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.
Interesting, we have heard rather frequently that an objection from management toward unions is the restricted ability to address under or non performers. The position of an employee towards resentment is a bit of a new angle. Does it have to do with under or non performers being paid the same as those who feel they try harder or produce more?
i am no longer sure our young people have what it takes to form unions and keep them strong.
i am genuinely concerned for our young people, unions are no stronger than its members.
strong unions could stop illegal immigration (labor busting in disguise) but not weak ones.
38% of young people live at home (kidults adult kids) with their perma parents.
we rely heavily on the mexican people to provide our police and soldiers.
i see a lot of strong old people still going but---
but as a generation trying to pass the baton to the next,
its not happening. we are still running around the track, at 60, how long can we run?
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 01-27-2008 at 09:57 PM..
Interesting, we have heard rather frequently that an objection from management toward unions is the restricted ability to address under or non performers. The position of an employee towards resentment is a bit of a new angle. Does it have to do with under or non performers being paid the same as those who feel they try harder or produce more?
Bingo! If you were working your *ss off for $15 an hour and your coworker was standing around talking or staying 30 minutes in the bathroom and getting paid the same amount wouldn't you be mad? It also turns good employees bad because they eventually start thinking "why should I try, nobody else is". Another situation is where pay incentives are given in groups according to performance. Say for example you have a group of 15 people, if 10 of them are working hard, but 5 are not, the 5 are going to bring the whole group down. But, the union protects those 5 people from getting fired. The majority ends up suffering.
I worked for a carpet manufacturer for a number of years and although membership to UNITE! was available, I never joined. My main problem was that the company could not discipline poor workers without the union always stepping in. People knew once they were past their 90 day probation that they could slack off and not work and nothing would happen to them. It just always seemed to me that the union protected the lazy people more than the people who actually worked, and it made things very tense at times.
And that NEVER happens in a non-union shop?????????? ...is that what you're saying??? I just posted that that isn't true....and it isn't ...I don't know, I thought I posted in English????
And that NEVER happens in a non-union shop?????????? ...is that what you're saying??? I just posted that that isn't true....and it isn't ...I don't know, I thought I posted in English????
Your situation was totally different. In your case you had a "teacher's pet", and that is more likely to happen in a non-unionized place. In the situation I experienced the supervisors are actually scared to reprimand an employee for the fear of losing their own job. And instead of a few bad eggs, it's dozens and sometimes hundreds of bad employees.
From reading the excellent posts I can see there isn't a good reason for me to get into any manner of shop-talk. However, sticking with the subject we are probably addressing the largest societal blackeye in US everyday life, the labor situation and employee-employer relationships at large.
In the right to work areas many times a prevailing authoritarian air is present. Most of the time the workers don't work by contract but at will. Personalities often become focal points and a worker has often been dismissed for personal reasons and not cause. The worker leaves with a blem on his work record and often gets a bad reference. The worker suffers, his dependents suffer and the worker may suffer residual damage for years to come because they were not liked for some particular reason. Legal recourse is often expensive and unsuccessful because the authorities have their rebuttals well rehearsed. This and cases of similar and various nature happen quite frequently. I think the legal profession is familiar with this.
I feel fortunate indeed to be well versed in the ways of the working world growing up. The breadwinner back then was a union man supreme. I am a professional who has not, will not, could not, ever work non-union. That is with the exception of some part-time jobs I held while attending college and then I mostly worked at and was paid by the college, so friction was minimal at that level. Human dignity is high on my list as is respect and I have both in full measure. And heck, I love my profession to boot!
I understand the warts placed by many squarely on union's back and I appreciate the fact that they are not for everyone and for that I am grateful. Many young have seniority gripes, some others have authority problems, and some don't even want to pay union dues! We could go on.
It is possible that as outsourcing and many other foibles now occuring gets severe unions will gain members again. Believe me, unions are not outdated or unnecessary IMHO. Unions never supported NAFTA and warned of the large sucking sound of good paying American jobs going elsewhere. Well, the noise and news are there for those that can hear and read!
Your situation was totally different. In your case you had a "teacher's pet", and that is more likely to happen in a non-unionized place. In the situation I experienced the supervisors are actually scared to reprimand an employee for the fear of losing their own job. And instead of a few bad eggs, it's dozens and sometimes hundreds of bad employees.
I gave ONE example....I could give alot more....and what's the difference between a protected bad employee and a protected bad employee ?
Well, if a company can't fire their bad employees they will eventually have to lay some off (which is usually low seniority), or go out of business. No company can afford to hire 3x more employees than necessary just in hopes of getting a few good ones.
I have never entirely agreed with the rap the union detractors place on unions in general, many raps in fact. For one, any place worth working at usually screens and trains production employees and has a probation period. Two, any place of employment where the term 'slacker' is prevelent is usually not the best place to work. There are many stats. that prove the comparitive productivity of American workers. The strength of our country was largely built on that productivity. Three, any place where other employees are more of a boss and threat than the employer ever was are also taboo IMO.
Labor facts indicate that some unsavory companies have used labor as a scapegoat for the demise of the company or for the company fleeing. In many instances administative employees were paid exorbitantly and ceo's and other executives milked the company for all they possibly could. Couple this with failure to re-invest in equiptment and more efficient methods and training and the stage is set to blame the union for the companies ills, when ignorant management is the culprit.
We must also keep in mind the economic vitality created in communities where union workers money circulates. The spin-off's are numerous. As far as union made products being more expensive, well they are especially if management is unskillful and allows waste and fails to modernize.
I've always believed that unions could be more constructive in facilitating employee participation in organization discussion and directions. My observations have been that many of the best productivity and innovation ideas come from those closest to the work, but our structures frequently preclude these from being both adequately surfaced and rewarded.
I guess I'm pretty middle of the road on the entire issue, I see a valid need for an organization that has an employee focus, but I don't think the historical structure and execution of unions always serve the best interest of the workers within the context of organizational objectives. To me, employee and employer doesn't have to be a tradeoff, but it seems that the union evolutions (and management certainly has plenty of blame in this too) have made the wall between employee and employer more solid.
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.
Unions or not--the choice is yours!
