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'm always curious on people's thoughts & viewpoints on this topic. &, I realize gov't or public sector unions differ from private sector unions. So, use all of them. lol
Which do you prefer? Benefits? Cost? Hurting business or workers, or taxpayers? If you are against, what would you do to change the 'system'? & why do you feel they are 'bad'? If you are for, what do you feel they add for workers, or are still needed in the 21st century? Also, cost of union dues vs benefit.
I'll type my response when I have a 'bit' more time. lol
Discuss.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 06-27-2011 at 06:02 AM..
Reason: No color fonts in Great Debates, please.
My answer to your question is fueled by the passion of experience. Unfortunately, because of my experience on both the labor side and the management side, it is not definitive.
I was a member of the union in Las Vegas, Nevada while working as a bartender at Caesars Palace many years ago. And while it was nice to receive a highly competitive wage for my work, it was also incredibly frustrating to know in no uncertain terms that merit on the job meant nothing in comparison to time on the job.
An invidual becomes an inception date, and when you bid for a position a person who was hired a day before you will always have preference over you. And what is much worse in my opinion, people with seniority take advantage of that fact and will often do the absolute minimum of work so as not to get fired - an incredibly difficult proposition as it is with the union. It reminded me of what communism might have been like - competition meaning nothing and everyone just doing the minimum to survive. Productivity suffers in the extreme.
Later, in San Francisco, as a manager, it was very difficult to inspire staff to learn new information and techniques to make the very room they work in more profitable for everyone. "That is not part of the bargaining agreement," I was constantly told when trying to get the staff to learn about wine so sales could increase. It was simple logic to me - build a check total with the addition of wine and the gratuity is automatically increased along with it. Also, learning service techniques to impress new guests and get them to return is the staple of independent restaurants. But again, "That is not part of my job according to the bargaining agreement," was constantly thrown in my face.
It boggled my mind that people refused to learn how to make their own job more lucrative and function as a more cohesive unit. It reminded me of Vegas when I was told that I was not allowed to change a light bulb because I would be taking work away from an engineer. The division of labor was ridiculous.
But then the flip side is when management takes advantage of labor. I have also had the displeasure of seeing management at a very reputable restaurant in Washington, DC tell its undocumented kitchen employees that they will not only work a sixth day on a holiday, but that they will not get paid for it to keep the books clean. They could either work for free or lose their job because there were many other unfortunate people in line behind them.
So I can understand why people would band together to guard against unfair labor practices.
In my opinion, there should be a governing body like the Labor Board that is more vigilent and holds more power to prevent abuse. However, abuse will always be pushed to its limits by both labor and management. It is human nature to want the most for the least effort. That is why I support the competitive nature of capitalism. There were plenty of hotels in San Francisco that were non-union and offered competitive wages. They were also able to demand high standards from their staff and enjoy the results.
I think it takes motivated individuals on both sides to achieve a happy medium from case to case. I worked for Ritz-Carlton, also a non-union company, that was often held captive by Human Resources because their management was too soft on its employees and overly concerned about lawsuits.
I realize this isn't much of a position. Sorry. My solution was to work for independent properties that had a good management structure. The down side is that there are few retirement benefits. It's a tough call.
In ost staes the only difference is that public unions cannot strike. Otherwise its just bargaining for wages.The probelm comes in when the people your bargining with also rely on your support to get elected. It often l;eads to giving benfits that catully in the long run hurt mnay of the union people because the budget cannot afford it in long run.We then see older union members often screw the younger union memebers because they have control.
IMO unions have outlived their usefulness and are pricing themselves right out of the market (steel industry for example). Union bosses/officers spend hard earned members dollars on trips/aka meetings where they play golf, drink and do little work on behalf of the members.
NJEA recently spent $6M on ad campaigns trying to avert the NJ legislature's votes. They also spent a lot of $$ so the governor wouldn't be elected.
Unions in their ideal are a good thing. The actual existing unions have become wasteful machines with too much overhead. The problem is, when you get rid of unions, it's inevitable that big business takes advantage of the common worker.
Later, in San Francisco, as a manager, it was very difficult to inspire staff to learn new information and techniques to make the very room they work in more profitable for everyone.
And you suppose this isn't a problem in non-union environments? If you think so, I've got news for you.
When my wife was in graduate school, I had to take a job working as an overnight manager for a major Big Box chain so I could care for our child during the day when she was in classes, "I found it exceedingly difficult to inspire staff to learn new information and techniques to make the very room they work in more profitable for everyone." As for firing people! This particular company allowed employees 3 no calls/no shows in a 90 day period. That is you don't call to say that you aren't even showing up for work! Personally, I had NEVER heard of such a thing in my entire work life. The amount of paper work that I had to compile to even begin thinking about firing someone was mind numbing and this was in a fire for no cause state and without a doubt non-union.
As for the overall issue of unions, one has to consider when looking over union contracts that are highly restrictive in terms of work rules is the history of labor management relations. When companies and unions find themselves in an adversarial relationship, all too often dating back to hostilities that date back to the original union drive, the trust between both parties is so strained and hostile the only method to regulate those issues by putting in place hyper restrictive covenants in the contracts.
You mention the issue of seniority, well the use of promotions as a retaliatory tool on the part of management against union leaders is legion, so what is the result, strict seniority rules. Is this good, I think not from an issue of meritocracy but as a protection for union workers in an adversarial workplace, absolutely necessary.
But this doesn't have to be the case and there have been remarkable instances where unions and management have dropped the labor wars mentality and found remarkable solutions to workplace governance and productivity. The case that I like to point out is the experience of the TWU and American Airlines turning their Tulsa repair center into one of the most profitable in the industry.
The issue of resolving the real problems between unions and management are based in the labor relations history of the unions and their companies and in the labor history of the United States, one of the bloodiest and most contentious in the world. When evaluating the worth or unworthiness of unions in the U.S., one cannot do so without a historic context.
Once upon a time, I had a private sector job in a non-unionized field. All the supposed advantages of the private sector slowly slipped off my radar, when A) it was made clear to me how completely expendable to the company I was, and B) lost my job on two separate occasions when my company was bought out, and of course the new bosses had no use for any of us.
After a period of time experiencing unemployment, I landed a new job with a very much unionized company. Now I wonder why so many people get so loud with their loathing for unions. It was the best thing that's ever happened to me. Who would've imagined--workers having a voice in their own work environment is actually a good thing!
And you suppose this isn't a problem in non-union environments? If you think so, I've got news for you.
The news you have for me is based on your own experience. My ability to increase sales through mandatory training in a non-union house was proven in P&L meetings (22% in one calendar year in DC!). The improvement in the quality of service we offered through mandatory training and follow up was also proven by critical reviews in by both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Washington Post (from two stars to 3.5 in DC in two calendar years, and nomination resulting in #7 in the top 100 restaurants in the Washingtonian). The fact that staff enjoyed their job more as a result of constant and consistent training and follow up was apparent in the reduced amount of time it took to set up for service and the amount of covers we increased to after I took over, among a myriad of other examples I will not detail for the sake of brevity.
I feel for you when you describe your experiences, but they do not reflect my own. Company policies can work against their own management, as in your case example. I also worked for Ritz-Carlton (non-union) where their own HR department was like a biased mother who never thought her children could go wrong. It was easier and more cost-effective to fire a manager than it was to risk a law suit from a line employee.
Running an independent restaurant in an at-will city makes firing very easy. All I needed to do was be fair with the individual and I never had a problem with an employee who needed to be fired. No-call/no-show is an industry standard for automatic firing in the restaurant business, no questions asked. Incompetence exhibited by staff, in my opinion, reflected on me. Insubordination was a verbal/written/suspension/firing offence.
Not all businesses and companies within the same business are created equal. I'm sure you know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
When evaluating the worth or unworthiness of unions in the U.S., one cannot do so without a historic context.
One can do whatever one wants in the absence of a grading system. This isn't college; it's a conversation forum. And I did give a caveat in the first sentence of my post.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I am allowed to voice my opinion in any manner I see fit. And I also appreciate your effort to reveal the historical background of unions in this country. Why don't you expound on it?
Last edited by manquaman; 06-27-2011 at 04:12 PM..
Few people seem to have any issue with hundreds or thousands of stockholders electing or appointing a relative handful of individuals to represent them at the bargaining table (that's capitalism, I guess), yet many will profess to find some outrage or other in hundreds or thousands of workers doing exactly the same thing (that's communism, I guess). Fair markets are the proverbial level playing fields where no one actor has a trump card to invalidate or expropriate the interest of any other. Unions are a necessary actor in many markets and many scenarios if fairness and equity are to prevail. Pretending that things are otherwise is to ignore the facts of history as it has played out at least through this morning. Haven't seen anything to change matters yet this afternoon either.
Fair markets are the proverbial level playing fields where no one actor has a trump card to invalidate or expropriate the interest of any other.
What is your definition of a fair market? Doesn't the market take care of itself based on supply and demand?
If sweat shops are producing way below the market value are they not sanctioned? I ask because I do not know, not to be inflammatory.
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.
