers. It's about the Republicans trying to gut one of the main sources of money and organization behind the Democratic party. The bullshit in Wisconsin and other places, where they're trying to castrate unions, is because Democrats traditionally receive a lot of money and votes from unions. No unions means an easier time winning elections for Republicans.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Red Beard]

Not a union as we know them today of course, but the Bolsheviks were the vast majority workers and peasants, not merchants, soldiers, or aristocracy.

Still wanted a central bank though...hmmm!

[Figment]

Without unions, a lot of protective legislation would not exist. So yes, as long as the legislation is there, there's less need for an active union. You therefore see a decline in the union members in the Netherlands as well. In some countries it is almost tradition to be a union member when employed.

That doesn't mean that unions are obsolete.



Regarding your statements about how the USSR formed... I think you're better of checking out this and reading it fully:
http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/...stimeline1.htm

It was a time of great turbulence in Russia and a lot of alternate paths could have been walked. Also, you should check out this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidar...sh_trade_union)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolut...s_impact_grows

Solidarity, a Polish trade union that's at the base of the fall of communism in the Warschau Pact nations. Malorn: Socialism =/= Communism.

The type of socialists labour parties fall under are Social Democrats.

Traditional social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of moving toward a socialist economy and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits. It is best demonstrated by the economic format which has been used in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland in the past few decades.[60] This approach been called the Nordic model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

There's lightyears of difference with Social Democrats and the socialism as perceived by for instance South Americans. Social Democrats have embraced capitalism, but seek to improve (worker/civilian) conditions and restrict excesses.


You should really do a bit more research Malorn, because you tar everyone with the same brush. It's like those people who claim that mass murderers are always atheists. Even though it's quite easy to name genocides performed by religious people. Always pointing at everything "more left than themselves" as leading to Communism without understanding anything regarding socialism is a typical American right wing trait.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in liberty and equality.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.

I'm a liberal. You are a libertarian, correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Some liberterians are anarchists. Are you an anarchist just because some libertarians are?

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

A lot of things.

[Vash02]

Unions arent stupid, they want to keep the business afloat just as much as the owners do. The majority of unions have accepted this and have taken pay cuts and layoffs the past few years. But when it comes, for example, to closing down a call center/factory and moving all the jobs to India/China when the business is healthy...

Also, businesses dont dont have much incentive to pay women equal wages to men when the average pay for women is 20+% below men's. Women cant really quit their job and move to another business and just get the same, unequal, pay.

[Sgt Shultz]

Originally Posted by Vash02

Unions arent stupid, they want to keep the business afloat just as much as the owners do. The majority of unions have accepted this and have taken pay cuts and layoffs the past few years. But when it comes, for example, to closing down a call center/factory and moving all the jobs to India/China when the business is healthy...

Also, businesses dont dont have much incentive to pay women equal wages to men when the average pay for women is 20+% below men's. Women cant really quit their job and move to another business and just get the same, unequal, pay.

Gonna have to disagree with you on this issue. I worked in a Allison Turbine Engine facility that was then sold to Rolls Royce. The word was spread that the Brits were not going to tolerate the 36% productivity ratio that the plant had been pushing for years. The GM of the site spent a good six months sending out emails, printing posters, discussing the issue in all hands meetings and we never saw the ratio creep over 40%. One year later they stripped out the manufacturing cells, turned the plant into an assembly/packing plant and reduced the hour workforce by 1500 which was about 2/3's.

After working with the UAW for several years, I am convinced that the long term viability of a company doesn't even work its way into their thinking. These clowns will run a company right into the ground even at the cost of their own jobs.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

Gonna have to disagree with you on this issue. I worked in a Allison Turbine Engine facility that was then sold to Rolls Royce. The word was spread that the Brits were not going to tolerate the 36% productivity ratio that the plant had been pushing for years. The GM of the site spent a good six months sending out emails, printing posters, discussing the issue in all hands meetings and we never saw the ratio creep over 40%. One year later they stripped out the manufacturing cells, turned the plant into an assembly/packing plant and reduced the hour workforce by 1500 which was about 2/3's.

After working with the UAW for several years, I am convinced that the long term viability of a company doesn't even work its way into their thinking. These clowns will run a company right into the ground even at the cost of their own jobs.

I dont think you're being very clear here.

Can't really comment on the issue without knowing the discussions between the owners and the union.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Unions are all knowing super geniuses. There will always be some morons finding their way to the top.

[Sgt Shultz]

Originally Posted by Vash02

I dont think you're being very clear here.

Can't really comment on the issue without knowing the discussions between the owners and the union.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Unions are all knowing super geniuses. There will always be some morons finding their way to the top.

I will try to detail a bit more my point. From my interaction with the UAW, they didnt approach the relationship as getting an honest days pay for an honest days work. It was more like equal parts entitlement and a scam.

Several times I went down to the manufacturing floor with concepts that would the reduce the cost of an engine component by reducing machining hours, only to get no participation from the operators. They didn't get the concept of if we make our products less expensive via improvements, that we could sell more engines. All they saw was "Less hours to machine part A = less hours for me = less money in their paycheck". Basic business acumen is completely gone from their thinking.

Also they had a great scam going on that was friggen brilliant. Almost anytime we would be preparing a shipment of turbines for a customer, one of the skilled trades would need to perform maintenance on one of the milling machines. Usually on a Wednesday or Thursday an electrician would slap a lock-out-tag-out log on the powerbox and then would call in sick for the next 2-3 days. Meanwhile the operator can't perform the next milling operation on the part because only the person with the key to the lock-out-tag-out lock can remove it. Now we have missed 2-3 days worth of milling time. The electrician becomes unsick on Saturday so we bring him in to remove the LOTO, and the operator being the great guy that he is offers to work Saturday and Sunday. So we now end up paying 1.5 per hourly wage for the work on Saturday and 2.5 per hourly wage for Sunday.

I havent worked with other unions before but from what I have seen they have more in common with organized crime the organized labor.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

I havent worked with other unions before but from what I have seen they have more in common with organized crime the organized labor.

Well...you've seen Sopranos right?

I'm only slightly kidding.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

I will try to detail a bit more my point. From my interaction with the UAW, they didnt approach the relationship as getting an honest days pay for an honest days work. It was more like equal parts entitlement and a scam.

Several times I went down to the manufacturing floor with concepts that would the reduce the cost of an engine component by reducing machining hours, only to get no participation from the operators. They didn't get the concept of if we make our products less expensive via improvements, that we could sell more engines. All they saw was "Less hours to machine part A = less hours for me = less money in their paycheck". Basic business acumen is completely gone from their thinking.

Well, what did you do to convince them that the demand was there for more engines? And then what would happen when demand fell?

[Natir]

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

I will try to detail a bit more my point. From my interaction with the UAW, they didnt approach the relationship as getting an honest days pay for an honest days work. It was more like equal parts entitlement and a scam.

Several times I went down to the manufacturing floor with concepts that would the reduce the cost of an engine component by reducing machining hours, only to get no participation from the operators. They didn't get the concept of if we make our products less expensive via improvements, that we could sell more engines. All they saw was "Less hours to machine part A = less hours for me = less money in their paycheck". Basic business acumen is completely gone from their thinking.

What you just referenced has nothing to do with unions and everything to do with management. You cannot force your managers to do something they do not want to do, even if it is the best thing in the world. If they do not wish to listen, you just have to bite the bullet on that. Unless you are the one calling the shots, its tough luck but that is in no way a union issue.

I am going to comment on a few items I saw here. One thing about the women's pay issue, it is mostly their fault. When a woman does not get paid as much in today's market, it is because they are not being aggressive enough. Women who are more aggressive at the bargaining table get paid more, pretty simple. That also does not have anything to do with a union. Most of the time for different jobs, unions don't set pay like that. Like in higher education, the initial pay is set by the school, not the union. (Not like janitors or whatnot, but directors, support staff, etc). There is typically a pay grade and it has a range and the place hiring will always start at the bottom. The problem comes from confidence. Someone who is confident in their abilities will be more aggressive and want the higher pay.

Not all unions are bad. The union my dad belonged to was pretty good. They did the things unions were meant to do. He was a pipe-fitter and as such, pretty much every job was contracted out. When the one job was finished, there would be another waiting, something the union took care of. This wasn't no job placement place either, you had the apprenticeship, journeyman and so on that you had to go through. Pay was decent and benefits were pretty good.

When it comes to what workers are supposed to do, it's best to know what the union people can and cannot do. Like the union people being the ones picking up a can of soda off the ground, that is a line of BS, sorry. Most contracts are not that petty. A can of soda on the ground would not be in a contract as you wouldn't just leave that on the ground and wait for the custodian to pick it up... Now, something like vomit would be in their contract and your work would get pretty mad at you if you tried to clean it up. It is considered a bio-hazard and all...

Again, it all comes down to the industry you are working in. Also, don't talk about teachers, they get paid shit. The individuals who are working in the K-12 sector that get paid very well have gotten a master's/phd and have been working for a long time doing that type of work. They earned their wages. Starting out, you don't get paid that well. Also, are they working for a public or private school (for profit) or an alternative school?

I like this quote about why some, if not most, are bad.

The third and possibly the most important reason for the decline in unions is that they are victims of their own success. Unions raised their wages substantially above the wages paid to nonunion workers. Therefore, many union-made products have become so expensive that sales were lost to less expensive foreign competitors and nonunion producers. This resulted in companies having to cut back on production, which caused some workers to lose their jobs, and hence, unions some of their members. Also, the recent shift in this country towards technology and service has made our economy less reliant in the types of industrial jobs that tended to be union strongholds.

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Eco_Unionization.htm

[Malorn]

Meh.