[Defenestrated]

Unions are one of the the working class' greatest triumphs over the centralized plutocracies of big business. The history of unions and the history of class warfare (at least in America) are nearly one in the same. Skookum is right when he says that it is naive to think that fair wages would exist without unions. You think corporations are driven by ethics? Free market capitalism has no built in ethics code, it is up to the people whom serve the system to stand up and demand fair wages and fair working conditions. In fact, it is almost unbelievable that the right to unionize is not even a constitutional right, but rather exists only in the form of legal precedents...

 

[Skookum]

Thanks Burly. I guess that's why this is such a difficult issue; there are at least 2 valid sides to be on. I feel that as long as "opponents" can listen to and value each other's arguments, the right call can be made for each situation, as you say.

Good discussion, Skooks.

ditto.

i'm never one to rest on absolutes.

But i will say that i base my premise as such...

You own a business you're going to do everything you can to be successful and this means cheesing your workers for as much as you can get away with it.

It's not personal, it's business.

The opportunity to bargain collectively helps galvanize a fair wage for blue collar working class. It creates the bar for wage in which non-union workers enjoy without the sacrifice we have to endure in labor disputes, as well as protections, and benefits. Like medical for without, i would be impoverished currently and living off the social system guaranteed.

i would not be doing what i'm currently doing if it were not unionized, no way. Because in the long haul it's a rip off.

If there's good money moving around, i'm just not going to be a cheer leader for business. But i will work hard to make them money and be ensured of a fair wage, in my view a closer way to have a good reciprocal payment relationship with an employer.

 

[rockwool]

Skookum, no offense intended here, but your attitude toward business is what preserves the mutual distrust between labor and management and costs industry and workers millions of dollars in lost wages, production, and arbritration fees. Do you honestly think that all owners are motivated entirely by greed and all workers are just honest folks trying to get a fair shake and that the unions are there just to protect them from unscrupulous owners? You've been watching too much Norma Rae, my man. Or reading too much Charles Dickens. And Woody Guthrie is long gone.

I can assure you that I am in no way naive in this area. I've been in the work force for over 40 years, both as a professional and in pure physical labor in so many jobs I could write a couple of books. I can also assure you that I am being paid exactly what I am worth as an IT professional right now. It's not hard to research salaries and compensation levels. And I have as good or better a benefits package as I ever had in a union job. I have a much better working environment than I ever had in a union position, and I have lots of opportunity for advancement; my company encourages it and provides lots of help in doing it. We don't have to fight for raises because frequent reviews are part of company policy. Can you explain to me just how I am being exploited here and why I need a union to represent me?

In Canada, unions are notorious as protected havens for laziness and ineptitude, with guaranteed raises and max sick days, all of which are used whether needed or not. There are conscientious hard workers, but most have that attitude leached out of them within a few years because it's not valued or encouraged. It's a sick environment for workers and for our economy. And I suspect it plays a part in the current dissolution of the American economy, especially in the difficulties experienced by the auto and aerospace industries. Unions are like communism, good on paper and unworkable in practice; we have to draw the good ideas from unionism and find better ways to implement them.

It seems like you have come to your conclusions without a knowledge/thought of how it used to be way back when. I'm not sure about what age, but it could be 20th century, but then we the employed had to work 6 day weeks and 12h (or 14h) days.

Throughout the 19th century until present day the unions have been pushing for the security of workers, at the expence of the shareholders profits. Only a few decades back people were almost dropping like flies at some dangerous work places. That struggle has benefitted you too. You can bank on that.

Unions are one of the the working class' greatest triumphs over the centralized plutocracies of big business. The history of unions and the history of class warfare (at least in America) are nearly one in the same. Skookum is right when he says that it is naive to think that fair wages would exist without unions. You think corporations are driven by ethics? Free market capitalism has no built in ethics code, it is up to the people whom serve the system to stand up and demand fair wages and fair working conditions. In fact, it is almost unbelievable that the right to unionize is not even a constitutional right, but rather exists only in the form of legal precedents...

And not to forget, big business is organized, have always been, because they know the importance of unity and cooperation with people of same interests. If they organize to reap bigger fruits, why shouldn't we? Why should our overproduction only benefit the shareholders and not us too?

 

[ohio]

You own a business you're going to do everything you can to be successful and this means cheesing your workers for as much as you can get away with it.

If you have ANY long term vision or strategy you will not "cheese" your workers. Look at unions in Japan, where until recently the culture (of both workers and employers) has been a long term mutually beneficial relationship: you get in the family and stay in the family. This culture evolved because the goal was long term steady (but incremental) growth, and workers of high morale are more productive and protective of their company than workers of low morale.

This has eroded with the globalized market and higher demands for year on year company growth, which pushes more aggressive short term tactics. Unionization is a symptom of the short-sightedness of most corporate leadership in the US, but it is not a necessary fact. Being good to your workers can yield monetary rewards... but wall street doesn't reward the long term and our corporate culture has evolved under that constraint.

 

[jaydee]

It seems like you have come to your conclusions without a knowledge/thought of how it used to be way back when. I'm not sure about what age, but it could be 20th century, but then we the employed had to work 6 day weeks and 12h (or 14h) days.

Throughout the 19th century until present day the unions have been pushing for the security of workers, at the expence of the shareholders profits. Only a few decades back people were almost dropping like flies at some dangerous work places. That struggle has benefitted you too. You can bank on that.



And not to forget, big business is organized, have always been, because they know the importance of unity and cooperation with people of same interests. If they organize to reap bigger fruits, why shouldn't we? Why should our overproduction only benefit the shareholders and not us too?

I'm quite aware of the history of unionism. I have nothing but admiration and respect for the people who organized workers against exploitative, armed and dangerous owners in a time when uniting for the cause was literally a matter of survival. They broke new ground and forced the establishment of labor codes and legislation. They were not afraid to fight. But times have changed and union attitudes largely haven't; they still just want to fight. They need to evolve.

My belief is that it is time for unions to work toward more cooperative and less adversarial policies, to become less shortsighted in their goals. Unions have incredible power that could be used creatively, especially against the less ethical and greedier corporations like international oil companies and banks. Unions could exert force on companies to be ethical, keep prices reasonable, maintain environmental standards and limit rapacious profit-taking, which benefits everyone, rather than just trying to grab a bigger piece of the pie for their select members. In short, they could become part of the solution to financial problems instead of contributing to them. I'm realistic and cynical enough that I don't see this happening any time soon.

 

[rockwool]

I'm quite aware of the history of unionism. I have nothing but admiration and respect for the people who organized workers against exploitative, armed and dangerous owners in a time when uniting for the cause was literally a matter of survival. They broke new ground and forced the establishment of labor codes and legislation. They were not afraid to fight. But times have changed and union attitudes largely haven't; they still just want to fight. They need to evolve.

My belief is that it is time for unions to work toward more cooperative and less adversarial policies, to become less shortsighted in their goals. Unions have incredible power that could be used creatively, especially against the less ethical and greedier corporations like international oil companies and banks. Unions could exert force on companies to be ethical, keep prices reasonable, maintain environmental standards and limit rapacious profit-taking, which benefits everyone, rather than just trying to grab a bigger piece of the pie for their select members. In short, they could become part of the solution to financial problems instead of contributing to them. I'm realistic and cynical enough that I don't see this happening any time soon.

In a whole, I don't recognize the unions as you speak of them. Swedish mainstream unions are not like that, over hear they mostly bang the war drum as a show and later they settle for agreements that their make their mambers crazy (still, they stay with those unions, go figure..). They have become a part of the System, and their officials care more about their pretty fat salaries than those they're supposed to represent.

This situation is in a country that has had the highest unionization per capita, and that mainly since general elections (the right for every man and woman to vote) were allowed has been social democratic. I have difficulties seeing US unions as more radical than Swedish (but of course I could be wrong in my general ignorance of that situation in your country.

The shortsidedness you mentioned hasn't really existed here due to an agreement in the 30's between the two parts.

 

[jaydee]

In a whole, I don't recognize the unions as you speak of them. Swedish mainstream unions are not like that, over hear they mostly bang the war drum as a show and later they settle for agreements that their make their mambers crazy (still, they stay with those unions, go figure..). They have become a part of the System, and their officials care more about their pretty fat salaries than those they're supposed to represent.

This situation is in a country that has had the highest unionization per capita, and that mainly since general elections (the right for every man and woman to vote) were allowed has been social democratic. I have difficulties seeing US unions as more radical than Swedish (but of course I could be wrong in my general ignorance of that situation in your country.

The shortsidedness you mentioned hasn't really existed here due to an agreement in the 30's between the two parts.

Ahhh. Therein lies the problem. You think I'm in the US. I'm in Canada. The US unions have taken a more realistic stance in most cases than the ones here in Canada. Here they have their heads so far up their a**es they can see daylight and they think it's a good thing.

 

[Skookum]

If you have ANY long term vision or strategy you will not "cheese" your workers. Look at unions in Japan, where until recently the culture (of both workers and employers) has been a long term mutually beneficial relationship: you get in the family and stay in the family. This culture evolved because the goal was long term steady (but incremental) growth, and workers of high morale are more productive and protective of their company than workers of low morale.

This has eroded with the globalized market and higher demands for year on year company growth, which pushes more aggressive short term tactics. Unionization is a symptom of the short-sightedness of most corporate leadership in the US, but it is not a necessary fact. Being good to your workers can yield monetary rewards... but wall street doesn't reward the long term and our corporate culture has evolved under that constraint.

We're introducing a unique culture and i'm not qualified to comment on working conditions there. Are we talking of sacrificing quality of life by working 8 days a week for the honor of Mitsubishi, or what?

By the way you wrote your post it sounds like you're trying to assimilate an opinion, then actually giving one.

I'm quite aware of the history of unionism. I have nothing but admiration and respect for the people who organized workers against exploitative, armed and dangerous owners in a time when uniting for the cause was literally a matter of survival. They broke new ground and forced the establishment of labor codes and legislation. They were not afraid to fight. But times have changed and union attitudes largely haven't; they still just want to fight. They need to evolve.

Cause and effect. Your opinion is predicated on the fact that companies are bargaining in good faith, and that Unions are being reckless and counter-productive.

My belief is that it is time for unions to work toward more cooperative and less adversarial policies, to become less shortsighted in their goals. Unions have incredible power that could be used creatively, especially against the less ethical and greedier corporations like international oil companies and banks. Unions could exert force on companies to be ethical, keep prices reasonable, maintain environmental standards and limit rapacious profit-taking, which benefits everyone, rather than just trying to grab a bigger piece of the pie for their select members. In short, they could become part of the solution to financial problems instead of contributing to them. I'm realistic and cynical enough that I don't see this happening any time soon.

This is how Unions evolve? i'm sorry but don't Unions already do this in their endorsements within the current political process?

So you're in essence saying that Unions should shy away from Striking, which is the only real chip with any sway in bargaining. And they should be more pro-active in the company's agendas for the benefit of all?

Maybe Unions could actually attempt this in these other "magical" realms if they weren't so busy spending money trying to sustain the labor codes and legislation you said were honorable to fight for in the first place.

Suppose you make the argument that companies would work to sort these problems themselves and are hindered by the existence of Unionized Labor. Ok so let's as a matter of supposing, relax Labors to a point of ineffectiveness and let's all "trust" these companies to do the right thing.

i'm sorry but while non-union workers enjoy the wage of what unionized workers have to still sacrifice for. It's easier to think your quality of living is protected by the friendly smile and rhetoric from your employer.

i see this view as just expediting the ever increasing divide between the rich and poor, and the continuing erosion of the near non-existent middle class.

 

[jaydee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

This is how Unions evolve? i'm sorry but don't Unions already do this in their endorsements within the current political process?

So you're in essence saying that Unions should shy away from Striking, which is the only real chip with any sway in bargaining. And they should be more pro-active in the company's agendas for the benefit of all?

Maybe Unions could actually attempt this in these other "magical" realms if they weren't so busy spending money trying to sustain the labor codes and legislation you said were honorable to fight for in the first place.

Suppose you make the argument that companies would work to sort these problems themselves and are hindered by the existence of Unionized Labor. Ok so let's as a matter of supposing, relax Labors to a point of ineffectiveness and let's all "trust" these companies to do the right thing.

i'm sorry but while non-union workers enjoy the wage of what unionized workers have to still sacrifice for. It's easier to think your quality of living is protected by the friendly smile and rhetoric from your employer.

i see this view as just expediting the ever increasing divide between the rich and poor, and the continuing erosion of the near non-existent middle class.

I didn't say they should not strike, just that strikes shouldn't be the automatic solution to every contract negotiation. I'm not saying they shouldn't work to maintain the gains they have won. And legislation is legally binding, after all; you don't have to fight to maintain it unless legislators try to rescind it. This idea that if you relax the fight for a moment someone will steal away everything you have borders on paranoia, don't you think?

If you think it is "magical" to hope that management and labor could possibly cooperate without a referee, you have indeed reached a terminal state of cynicism and nothing will change for the better. And believe me, I am a cynical, sarcastic bastard; I'm no Pollyanna. It's sad to hear your dismissive take on the idea that unions "should be more pro-active in the company's agendas for the benefit of all."

Speaking of "rhetoric", you seem firmly entrenched in the unionist rhetoric that all management/ownership is evil and untrustworthy. This kind of stereotyping is right out of old Wobbly tracts and right up there with Reefer Madness in accuracy and relevancy today. I trust union organizers less than I trust management. At least management wants the company to survive. And your claim that "non-union workers enjoy the wage of what unionized workers have to still sacrifice for" is off the mark. Unions are closed shops; they have no interest in anyone who is not in their union.

Anyway, go back to your Karl Marx. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[rockwool]

Ahhh. Therein lies the problem. You think I'm in the US. I'm in Canada. The US unions have taken a more realistic stance in most cases than the ones here in Canada. Here they have their heads so far up their a**es they can see daylight and they think it's a good thing.

OK. As for Canada I have a comparison of wages. When I was working as a bike courrier I met a guy from Quebeq that was a bike courrier there. According to his figures employed bike courriers in Quebeq make about 2/3 the salary of courriers in Stockholm. If Canadian unions had been as successful, or even more so, than Swedish unions in fighting for rights and wages for workers, wouldn't they have a similar or higher wages then us?

This isn't an isolated courrier comparison as it probably reflects not only teemsters but quite a slice of the working class. Our respective countries GDP per capita is pretty similar, Canada $38.600 and Sweden $37.500, so it must mean that the working class in Sweden gets a fairer share of that per capita figure than their Canadian counterpart. Because our currency is weeker than yours (1 Canadian Dollar = 6.27943 Swedish Krona), then that factor only plays to your advantage. So this can only mean that our unions have been more vocal than yours.

Well, that's the conclusion I get from this.

 

[Transcend]

Your conclusion is wrong as it isn't all about wages. Unions in Quebec are ****ed. Many workers sit most of their careers on their asses and cannot be fired by their employers no matter how lazy and useless they truly are.

 

[jaydee]

OK. As for Canada I have a comparison of wages. When I was working as a bike courrier I met a guy from Quebeq that was a bike courrier there. According to his figures employed bike courriers in Quebeq make about 2/3 the salary of courriers in Stockholm. If Canadian unions had been as successful, or even more so, than Swedish unions in fighting for rights and wages for workers, wouldn't they have a similar or higher wages then us?

This isn't an isolated courrier comparison as it probably reflects not only teemsters but quite a slice of the working class. Our respective countries GDP per capita is pretty similar, Canada $38.600 and Sweden $37.500, so it must mean that the working class in Sweden gets a fairer share of that per capita figure than their Canadian counterpart. Because our currency is weeker than yours (1 Canadian Dollar = 6.27943 Swedish Krona), then that factor only plays to your advantage. So this can only mean that our unions have been more vocal than yours.

Well, that's the conclusion I get from this.

Transcend is right. It's not just about wages. That is a very narrow-minded approach to the situation. Right now the whole North American financial system is in crisis, and really has been teetering on the edge for years. It is tunnel vision to measure the success of the union movement by how much the workers make. Here in Canada the UAW is proud of the fact that they held the big auto makers at bay and didn't give in to offers that involved wage or benefits concessions. Unfortunately they no longer have jobs, because it costs too much to build automobiles in Canada. Something to do with prohibitive labor costs. Hmmm. A similar situation happened with the film industry in BC. And health care in Canada is totally dysfunctional; people who clean beds make more than policemen. And they think their union is doing them and the country a service. Our unions have been very vocal and successful. If only they could understand or care about the implications of their successes.

 

[Defenestrated]

We are venturing into the territory of a new question all together.

Does the original and noble purpose of Unions become muddled by the greed of men? Yes.
Is Union power and influence misused by the same individuals? Yes.

Does this justify perpetuating a one sided, negative view of Unionization which loses sight of the injustice from which they originally arose? No!

Does this justify their abolition? Nope.

 

[jaydee]

We are venturing into the territory of a new question all together.

Does the original and noble purpose of Unions become muddled by the greed of men? Yes.
Is Union power and influence misused by the same individuals? Yes.

Does this justify perpetuating a one sided, negative view of Unionization which loses sight of the injustice from which they originally arose? No!

Does this justify their abolition? Nope.

I don't believe this!!! I agree with you 100%.

 

[jaydee]

I don't believe this!!! I agree with you 100%.

Group hug.

 

[Defenestrated]

Group hug.

:hug:

 

[Skookum]

Anyway, go back to your Karl Marx. We'll have to agree to disagree.

No way you're wrong, i win.

A big part of having a good Union is to be pro-active within the union. It's similar to a democracy. And no i don't believe that all company's are evil and untrustworthy. It's not the players it's the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

I didn't say they should not strike, just that strikes shouldn't be the automatic solution to every contract negotiation. I'm not saying they shouldn't work to maintain the gains they have won. And legislation is legally binding, after all; you don't have to fight to maintain it unless legislators try to rescind it. This idea that if you relax the fight for a moment someone will steal away everything you have borders on paranoia, don't you think?

i personally believe that strikes are completely a last resort, and yes there are spoiled people that don't understand how much everyone loses in a strike.

And it's not paranoia, without going into a huge detailed explanation, let me just explain that my opinion is formed from what i see and experience. Not just some Marxist gobbledeegoop i picked up from some patchouli smelling weed toker on the corner.

Your debate tactics are devolving into attacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
If you think it is "magical" to hope that management and labor could possibly cooperate without a referee, you have indeed reached a terminal state of cynicism and nothing will change for the better. And believe me, I am a cynical, sarcastic bastard; I'm no Pollyanna. It's sad to hear your dismissive take on the idea that unions "should be more pro-active in the company's agendas for the benefit of all."

No that's not what i say. What i say is that if you get rid of Unions, pay for everyone will go down. And no i'm not dismissive on the idea that unions should be be more pro-active in the company's agenda.

We pay for market recovery. It's a fund that Union shops can tap into so they can win in a bid against a non union shop. Because non union shops will save the costs in labor aka the cheese. Also just a few months ago our Union was encouraged to petition the government for more Green Roof jobs, we are looking to get ourselves better trained and ready for these jobs, and it starts with the Union investing in training and having our paid representatives pushing to get the jobs.

Also our Union sacrificed in the form of a $3 raise for over 5 years, over half of which was eaten up by health and welfare. Reason this went up is we've had alot of members get Cancer and the prices are outrageous.

Speaking of "rhetoric", you seem firmly entrenched in the unionist rhetoric that all management/ownership is evil and untrustworthy. This kind of stereotyping is right out of old Wobbly tracts and right up there with Reefer Madness in accuracy and relevancy today. I trust union organizers less than I trust management. At least management wants the company to survive. And your claim that "non-union workers enjoy the wage of what unionized workers have to still sacrifice for" is off the mark. Unions are closed shops; they have no interest in anyone who is not in their union.

And no you project that i possess that opinion of " all management/ownership is evil and untrustworthy". No the companies stepped up and helped contribute to the Health and Welfare increase, so we wouldn't have to take the money out from our wage.

No i think i make some very valid points, and while you make a few points, they are based on your own ill view of Unions.

Think about it, you seem more intelligent and experienced than me, and i never resorted to attacking your views on the level as you have attacked mine.

i honestly believe sir, i have the high ground on this argument.

 

[Defenestrated]

Anyway, go back to your Karl Marx. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Hey, to be fair, everyone should read a little Marx...

 

[jaydee]

No way you're wrong, i win.

A big part of having a good Union is to be pro-active within the union. It's similar to a democracy. And no i don't believe that all company's are evil and untrustworthy. It's not the players it's the game.




i personally believe that strikes are completely a last resort, and yes there are spoiled people that don't understand how much everyone loses in a strike.

And it's not paranoia, without going into a huge detailed explanation, let me just explain that my opinion is formed from what i see and experience. Not just some Marxist gobbledeegoop i picked up from some patchouli smelling weed toker on the corner.

Your debate tactics are devolving into attacks.


No that's not what i say. What i say is that if you get rid of Unions, pay for everyone will go down. And no i'm not dismissive on the idea that unions should be be more pro-active in the company's agenda.

We pay for market recovery. It's a fund that Union shops can tap into so they can win in a bid against a non union shop. Because non union shops will save the costs in labor aka the cheese. Also just a few months ago our Union was encouraged to petition the government for more Green Roof jobs, we are looking to get ourselves better trained and ready for these jobs, and it starts with the Union investing in training and having our paid representatives pushing to get the jobs.

Also our Union sacrificed in the form of a $3 raise for over 5 years, over half of which was eaten up by health and welfare. Reason this went up is we've had alot of members get Cancer and the prices are outrageous.

And no you project that i possess that opinion of " all management/ownership is evil and untrustworthy". No the companies stepped up and helped contribute to the Health and Welfare increase, so we wouldn't have to take the money out from our wage.

No i think i make some very valid points, and while you make a few points, they are based on your own ill view of Unions.

Think about it, you seem more intelligent and experienced than me, and i never resorted to attacking your views on the level as you have attacked mine.

i honestly believe sir, i have the high ground on this argument.

Skookum, I apologize if I seem to be attacking you. That was not my intent. Sarcasm seems to rise to the surface in me when I get into a good argument. And this is a good one. I also believe you have very good points, or I wouldn't take the time to debate them.

I do have a negative opinion of unions today in Canada, and I base that on my own personal experience, reading, and observation. The thing about opinions is that they are personal, biased, and by definition one-sided.

I agree that unions have been fundamental to the development of the labor structure we have today. I don't want to abolish them; we'd see the resurgence of exploitative labor practices if that happened. I just want to see them become more creative and, I hesitate to use this word, altruistic.

I certainly don't believe myself to be more intelligent than you. I may have more experience than you, but only in the sense that experience comes with time and I'm much older than you. I'm not going to play that card against you, because I never discount the insights of people younger than me. If I did that pretty soon I won't listen to anyone.

I honestly believe that there is merit to my beliefs as well. Neither of us is going to change the world from Ridemonkey, and it's good mental exercise to cross arguments this way. I'm not claiming a win for either side; for me the debate is the thing, not the win.

 

[SPINTECK]

i am very pro union and i've been on both sides. people who hate unions are just ignorant to their function and want all the power themselves. companies love it when they can work people through their motivated twenties and fire them in the thirties and forties.

the bank crisis as a case in point, anyone who believes unions ruin companies are just falling for the lies of the dirty corporate elite. a working joe making a 100k for his family is nothing compared to the trillion dollar tax theft going on- not to mention they got into this mess by paying themselves more than their investments were worth while only paying 15% capital gains on the dividends. all powerful greedy brainiacs lie in order to move wealth- good people fall for it- idiots blame unions.

1. unions usually keep companies honest by:

-giving members the ability to speak up to their bosses in unsafe situations. when i was a supervisor in a non union shop the other supervisors would "ding" workers in their review who spoke up. Do you think many people continued to speak up? i only fly union airlines because those guys can push back a flight and not let it affect their pay if something needs to be fixed right.

- union members can admit they made a mistake b/c they are protected from job loss and pay decreases, although they are usually disciplined. when a worker in my non union plant made a mistake, many times they hid it. when it came out there were a hundred hours wasted on an investigation and the person was fired- even though it was usually an honest mistake made on third shift or rushing to help meet the time line.

-training- in my non- union job workers would not train others as well because then the new worker might get a better review. the worse others looked, the better they looked. in my union shop training is transparent.

i love it when i see cut-throat union haters get eaten by their own competing pseudo leaders. i had a hot shot buddy who left the union and became a sales rep- he just got downsized after 15 years. it's one thing to want to compete because we need good career people- it's another thing to think you're too good for a union because they're lazy. almost every union person i know is very intelligent, but wants to focus on their family. the irony is everything people have now is thanks to unions- the more high paying union jobs, the more high paying salary jobs- americans have been too greedy and ignorant to realize that- thank you Reagan.

i do need to add that striking is not necessary, but it is necessary to be willing to strike or you have no bargaining ability.

many unions are corrupt, but that means the members have become as lazy and greedy as exploiting corporate leaders. they need to fixed by the members.

 

[jaydee]

i am very pro union and i've been on both sides. people who hate unions are just ignorant to their function and want all the power themselves. companies love it when they can work people through their motivated twenties and fire them in the thirties and forties.

the bank crisis as a case in point, anyone who believes unions ruin companies are just falling for the lies of the dirty corporate elite. a working joe making a 100k for his family is nothing compared to the trillion dollar tax theft going on- not to mention they got into this mess by paying themselves more than their investments were worth while only paying 15% capital gains on the dividends. all powerful greedy brainiacs lie in order to move wealth- good people fall for it- idiots blame unions.

1. unions usually keep companies honest by:

-giving members the ability to speak up to their bosses in unsafe situations. when i was a supervisor in a non union shop the other supervisors would "ding" workers in their review who spoke up. Do you think many people continued to speak up? i only fly union airlines because those guys can push back a flight and not let it affect their pay if something needs to be fixed right.

- union members can admit they made a mistake b/c they are protected from job loss and pay decreases, although they are usually disciplined. when a worker in my non union plant made a mistake, many times they hid it. when it came out there were a hundred hours wasted on an investigation and the person was fired- even though it was usually an honest mistake made on third shift or rushing to help meet the time line.

-training- in my non- union job workers would not train others as well because then the new worker might get a better review. the worse others looked, the better they looked. in my union shop training is transparent.

i love it when i see cut-throat union haters get eaten by their own competing pseudo leaders. i had a hot shot buddy who left the union and became a sales rep- he just got downsized after 15 years. it's one thing to want to compete because we need good career people- it's another thing to think you're too good for a union because they're lazy. almost every union person i know is very intelligent, but wants to focus on their family. the irony is everything people have now is thanks to unions- the more high paying union jobs, the more high paying salary jobs- americans have been too greedy and ignorant to realize that- thank you Reagan.

i do need to add that striking is not necessary, but it is necessary to be willing to strike or you have no bargaining ability.

many unions are corrupt, but that means the members have become as lazy and greedy as exploiting corporate leaders. they need to fixed by the members.

So is it fair to say that "people who hate ownership are just ignorant to their function and want all the power themselves?"

I thought not. That would be a blatant generalization and an untrue statement.

So I have a question. If you got rid of the "exploiting corporate leaders", which you seem to believe are all of them, who would you work for? I know. You'd take all your money, take a gamble and invest it in a company. Then you'd hire a bunch of people to work for you. Then at some point you'd have to make some decisions about your company that some of them might not like, but you have a right to run your own company, since after all it is your money that is on the line. So they'd join a union and tell you how to run your company. And not only that, they'd call you an "exploiting corporate leader". When people make statements as blatantly stupid as the ones you make in your first paragraph and then follow them up with ridiculous black-and-white scenarios, I have a hard time taking them seriously. So I won't try to address each of your statements, though I could.

And by the way, you don't have to "hate unions" to take exception with some of their tactics. I also take exception to the tactics practiced by Osama bin Laden, George Bush, third world sweatshops, the big oil and tobacco companies and banks; does that make me a good guy? I'm just making the assumption that your remarks were directed my way, since I've been opening my big mouth a lot here.

 

[rockwool]

Your conclusion is wrong as it isn't all about wages. Unions in Quebec are ****ed. Many workers sit most of their careers on their asses and cannot be fired by their employers no matter how lazy and useless they truly are.

Sounds like you have a "last in - first out" rule. I belive that our right wing coalition got rid of that rule during their governmental term in the early 90's. Can't say if it has bothered anybody that much since then.

Transcend is right. It's not just about wages. That is a very narrow-minded approach to the situation. Right now the whole North American financial system is in crisis, and really has been teetering on the edge for years. It is tunnel vision to measure the success of the union movement by how much the workers make. Here in Canada the UAW is proud of the fact that they held the big auto makers at bay and didn't give in to offers that involved wage or benefits concessions. Unfortunately they no longer have jobs, because it costs too much to build automobiles in Canada. Something to do with prohibitive labor costs. Hmmm. A similar situation happened with the film industry in BC. And health care in Canada is totally dysfunctional; people who clean beds make more than policemen. And they think their union is doing them and the country a service. Our unions have been very vocal and successful. If only they could understand or care about the implications of their successes.

The financial system of the western world as a whole is in crisis, and that hasn't got dick to do with unions. The system sucks Palin and simple.. But I betcha that we in some years will know that some stinkin wealthy people got even smellier because the taxpayers went in with ba$illions.

What says that GM wouldn't have moved their plants to Mexico anyways, as Canadians would never have lowered their salaries to Mexican levels? BTW, the loss is GM's as it was know even over here that Canadian built GMC's were better assembled than US made Chevy's.

Hospital personel heal you, police often violate peoples human rights.

But about big unions, I'm of the experiance that they have become corrupted by their power and thus hinder progress in their own field as they fear of losing power to smaller competitors. This surely affects everything they deal in, but I'm of the impression that employers benefit of it more than the union members.

 

[jaydee]

Sounds like you have a "last in - first out" rule. I belive that our right wing coalition got rid of that rule during their governmental term in the early 90's. Can't say if it has bothered anybody that much since then.




The financial system of the western world as a whole is in crisis, and that hasn't got dick to do with unions. The system sucks Palin and simple.. But I betcha that we in some years will know that some stinkin wealthy people got even smellier because the taxpayers went in with ba$illions.

What says that GM wouldn't have moved their plants to Mexico anyways, as Canadians would never have lowered their salaries to Mexican levels? BTW, the loss is GM's as it was know even over here that Canadian built GMC's were better assembled than US made Chevy's.

Hospital personel heal you, police often violate peoples human rights.

But about big unions, I'm of the experiance that they have become corrupted by their power and thus hinder progress in their own field as they fear of losing power to smaller competitors. This surely affects everything they deal in, but I'm of the impression that employers benefit of it more than the union members.

Unions are absolutely a part of the problem with the financial crisis. They didn't precipitate the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, but they are part of the negative pressure on the system, as are the greedy corporations that just want to maximize profits.

It's an easy out to say that the unions in the Canadian auto plants wouldn't have lowered their wage scales to Mexican levels. You're right, but the point is that they just pouted, dug in their heels, and refused all offers.

I'm sure society would be much better off if it fired all the police and was managed by the people who clean beds in hospitals. Unfortunately, when a 911 call came in, they'd all be in the smoke room on their legally-entitled-to break or hiding in the outside stairwell or in the bathroom with a good book. And of course the emergency would be outside their job description as defined in the collective bargaining agreement, so a grievance would be filed. Maybe your Scandinavian bed cleaners heal people and are qualified to maintain the laws, but here they sure aren't.

I don't see how corrupt unions benefit any but their own. They aren't benefitting the auto makers a whole lot, are they?

You know, the problem is with the entire system, not just the greedy, exploitative corporations and not just the greedy, shortsighted unions. The whole mess needs restructuring.

 

[MMike]

Looks like the strike is over. Doesn't look like the union really got much...go figure.

The comments for the story are kinda funny.....support for the union seems spotty at best...

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?source_name=mbase&source_id=2008319063

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Looks like the strike is over. Doesn't look like the union really got much...go figure.

The comments for the story are kinda funny.....support for the union seems spotty at best...

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?source_name=mbase&source_id=2008319063

"Will the last one out of Seattle please turn off the lights?"

 

[Pesqueeb]

Teachers union, certainly.

Lets hope.

 

[Jm_]

Lets hope.

Dammit, if they'd only work for free we could save so much money!

 

[rideit]

And they should all be virgin maidens, living in the one room schoolhouse!

 

[Pesqueeb]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ap-poll-most-americans-say-public-school-teachers-not-paid-enough

In 2016-2017, the average salary for a public school teacher was $58,950,

Shiiiiitttt........

That would be a pretty significant increase for my wife and her coworkers.

 

[Jm_]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ap-poll-most-americans-say-public-school-teachers-not-paid-enough



Shiiiiitttt........

That would be a pretty significant increase for my wife and her coworkers.

That's because it's a BS number. There's a shitload of teachers making 30-40K and a few making 60-80K, hence "average".

A few years ago they blew the doors open on what first officer pilot's make at the airlines during their first few years, around 5-10 years ago, we were taking around 15-25K, poverty food-stamp wages. All of a sudden now they need bodies and people are retiring, but I think information technology has as much to do with it. There was no good reason for why the paid so low, but the bigger airlines would "farm out" their routes to the lowest regional bidders and then pit these regional airlines against each other, which is how many of them got the reputation as bottom-feeders, it was a "race-to-the-bottom" to see how cheaply they could run the organization to get the contracts (aka your "express" or "connection" carrier). Even years into those regional carriers you were lucky to break 40-50K. The Captains were usually lifers that couldn't move on due to DUIs or lived-in-base and held seniority so they could basically work their own schedule. You were never going to have a shot at that, so you tried to hang on as long as you could to build up hours so you could eventually get hired by a "real" airline, aka a "legacy".

Of course, all this time, UPS and Delta senior captains were bringing home 300-400K easy, with a few being able to even exceed that. So the "average" pay? Looked pretty good..., but it was a totally bullshit number, because about half the pilots were flying for much less, many way less.

Then the economy crashed in 2008 and the cat got out of the bag completely. By that time, word had spread about these wages and what the real deal was. Throughout my training and school, this simply wasn't well known, it was almost like they were keeping it a "secret", not just the schools, but other pilots and especially the airlines. Once the cat got out of the bag, a few merged, a few shut down, but the pilots in general just started going to other places, getting out of flying, going back to previous jobs, not enrolling in school in the first place. Of course, these airlines screamed (and are still screaming) about how there is a massive pilot-shortage, but they fail to mention the poverty wages they paid and how they helped to create the situation.

But now, first officers start at 40-50K and some even start more around 60-70, which is mind-blowing compared to what it was just a few years ago.

 

[stevew]

That's because it's a BS number. There's a shitload of teachers making 30-40K

this.

it is said the average pay for near where i live for teachers is between 33k-48k....with the average being 41k....most would be lucky if the made close to 41k...

i made more money per year sitting on my ass watching dogs for 4 years.

 

[Nick]

Teachers have always been underpaid.