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.
Please explain how the unions helped the Hostess (oops, I mean EX Hostess) employees. I'm assuming greasing a path towards unemployment does not count as help.
They didn't, but you're mistaken with your comment about "greasing" the path to unemployment.
If you will research the Hostess situation, you will see that the union had made concessions to management, even cutting pay. At the same time the wages of management had dramatically increased over the same period. One would think that if a company was indeed struggling to compete that opportunities to reduce overhead would occur across the board, or at least an increase in pay for the top earners in the company would not neutralize the diminishing labor costs. I don't see how anyone can blame the union there, when from all appearances the union was the only entity actually attempting to save the company. When the venture capitalists arrived the writing was on the wall.
I'm not pro union, or anti union. I recognize that though they have a lot of flaws (A LOT of flaws) the ability of workers to organize to collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions has a place in our society. The argument that labor costs are causing outsourcing is an acceptable one provided that it doesn't coincide with massive profits and a dramatic increase of wages for management, both of which we have seen over the last 30 years.
As with our government there needs to exist a check and balance to the profit centric corporate model. Right now unions provide at least some check to that.
They didn't, but you're mistaken with your comment about "greasing" the path to unemployment.
If you will research the Hostess situation, you will see that the union had made concessions to management, even cutting pay. At the same time the wages of management had dramatically increased over the same period. One would think that if a company was indeed struggling to compete that opportunities to reduce overhead would occur across the board, or at least an increase in pay for the top earners in the company would not neutralize the diminishing labor costs. I don't see how anyone can blame the union there, when from all appearances the union was the only entity actually attempting to save the company. When the venture capitalists arrived the writing was on the wall.
I'm not pro union, or anti union. I recognize that though they have a lot of flaws (A LOT of flaws) the ability of workers to organize to collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions has a place in our society. The argument that labor costs are causing outsourcing is an acceptable one provided that it doesn't coincide with massive profits and a dramatic increase of wages for management, both of which we have seen over the last 30 years.
As with our government there needs to exist a check and balance to the profit centric corporate model. Right now unions provide at least some check to that.
Thanks, I had not heard that claim. No getting around it, that's disappointing and evidently true. However, increasing the pay of 10 execs, even exorbitantly simply does not begin to have the impact of wages for 18,000 (presumably some union, some not?) employees. So I seriously doubt the management increases made the difference - though I repeat, it was totally inappropriate under any circumstances, especially with Hostess having faced bankruptcy several times already.
And it appears the ridiculous pay increase was well before Hostess fell back into restructuring which became bankruptcy the last time. And most of the execs voluntarily cut their pay, reportedly 4 of them down to $1, when it became evident the 'whole ship might go down.'
I'm not defending the unconscionable increasing by any means, and the self-serving CEO who authorized those management increases was gone when the end was closer. By the time the new CEO arrived, and management made sacrifices themselves, evidently it was too late. It is never a good thing when a company actually goes bankrupt, no matter why it happens...
It's about bargaining power. The employer obviously has much more bargaining power than an individual worker. If, however, the workers unionize, then they have more bargaining power as the threat of a strike would put a crimp in the employer's business. That's how unions are able to negotiate higher wages than an individual can negotiate.
It's about bargaining power. The employer obviously has much more bargaining power than an individual worker. If, however, the workers unionize, then they have more bargaining power as the threat of a strike would put a crimp in the employer's business. That's how unions are able to negotiate higher wages than an individual can negotiate.
Hang on, I don't know how to use this information to support my existential and epistemological needs.
Obama just handed legal working rights to millions of low skilled immigrants during a time when we have a glut of low wage employees out of work.
You can unionize all you want....where are the jobs?
You're kidding yourself if you think unions are job creators.
You have it all wrong. Your information is right out of the union avoidance handbook.
We all know that unions are not job creators, in this economy neither are the CEO's and management who are well over paid and are opening the door to a new union movement.
The need to have the abilty to unionize is a good tool for the average employee.
It's about bargaining power. The employer obviously has much more bargaining power than an individual worker. If, however, the workers unionize, then they have more bargaining power as the threat of a strike would put a crimp in the employer's business. That's how unions are able to negotiate higher wages than an individual can negotiate.
From where did the premise come that an employee should have the right to bargain with an employer who took all the risk and sacrifice to build that business?
You have it all wrong. Your information is right out of the union avoidance handbook.
We all know that unions are not job creators, in this economy neither are the CEO's and management who are well over paid and are opening the door to a new union movement.
The need to have the abilty to unionize is a good tool for the average employee.
Yet again, what is the actual value of an average employee in today's flooded low skilled employee pool?
From where did the premise come that an employee should have the right to bargain with an employer who took all the risk and sacrifice to build that business?
Because I'm selling my labor.
That's what the money is for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
Yet again, what is the actual value of an average employee in today's flooded low skilled employee pool?
Depends on what you mean by value. The price is whatever he gets. The cost is whatever his expenses are. There's also the revenue his labor generates, if you can even calculate that out for individuals (Machinists? Easy. Secretary? Not so much).
From where did the premise come that an employee should have the right to bargain with an employer who took all the risk and sacrifice to build that business?
That is part of the free market as you and I both know and love.
The right to organize as a group to improve wages and benefits, simple idea which if a employer is that bad that he allows conditions that open up unionization to occur gets what he deserves
Yet again, what is the actual value of an average employee in today's flooded low skilled employee pool?
Depends on many factors. But this has become a perfect time for unions to look into organizing. Large profits, low wages and management looking to earn 200 times more then the front line employee.
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.
