Unionized companies: What you get for your money.

[OzzyRules]

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

Address what issue? From the story you gave, there really wasn't anything to address.

If a company didn't modernize, it's their own fault. I've never heard of a union keeping a company from modernizing. Sorry.

You just seem to be angry that 12 people didn't lose their jobs sooner, which i'm sure would've made you very happy.

Wrong on all 3 points. No free company would have done such a thing without the union pressure.

Yes, it would have been better if the employees had lost their jobs sooner. Should citizens (who support business) pay people to do unnecessary work? Why not just give them unemployment instead. Perhaps they could have been doing something productive at least. The company might have even been able to expand. Or at least made investments in the stock market, which helps everyone.

[rogead]

I work in the retail industry for a company that operates under three separate banners: one is totally unionized, another is unionized at about half of its locations, the third is entirely non-union. No one can rationally argue that companies prefer unionized to non-unionized employees since companies want complete control of their resources. However, in my company, the unionized chain is the most profitable banner of the three.

Unionized companies have far less turnover and a better-trained staff. This is often reflected in customer service. Employee morale is usually higher in union facilities. For the company, another advantage of being party to a collective bargaining agreement is stability. The contract imposes specific terms not only on the company, but on the workers as well. This means no work stoppages (during the life of the contract) and no unforeseen expenses since everything is laid out in the CBA.