Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree. I also think we wouldn't need unions if all workers were actually good workers who showed up on time and did a decent days work for their pay.
Unions are needed to protect the worker who is always late for work and who is lazy and doesn't really care if he does a good job or not, all he cares about is when his shift ends. Unions promote mediocrity in workers.
One of our local electrical contracting companies is union, there is a big difference in how his employees behave on the job compared to workers who are not union. The union contractor has always gotten top dollar for electrical jobs, but when the economy slowed down his workers eventually were laid off because he couldn't get any jobs. Many of the non union workers still had jobs, and have those same jobs today. Many of those union workers have started up their own business with one and two man shops, but they don't charge what their union boss charged for a job. Unions where I live have priced themselves out of work. Companies are in business to make money, and if they don't they can't stay in business. For a big company which is easier, argue with a union or go off shore to hire workers?
I agree. in that same post I opined about my own beliefs, like working 8 hours for 8 hours pay. And taking pride in your work.
The thing about working union construction when I was in the trade was there were maybe a half dozen projects in different areas of the state that I would bump into pipefitters, ironworkers, millrights, etc., that I worked with years ago, or even decades ago, on other projects. In many cases company supervision (at least field supervision) had men who worked the trade themselves in their younger years.
Fortunately I worked around guys who could build power plants, pump stations, etc. like it was easy detail. And they didn't take kindly to having a bunch of slackers in their crew.
Money chases talent and that goes for both union and non union. Lets take a private sector carpenter for example. If you have a carpenter that masters his trade he will work more than the guy who does not have the talent. Not everyone can read complex blue prints or have what it takes to work at great heights. A person with extra qualifications will work more and also be called out to run the work as well.
I don't buy into the "Every non union worker has to his own weight" theory. Lets get real, how many times have we all seen the unqualified brother in law's and so and so's out there.
Your comment is idyllic; it is what unions "should be." However, one would have to be obtuse to not realize how abused the system is by the unions.
LOL. What's wrong with all these highly-paid, smartly-dressed, college-educated management reps that they are somehow being routinely bullied at the bargaining table by the union side? Are they stupid? Are they wimps? Unions are about assuring that there is a balance of power between labor and management. If management wants some work-related factor X to apply, they can't just impose it. They have to get a buy-in from the union. If the union wants some benefit schedule Y to apply, they can't just demand it. They have to get a buy-in from management. The vast majority of collective bargaining relationships are smooth and generally respectful and friendly. This is because it is in everyone's interest that they be that way. Each side knows that it cannot ask for the world and get it. So they sit down and talk and see what can be gotten. There is almost always some middle ground to be found. Doesn't always make the newspapers when it happens, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy
Their supposed cooperation in each other's interests results in the customer paying far more for the end result, all because union rules dictate that an employee can only put together 25 widgets a day or go on 4 field calls per week. Its counterproductive. Defending that is sad.
Customers should expect to pay more for everything that is not produced by slave labor. If you are paid one penny more than the bare subsistence wages that a slave would be paid, you are in fact a part of the problem you profess to be so concerned about. By the way, union rules do not regulate labor-management options -- the terms of negotiated contracts do.
What incentive would the union have to limit a worker to producing 25 widgets per day? This is the same as limiting his wages. In actuality, you will most often see these sorts of quota-limiting provisions in a contract where there has been a management history of speed-up-the-line type exploitation of workers, even when producing an average of 28 or 32 widgets per employee has led to losses of limbs and losses of life on the job. THAT's counter-productive. Defending THAT is what's sad.
I agree. I also think we wouldn't need unions if all workers were actually good workers who showed up on time and did a decent days work for their pay.
Sort of like illegal immigrants, you mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nite Ryder
Unions are needed to protect the worker who is always late for work and who is lazy and doesn't really care if he does a good job or not, all he cares about is when his shift ends. Unions promote mediocrity in workers.
Unions promote getting rid of guys like that. And who is it that hires them all to start out with? Is that the union, or does management do all the hiring? Why are they such jerks as to be hiring all these clods all the time? All clods do is gum up the works and make more work for the real workers on the job. You think a union representing the interests of its workers favors that?
No one should be forced, coerced or nudged to join a union.
Should people be allowed to enjoy some, most, or all of the benefits of being a union member without having to contribute toward any of the costs? You know, free-loaders. Do you like free-loaders?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
Public employees should not have unions unless taxpayers have a representative at the bargaining table.
Whom do you think they negotiate with now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
Public employee unions should not be permitted to make political contributions.
For the same reason that members of fundie churches shouldn't be allowed to make political contributions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
FDR called public sector unions “unthinkable” and “intolerable.”
Different context. See the Boston Police Strike of 1919 for some details regarding the context of FDR's time.
If you are a firearms enthusiast, how do you feel about your union givings so heavily to a group of people who want to take your guns away - the Democrats?
And they want to take away your Bibles, too! Do people actually believe this slop?
There has been a general decline in unionization in the United States. I think even union members don't know what it takes to get a union started including getting blackballed, harassed and even shot at. Public employees definitely don't need unions. They already get civil service protection, fantastic retirement benefits, medical benefits and more holidays.
You miss the point on that one: older members in public unions did get that treatment and still do in some cases, depending on the area they are in. Unless you have been in the situation, don't speak about it.
Public employees wouldn't have benefits or safety without the unions. I started teaching 40 years ago at about $8K and my husband started a while before that at $6K. When we retired, our salaries at retirement were about equal to the pensions of the teachers in NYC/LI. [Granted, we were from the opposite end of the state, but the difference shouldn't be so big some people make in pension what others do for full pay.] We essentially had no decent union when we started [late 60s/early 70s] and we broke with one state union and went to a different one when the first ignored us. Along the way in our careers, we walked many picket lines, struck twice and lost 2 days salary for each day out (Taylor law). We lost tenure when we struck (the entire district loses it for a year). I have also been hit with rocks on a picket line, seen a car smashed with a bat and my husband -- as a picket captain -- was threatened with arrest. [Yes, the strikes were illegal... but so was the District acting illegally in refusing to negotiate at all for long periods of time, leaving no recourse.] At the end, we still had fairly low salaries but did get our retirement (of course, we paid in as much as we could, so that impression it is "all from the taxpayer" is wrong -- anyway, we are taxpayers); our district also gave us health care until you hit Medicare -- and then you pay for both so you can keep the union as secondary (giving us that was a trade for the low salaries). You get no protection without the union... any principal or administrator could get a dislike toward you and shove you out the door for no reason w/out unions -- the same as private can. Also, not every retiree in a public job gets medical -- several friends taught in different systems so one could get the medical and the other a better wage!
Bottom line here: I chose my career. However, I chose it without the concept of unions as I was not brought up in a union household. If I had chosen another line of work, I would have not had the working conditions or benefits mine did provide. For all the people who hate people who were in public unions (or any unions for that matter), I venture a guess you chose a career without any unions. You could have chosen differently.
Ah, another lovely personal anecdote and testimonial, this one in cavalier disregard of at least the Fifth Commandment. Unions in fact do not have power sufficent to steamrollerthe interests of management....
LOL. In one contract negotiation that I am familiar with the union received virtually everything that it asked for, because the company could not afford to shut down its 24-7 operation.
Quote:
...and neither side has any incentive to undermine the companies that provide a livelihood to them all.
Another funny. The union strike against the Los Angeles Herald Examiner cost at least one life, 1300 jobs, and 350,000 subscribers. The paper was never able to make a comeback and closed 12 years later.
Quote:
Unions in fact have every incentive to cooperate in assuring that the best and most promising employees are promoted and that slugs and slackers are indeed fired.
Just the opposite is true. The slugs force the company to hire more workers, and the union receives more dues.
Quote:
Unions put the interests of workers on the same level as those of management, allowing the two sides to negotiate agreements that serve all of those interests, not just some of them.
In my experience with four union locals in four different industries, and also as a shop steward, three of the locals were corrupt, and negotiated contracts the helped the companies. In return, the union received additional funding of the retirement plan. Since employees weren't fully vested for ten years, and the management insured that there was a high turnover of employees, the union pocketed most of this money.
In an experiment, one union allowed me to negotiate with the chairman, president, and executive v.p. of a large corporation. Like Tom Cruise's character in "A Few Good Men," I was set up to lose - to be the fall guy for the union. However, I took the responsibility very seriously, and stayed up all night after each session writing language for the new contract.
When I attempted to get the language included, the union rep would speak up and say that we would discuss that at lunch (or dinner). The federal mediator always came to my rescue, though, and would ask me to complete my statement, which was then entered word for word. We still got steamrolled by the company, and I gave my 30 day notice three years later when my grandfathered protections expired. Six years later I formed my own company. And yes, I do appreciate it every month when that Teamster direct deposit hits my bank.
Unions promote getting rid of guys like that. And who is it that hires them all to start out with? Is that the union, or does management do all the hiring? Why are they such jerks as to be hiring all these clods all the time? All clods do is gum up the works and make more work for the real workers on the job. You think a union representing the interests of its workers favors that?
To answer your last sentence, yes, I do think unions look the other way, thereby allowing mediocrity in workers. I believe this because I've seen it happening. I've seen union workers tell a new guy to slow down because he was making the rest of them look bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Union vs Non-Union Reply to Thread
