Unions

[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.

[Figment]

Loudmouths often do well in unions. Brains are not always a job requirement. Think we mentioned before that there are union actions that overexert themselves and shoot themselves in the foot out of greed. Then again, company greed is why they exist.

Some companies do anything to save money. Look at the recent Apple ordeal with their Asian manufacturing plants and under what stress and health conditions those workers live. Imagine if that had been in the US, where the response to a high suicide rate among workers living in worker flats was to simply install a safety next, literally.



Nice, huh?

[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.

[Figment]

@Shultz: that's not an union thing, that's a working ethics and discipline thing that's more to do with culture and adequately responding management than worker interest groups.

In that particular case, I also don't get why you don't give more people the ability to access the LOTO. Seems like a management issue that those workers exploit to me anyway.

[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?

[Sgt Shultz]

Originally Posted by Figment

In that particular case, I also don't get why you don't give more people the ability to access the LOTO. Seems like a management issue that those workers exploit to me anyway.

We generally avoid making access to LOTO to anyone but the person to who that lock belongs. With the size of the machines we use it's too easy to lose sight of a person thus you could potential kill someone by removing their locks.

@Vash - it's not my job to make a business case to an hourly operator. He doesn't own the machine, nor the parts. Furthermore what about demand? You think his pissing around is going to help him if demand falls?

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

We generally avoid making access to LOTO to anyone but the person to who that lock belongs. With the size of the machines we use it's too easy to lose sight of a person thus you could potential kill someone by removing their locks.

@Vash - it's not my job to make a business case to an hourly operator. He doesn't own the machine, nor the parts. Furthermore what about demand? You think his pissing around is going to help him if demand falls?

You're putting all the risk on the workers while the business keeps all the advantages for itself.

Say for instance they make 3 engines a day (note: I dont know anything about making engines) and your idea increases that to 4 engines a day. if you can sell 4, thats fine and dandy. But if demand drops and you can only sell 3 a day and go "sorry lads, no ones buying you've got to go home", they are the ones out of pocket from the deal while the impact on the business is none.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

We generally avoid making access to LOTO to anyone but the person to who that lock belongs. With the size of the machines we use it's too easy to lose sight of a person thus you could potential kill someone by removing their locks.

If they called in sick they're not in the building. Just make a rule where he has to leave the key in the building if he is not present? Obligate a mobile phone and call him to check where he is before unlocking the LOTO?

Or is that too simple? I understand the safety regulations (thank you unions), but safety regulation abuse due to inefficient application of those rules is something else entirely: that's a management inefficiency.

[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

[Noivad]

Originally Posted by Figment

Perhaps it was called an union, but the way you described it is not quite a "normal" union. Unions are political organizations to back up workers, not organizations that train workers as apprentices. But you could be right.

Possibly that union was set up with the old guild system in mind though, especially if it was intended for carpenting, plumbing and smith works which were traditionally strong guilds. Guilds are interest groups of specific craftsmen and the attitude towards people from outside of the guild is also quite typical: only those within the local guild are accepted, others of the same trade but outside the union were typically shunned as 'illegal' rivals. In contrast to earlier forms of unions, it was obligated to join a guild in order to even practice a particular craft. The guilds were, beyond a form of union, a means to completely regulate the market.

Not sure if you're aware of the history of guilds, but in Europe these ran and dominated cities together. A lot of guilds had their own militias even up to the end of the 18th century.

Basically (and given Malorn's concerns with paranoia regarding market regulation, quite ironically), they were capitalist cartels motivated solely by self-interest. Governments in those days were very decentralised (cities ran the local area) and the ruling classes in the city and townships, meant basically the leaders of the wealthiest guilds. They dominated everything out of self-interest up to the point that new inventions were outlawed because not the entire guild could profit from it - if innovation was done outside of the guild a lot of pressure was enacted to get them into the guild or simply stop. Furthermore, people within a guild had to think alike.

Guilds existing well into the 19th century in Eastern Europe has been seen as one of the reasons that these areas were not industrialised as much as the west and therefore economically fell behind.


So one could argue that the smaller the central government and the more power to the local government and private owners, free trade is actually at risk. At least locally. Especially the western dutch shipping guilds profited immensily from the dutch international free trade doctrine, where a lot of other guilds were far more mercantile (examples of mercantile factions within Europe were The Hansa and Ligurian and Venetian trade leagues) and had trouble competing elsewhere.

Now that we got to the topic of free trade. Some funny things about free trade:





It gets funnier here:

I am not familiar with the Euro Guild System, only the the USA one. So perhaps there are some differences. I can tell you only of my experience with the labor union, and my friends experience with Police, Fire, and Teacher Unions. They are all currupt. They are all political, and they all do more harm them good.

The link below is the history of Unions, and yes it does mention Euros Uniondom. In fact it shows Unions in several countries.

The bigest Union is called Communisim - You know when Government gets into controlling the business of a country completely.

And workers, have, you know, all equal rights. They get to do whatever jobs that are selected for them. They all get the same pay - Equal pay for equal work. They are all commrades.

All Unions start with Labor. The act of work. The Laborer. He who does work.

Because the worker must have rights. An we the Union will give it to them. Of course some where along the way those in control get more rights, and the laborers get less. They start off making more money and in time make less. who knew?

Some where along the way Unions, turn form organizations that want to help the worker to organizations that dictate to the worker.

And before you talk about the power of the Strike - against companies - know this. You the worker do not even have the right to strike. If the Union says no you don't.

Unions control workers, no matter what job they do. In return they promise, but mostly do not deliver, better rights for the worker, higher pay, and protection from companies who would abuse them. Better skilled , better trained workers. lol. And then, there are the unskilled unions starting in 1936.

The first real " MAY DAY" that happened in the United States was about the Unions back then too.

History always repeats itself.

These links will show the link to Labor Organization, or Unions. When you get to the basis all of these terms are interchangable.

They are all forms of control on production. They all start with labor. They all do what they do in the name of the poor worker. And Ultimately they all fail. If any worked at all, and they were so great, don't you think we would all be in them by now.

Thes links should help clarify my statements.

MAY Day History - http://www.marxists.org/subject/mayday/index.htm


Unions

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/friedman.unions.us

About Trade Unions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union

About Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

About Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[Noivad]

Originally Posted by Natir

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.

I have to agree that it is womens fault that they get poor wages. A lot of women do make good wages, not taking away from that. They are usually more agressive and asertive types who get the money. I wish more women were like that cause they tend to buy smarter, but not always. Then prices for womens things that they buy would be cheaper. But women allow themselves to be controled by prices. If its cheap it can't be good enough. The more expensive it is the better it is. They call this idea fashion. They charge 300 dollars for jeans that have 10 dollars worth of material and a fashion name on them. How can a $1500 dollar pocketbook be better then a 10 dollar one. They hold the same amount of stuff, usually more in the cheaper one. So why do women in general get poor wages. Its because smart men who are in business know that women can't help themselves, generally speaking, and don't want their wives or girl friends wasting their money on crap. Pay them less - they spend less. I wonder if we pay them more will will prices between men and women equalize. Maybe there should be a seperate, womans only union for that. But then I remeber the Union Slogans - you know the ones - Union Strong, Union Made Union Quality. If the Union does the job its done better, its done with efficiency, It skilled labor. Maybe Union pocketbooks are Union Made that sell for $1500 dollars. Thats got to be it. Maybe the Unions have women just where they want them. Working for less money and spending more money on union stuff. Keep them poor. keep then under control. those evil working women.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Noivad

So why do women in general get poor wages. Its because smart men who are in business know that women can't help themselves, generally speaking, and don't want their wives or girl friends wasting their money on crap. Pay them less - they spend less.

Wow. Just... Wow.

Women tend to make less largely because they tend to take less physically demanding and physically dangerous work, both aspects of a job that add somewhat to pay. When comparing womens salaries to mens in similar jobs/fields/experience levels, pay gaps have for the most part disappeared.

[Noivad]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Wow. Just... Wow.

Women tend to make less largely because they tend to take less physically demanding and physically dangerous work, both aspects of a job that add somewhat to pay. When comparing womens salaries to mens in similar jobs/fields/experience levels, pay gaps have for the most part disappeared.

lol - now that prespective is from the male gender point of view. I have know women who have taken physically demanding and physically dangerous work, do it better then some men, and still get paid less because they are women and have not aserted themselves. , ask any firewomen, police officer, militay female in a Battle Zone, or construction worker 100 stories up welding steel, and they will laugh at your comment. And there are some women who make more money then men in none physically demanding or dangerous work.

Some women stand up for themselves and don't let men tell them what they can or can't do and what they want for pay. Most don't.

Men still dictate what a womens worth is, and how much they can make. And a lot of wome accept it or they would not be paying twice as much for the same items that men at half their price. Savey Business women know this and price hike the women too. Its a sad cycle.