Unions
Hey, if a union has done well by you, great. Just not for me.
On Edit: Let's watch. These threads usually have higher non-union numbers around here. That is if it doesn't get too shrill and shut down.
Last edited by 76supercab2; Aug 31, 2005 at 02:56 PM.
i agree unions can be harmful like the high cost of american automobiles compared to imports. or employers whose hands are tied when it comes to giring bad employees or being unable to compete with a non-unionized competitor
but i never heard anyone explain why unions are not relevant. if anything i think we need more unions. not just to give unions a louder voice but to include more people in the labor movement and make unions more responsible to the needs of overall society and not just their own members. nothing hurts the union movement more than the stereotype of a few incompetent insiders extorting wage gains at the expense of others. but broader unions have to look at more holistic goals, like maintaining full employment, improving living conditions for all workers, working towards a sustainable economy, having government policies that benefits workers as well as business.
sure there are lots of opportunities if you have the right skills. but there's always going to be menial work fixing the roads, picking up trash, stocking shelves in a grocery store. you can either make your peace with the people that do this work or replace them with more foregners and deal with the problems they bring. either way there's no free lunch for anybody.
On your way from your unionized job with a contract, job security, etc., you decide on a whim to buy your milk at the big chain grocery store instead of the littel corner store, and the corner store owner has nothing to say about it. You are his income source - his employer essentially - and you wield total control over his earnings with more frivolity than any salaried employee could ever imagine.
I suspect salaried peole, and especially unionized workers, forget that this other class of worker is the true bedrock of the free market that keeps them employed.
Trending Topics
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
I am a union member. I have heard some people say that unions are beyond their time. Not for me.
Because of the union, I have my benefits, health insurance, life insurance and dental insurance that is AFFORDABLE, and a retirement plan.
I have 6 weeks paid vacation (with 30 years service).
Plus, IF management cannot plan the day properly, the penalty is that I get paid time and a half, for not being able to go home to my family.
(Management is expected to work 50 hours per week.)
EDIT: And since my shop closed down in 2003, I'm doing the work that 5 people used to do. (Lots of Overtime!)
On the other side of this, management in my company just had their health insurance premium double. Dental insurance - double.
IF union(s) are not 'your thing' . . . fine. I am glad to be a member of a union.
Please don't mistake. . . . this opinion is not political. It's my opinion, just as yours is yours.
Have a great evening, everyone!
Last edited by 00BlueOvalRanger; Aug 31, 2005 at 05:27 PM.
Most state are what are called "At Will" states. It means that you work at the will of the employer. Fine that makes since. The flip side of this though is you can also be fired over anything and I do mean anything. Your boss is grumpy and he fires you, etc. It happens and I have seen it happen. If you where fired for what you believe though was age, etc. it is up to you to prove that company fired you illegally. The other thing that companies like to do is downsize on the sly, fire people instead of laying them off. Fired people tend not to get unemployement and if you want it you again have to fight the company on your dime.
A few state though are what are called right to work states. In these state to fire someone the companies must show cause and this is filled with the state incase you are fired. Unions play this same roll in at will state. Make every state a right to work state and unions truely become redundent.
I current work for company that has both union and non-union employees. The non-union employees, have better health,dental,and eye coverage. They also have a better vacation plan, and more personal time. The union employees pay less a week than the non-union employees, but are exempt from most of the performance incentives, and aren't eligiable for tution reimbursment.
I have seen the union protect people who are completely worthless, simply because they have been worthless longer, than someone else. I have also seen employees who where good let go, because upper management said 'X number of union members are getting layed-off' and those affected had less seniority.
It is truly hard to estimate the impact of unions on working conditions though. The non-union employees are treated better than the union ones, because they are not union members. So the real question is are conditions better BECAUSE of unions or IN SPITE of the unions
2 questions for which there will be no answer,
1. If there was no union in your shop, would the company have been able to afford to keep the shop open?
2. Are management employees being forced to pay the difference between what you pay for health care and what it actually costs the company? Usually when there is a large group all buying the same thing (health insurance) the cost is divided evenly across the whole group. If part of the group is paying less, then the rest of the group has to make up the difference.
Whowey,
I have seen one union worker promoted over another due to seniority. The 'senior' worker was only senior because he had been in that shop longer. The 'junior' worker had moved in from another state and didn't have as much time in that shop. The Junior worker had about 10 years experience over the 'senior' worker. This was in an electrical utility. The 'senior' worker after his promotion made a decision that cut off all power to a HOSPITAL!!!!!
(church lady) HMMMMMmmmmmmmm Isn't that SPECIAL!
Last edited by 76supercab2; Aug 31, 2005 at 07:36 PM.




