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.
What state does she live in? Because I don't know of any state where an employee would be LUCKY to have a lunch break. Most states have laws mandating breaks.
The what-if road is full of potholes. IF she was UNION, the company she was working for might have already gone out of business or went off-shore. I'm not saying it would definitely have been that way. I'm not saying that unions are bad. But unions bring advantages and disadvantages to the workplace. Ignoring the disavantages and focusing only on the advantages is a great way to support the unions. But is it a realistic way to support American business?
NON-Union companies have gone out of business and gone off-shore already.
I bet she would still have vacation and sick days and shift differential if she was union.
Without unions companies are free to do just about ANYTHING to their employees. If they're willing to do the things they did how far behind can minimizing breaks be?
Without the very few laws protecting employees companies would take even more benefits away.
How is grinding the American worker into the dirt helping the economy?
Ignoring the benefits unions have brought to the American worker and focusing on the few disadvantages has weakened the workers and hence the economy.
Support American workers, give them decent paying jobs with benefits helps make them successful and then they buy products and other people get money from them buying and so on and so on....if the average American worker has no money and no benefits HOW does that help the economy (businesses)???
When does the abuse stop?
When America looks like a third World country with nothing but the poorest of the poor and the uber-wealthy and NO middle class?
There is power in numbers.....that's why the United States is a UNION.
NON-Union companies have gone out of business and gone off-shore already.
I bet she would still have vacation and sick days and shift differential if she was union.
Without unions companies are free to do just about ANYTHING to their employees. If they're willing to do the things they did how far behind can minimizing breaks be?
Without the very few laws protecting employees companies would take even more benefits away.
How is grinding the American worker into the dirt helping the economy?
Ignoring the benefits unions have brought to the American worker and focusing on the few disadvantages has weakened the workers and hence the economy.
Support American workers, give them decent paying jobs with benefits helps make them successful and then they buy products and other people get money from them buying and so on and so on....if the average American worker has no money and no benefits HOW does that help the economy (businesses)???
When does the abuse stop?
When America looks like a third World country with nothing but the poorest of the poor and the uber-wealthy and NO middle class?
There is power in numbers.....that's why the United States are a UNION.
I'm not going to respond to your statement about the United States being a union because that would totally take this thread off-topic, and I think you've read enough of my posts to know I'm all too likely to get off-topic and windy to boot.
I specifically said I think unions have an important place in the future of the American workplace. I'm just saying that unions bring both good things and bad things to the table. Unions are businesses. They are selling their services to union members. Negotiating services are a difficult thing to sell. Instead, unions tell union members they are offering them higher wages, more benefits, better working conditions. But unions aren't paying higher wages, or providing longer vacations, or providing better insurance. The businesses are. And for unions to stay in business, unions have to pressure employers to pay out more and more and more. Unions don't just go away when they've achieved the goals of union members. When the goals are reached, unions set new, higher goals to maintain their business. They are negotiating to reallocate capital resources from the business to the workers. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the business remains viable. But when the well goes dry, when those capital resources have been drained so that a business cannot remain viable, that hurts everyone.
I'm not going to respond to your statement about the United States being a union because that would totally take this thread off-topic, and I think you've read enough of my posts to know I'm all too likely to get off-topic and windy to boot.
I specifically said I think unions have an important place in the future of the American workplace. I'm just saying that unions bring both good things and bad things to the table. Unions are businesses. They are selling their services to union members. Negotiating services are a difficult thing to sell. Instead, unions tell union members they are offering them higher wages, more benefits, better working conditions. But unions aren't paying higher wages, or providing longer vacations, or providing better insurance. The businesses are. And for unions to stay in business, unions have to pressure employers to pay out more and more and more. Unions don't just go away when they've achieved the goals of union members. When the goals are reached, unions set new, higher goals to maintain their business. They are negotiating to reallocate capital resources from the business to the workers. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the business remains viable. But when the well goes dry, when those capital resources have been drained so that a business cannot remain viable, that hurts everyone.
In my friends company the lowest paid employees take the hits...they have no protection....how does that help the economy?
And other ignored questions:
How is grinding the American worker into the dirt helping the economy?
Ignoring the benefits unions have brought to the American worker and focusing on the few disadvantages has weakened the workers and hence the economy.
Support American workers, give them decent paying jobs with benefits helps make them successful and then they buy products and other people get money from them buying and so on and so on....if the average American worker has no money and no benefits HOW does that help the economy (businesses)???
When does the abuse stop?
When America looks like a third World country with nothing but the poorest of the poor and the uber-wealthy and NO middle class?
In my friends company the lowest paid employees take the hits...they have no protection....how does that help the economy?
And other ignored questions:
How is grinding the American worker into the dirt helping the economy?
Ignoring the benefits unions have brought to the American worker and focusing on the few disadvantages has weakened the workers and hence the economy.
Support American workers, give them decent paying jobs with benefits helps make them successful and then they buy products and other people get money from them buying and so on and so on....if the average American worker has no money and no benefits HOW does that help the economy (businesses)???
When does the abuse stop?
When America looks like a third World country with nothing but the poorest of the poor and the uber-wealthy and NO middle class?
Why do you think that if a company isn't union, they are all "grinding the American worker into the dirt"? Really, aren't the majority of American workers non-union, and haven't they always been? Your friend's story isn't that unusual. Many people have not been given raises recently, many people have accepted cutbacks in order to still have a job. It is their choice to remain employed there. Because they do choose to continue to work there.
I appreciate your concern for your friend, and your contention that if she were union she would have continued getting raises, and wouldn't have had to take the cutbacks. But the union wouldn't have been paying out those extra dollars, her employer would have. When the employer makes decisions to cut hours, to roll back production, it's not because he leaps at the opportunity to screw over his workers. It's because he's not selling his product. And if he's not selling his product, how long can he continue to give pay raises and offer great benefits to his employees, before the money's all gone?
You seem to only see the union as a spokesperson for the workers. But it's a business. A business whose function is to reallocate resources. Resources are limited. Eventually, you move all those resources into the hands of the workers, and the business is gone. GM didn't just get into trouble when the economy began tanking, they've been in trouble for decades. Partly because their union commitments limited the way they could spend their resources.
I'm not ignoring the benefits that unions have brought to the workplace. You keep insisting that I am, but I've acknowledged them repeatedly. I've stated repeatedly that I think unions are important and have a role in our future. But there has to be a balance. And it's not in the interest of the business models that unions follow for that balance to be found. Unions find it a lot harder to sell themselves when they are telling workers, the company cannot afford to pay out millions of dollars to retired workers. The company's taken a loss this year, so raises are going to limited to 3%. Demand for the company's product has fallen drastically, so we're going to have to accept some cutbacks. Unions do best when they are offering big rewards. But how realistic is that in an economy that has switched from manufacturing to service, from production to information transfers? If our economy is changing, don't unions have to change their strategies as well? Because if they don't, do you really think those old strategies are going to make our economy grow? If every other business is modifying its practices, doesn't the union business have to modify as well?
Fact: Unionized workers raise wages for non-union workers
Fact: Without unionized workers there is no incentive for companies to maintain high wages, benefits and protective personnel policies.
I disagree. Unions are no longer needed.
And, workers are realizing it - as more and more leave.
It will only be a matter of time - the UAW will be history.
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.
