Contrary to an often-repeated myth, UAW members at GM, Ford and Chrysler are not paid $73 an hour. The truth is, wages for UAW members range from about $14 per hour for newly hired workers to $28 per hour for assemblers. The $73 an hour figure is outdated and inaccurate. It includes not only the costs of health care, pensions and other compensation for current workers, but also includes the costs of pensions and health care for all of the retired workers, spread out over the active workforce. Obviously, active workers do not receive any of this compensation, so it is simply not accurate to describe it as part of their "earnings."
The 73 dollars an hour of course included the 371 hours of overtime per worker per year due to having an insufficent number of workers. This is also what leads to the those ridiculous 100k a year bus driver salaries or the 70k a year toll booth collectors salaries. Keep in mind those would be double time and triple time depending on how long they were working.
Personally I'd like to make 28 bucks an hour, but the reality is with benefits included I probably come close to that. I think that is close to 60k a year which on one salary could cover a 4 person family on the cheap.
According to the latest Actors' Equity figures, the minimum salary for a performer in a Broadway play or musical is $1,354 a week and it goes up from there. How high depends on how good a performer's agent is or how many tickets a producer thinks a star can sell. Thats 70k a year and that is the low end of the scale Nathan Lane is 30k a week. Julia Roberts is 35k a week. So its doubtful that even adding up the salaries of the Union non actors together will out do the Salaries of the actual Actors.
Um...as a employer...atleast the ones who stay in bussiness have to look at all that stuff when think how much this person makes. They are making 74$ per hour. That is how much the emplyer has to pay...just because somebody only makes 28 per hour does not change that fact.
Also either hidden or ignored in that amount is somerthing called a pay roll tax. In which the goverment taxes bussinbess for having employees. It is like the fact that you can't advertise gas without the tax added in...because would revolt.
The article I read a long time ago that deals with stagehands on broadway...indicates that a stage hand makes more per hour than anybody else involved with the show...
The problem with this debate...both sides really...is that we are projecting our experience with unions to all unions. Which is not true. Unions differe gratly from state to state...or even within that state. Generalization when people are involved are just often very wrong.
Um...as a employer...atleast the ones who stay in bussiness have to look at all that stuff when think how much this person makes. They are making 74$ per hour. That is how much the emplyer has to pay...just because somebody only makes 28 per hour does not change that fact.
Sure, but the average person confronted with the statistic that an auto worker makes $74/hour is going to compare that to their own income and say, "Hell, I only make x/hour" when, if they're lucky enough to have health insurance and all that other stuff, that x gets a lot higher.
|
Sure, but the average person confronted with the statistic that an auto worker makes $74/hour is going to compare that to their own income and say, "Hell, I only make x/hour" when, if they're lucky enough to have health insurance and all that other stuff, that x gets a lot higher.Um...as a employer...atleast the ones who stay in bussiness have to look at all that stuff when think how much this person makes. They are making 74$ per hour. That is how much the emplyer has to pay...just because somebody only makes 28 per hour does not change that fact.
Except you seemed to miss the part where its including the cost of Retired Workers Pensions and Medical divided by the number of current workers. You know an entire other class of people whose figures should not be included with thier current workforce's salary+ Benefits.
Except you seemed to miss the part where its including the cost of Retired Workers Pensions and Medical divided by the number of current workers. You know an entire other class of people whose figures should not be included with thier current workforce's salary+ Benefits.Sure, but the average person confronted with the statistic that an auto worker makes $74/hour is going to compare that to their own income and say, "Hell, I only make x/hour" when, if they're lucky enough to have health insurance and all that other stuff, that x gets a lot higher.Um...as a employer...atleast the ones who stay in bussiness have to look at all that stuff when think how much this person makes. They are making 74$ per hour. That is how much the emplyer has to pay...just because somebody only makes 28 per hour does not change that fact.
Are you replying to me or Mr. Kretzer?
Sure, but the average person confronted with the statistic that an auto worker makes $74/hour is going to compare that to their own income and say, "Hell, I only make x/hour" when, if they're lucky enough to have health insurance and all that other stuff, that x gets a lot higher.Um...as a employer...atleast the ones who stay in bussiness have to look at all that stuff when think how much this person makes. They are making 74$ per hour. That is how much the emplyer has to pay...just because somebody only makes 28 per hour does not change that fact.
I would tend to agree. The $74+ an hour matters in terms of the cost of doing business, but I think it's important to compare apples to apples as it were.
I still maintain that unions have not out lived their usefulness, but I continue to be quite skeptical of public sector unions. I would also point out that trade unions in particular can add a great deal of value particularly when there is a good relationship between labor and management. Trade unions can lift much of the crushing burden of health care and legacy costs from small businesses in particular. I'm familiar with manufacturing shops that strongly encouraged their workers to organize for tist very reason. Some of these manufacturers would have had to close up or off shore much of their work if the work force had not unionized. This may not be universal by any means, but there are examples of an organized work force greatly benefiting business. Of course these kinds of examples don't grab headlines.
I've read from some of our anti-union fellow Paizonians some things about the autoworkers "outrageous demands" back in the seventies. I know that in a lot of businesses, such as UPS and others, that most of the major unions acceded to two-tier contracts back then, which were huge concessions to the employers, basically selling out the new hires.
Does anyone know if two-tier contracts went down in the UAW and, if so, how does that jibe with the anti-unionists claims?
(I tend to think their claims are crap, but I'm trying to be open-minded here).
Sure, but the average person confronted with the statistic that an auto worker makes $74/hour is going to compare that to their own income and say, "Hell, I only make x/hour" when, if they're lucky enough to have health insurance and all that other stuff, that x gets a lot higher.Um...as a employer...atleast the ones who stay in bussiness have to look at all that stuff when think how much this person makes. They are making 74$ per hour. That is how much the emplyer has to pay...just because somebody only makes 28 per hour does not change that fact.
I would tend to agree. The $74+ an hour matters in terms of the cost of doing business, but I think it's important to compare apples to apples as it were.
I still maintain that unions have not out lived their usefulness, but I continue to be quite skeptical of public sector unions. I would also point out that trade unions in particular can add a great deal of value particularly when there is a good relationship between labor and management. Trade unions can lift much of the crushing burden of health care and legacy costs from small businesses in particular. I'm familiar with manufacturing shops that strongly encouraged their workers to organize for tist very reason. Some of these manufacturers would have had to close up or off shore much of their work if the work force had not unionized. This may not be universal by any means, but there are examples of an organized work force greatly benefiting business. Of course these kinds of examples don't grab headlines.
I tend to agree on (all?) three counts.
1.) You should compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
2.) Trade unions are immensely important. The fact that they often supply apprentice programs which see that a constant influx of new labor receives proper training under the tutelage of skilled individuals (not to mention college level coursework and "trade theory") is an immensely important aspect allowing businesses to keep skilled labors working for them. Furthermore, it keeps a steady stream of quality lower-skilled labor (apprentices) to perform many of the simpler tasks. Because a trade union may have insurance that covers all its members at various job-sites, the per capita cost of such insurance will be cheaper and thus the share a business will pay for its employees will be reduced. This also doesn't even take into account that a well-trained workforce has significantly fewer workplace accidents due to the skill of the employees.
3.) I do have a problem with how many public sector unions end up working
an explanation of 3.)...
Traditionally, one of the key aspects of pay/benefits and collective bargaining is that workers demand "appropriate" compensation for how their performance benefits the company. Labor with specific skills cannot be replaced by just anyone off the streets. The organization of the union supplies the skilled labor. Although any individual may leave and not damage a company that employs hundreds (or thousands), it is impossible to replace an entire skilled workforce. That is the collective bargaining power. Collectively, a skilled workforce has as much, if not more, importance to the success of the company than the owners and management. Thus they collectively bargain for greater pay, benefits, and working conditions.
Sometimes the two sides negotiate a deal and sometimes it must be resolved by (sometimes ordered) arbitration. The important thing here is that this revolves around sharing the success of the business. If the business owners keep too tight of a hold on what they give to the workforce, the best employees will leave (lowering efficiency), morale will drop (lowering efficiency), skills will lower (lowering efficiency, increasing accidents which will lower morale which will...), and on and on. But, if the workers place a stranglehold upon the company with wages and benefits, then it will go down the tubes also. The important point here is that both parties (workforce and owners) are vested heavily in the success of the company and are stuck with the results they negotiate (or have an arbiter order) for better or for worse.
The problem with public sector unions is that the collective bargaining is not a case of owners and the collective workforce working to get a deal that will keep the business going as well as line the pockets of both parties. The government takes the money from the public to pay its employees or spends money it simply doesn't have. For the most part, the parties do not suffer the consequences of not taking the costs of their wishes into account. Some jobs may occasionally be lost but you don't see the entire school system in a city of three million shutting down forever. They don't get replaced by better "companies". Plus, for the most part, the numbers, money, and organiztion of the unions are an enormous advantage to those politicians who support them. They rarely lose their jobs to nonsupporters. It is literally a case of having your cake and eating it too, IMO.
I hope I didn't ramble too far or say too much that was already said.
I've read from some of our anti-union fellow Paizonians some things about the autoworkers "outrageous demands" back in the seventies. I know that in a lot of businesses, such as UPS and others, that most of the major unions acceded to two-tier contracts back then, which were huge concessions to the employers, basically selling out the new hires.
Does anyone know if two-tier contracts went down in the UAW and, if so, how does that jibe with the anti-unionists claims?
(I tend to think their claims are crap, but I'm trying to be open-minded here).
I have also heard that health care and (maybe) pension costs and responsibilities are being shifted back to the UAW which I have always favored. I think relieving the auto makers of the legacy costs and giving workers more portability is a good choice. It also multiplies the UAW's ability to benefit from even larger scale purchasing power for insurance and pension management. I have no idea if this may be part of a two tiered system though. I also don't know if it's true that the UAW got a waiver for Obamacare, but I would be curious to know more about this too.
Thing, I tend to agree with your take on public sector unions. It seems to me to be very much like the corporate rent seeking that creates such an incestuous relationship between government and various interests.
|
From a 1986 speech, as the Soviet-backed Polish government attempted to crush the Solidarity movement that was causing them to lose control of Eastern Europe;
RONALD REAGAN: "Ever since martial law was brutally imposed last December, Polish authorities have been assuring the world that they’re interested in a genuine reconciliation with the Polish people. But the Polish regime’s action yesterday reveals the hollowness of its promises. By outlawing Solidarity, a free trade organization to which an overwhelming majority of Polish workers and farmers belong, they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights—the right to belong to a free trade union."
From Reagan, that's not terribly shocking. While he is also famous for breaking the air traffic controller strike by firing the striking workers, he was elected president of the Screen Actor's Guild seven times between 1946 and 1960, so he wasn't exactly anti-union, in specific, even if he found the air traffic controllers strike to be too damaging to be allowed to continue.
And then there's the famous world leader who did bust the unions in his country the day after Labor Day in 1933, denying them the right to collectively bargain or assemble. Over the next years, the wages made by workers in his country dropped 25% (but gosh, corporate entities flourished, and international companies like Ford Motor Company and Bayer rushed to set up or expand their operations there). 'This was the beginning of a consolidation of power by the fascist regime which systematically wiped out all opposition groups, starting with unions, liberals, socialists, and communists using [redacted] state police.'
I'll leave the name of this individual out of the thread, so as not to invoke the wrath of Godwin.
I don't agree with Reagan on every topic (although he had a great sense of humor), but on this, I agree that denying workers rights was a totalitarian tactic used by the Soviets to deny power to the people and concentrate it in the hands of the elite, and that the Soviets were hardly the first totalitarian regime to use that tactic.
Somewhat paradoxically, I kinda loathe the union I have had the most experience working with, and, perhaps tellingly, even the stewards I have spoken to of that union agree with me that it's utterly borked. I'm sure there are a fair number of individual unions that could use a good housecleaning. I'm sure there are a fair number of corporate environments that could similarly use a good housecleaning.
Vilifying every union because of the shenanigans of the worst offenders is as short-sighted as vilifying every corporate entity just because the news is full of examples of corporations playing fast and loose with the economy.
Neither entity, workers union or corporation, is inherently evil, just because some bad people get in places of authority and abuse the structures of both entities.
In a less selfish and immediate gratification-centric world, workers unions and corporate management would work hand in hand to improve morale, working conditions (particularly safety, not for any feelgood hippy reason of giving a crap if someone gets mangled or inhales enough asbestos to get blacklung, but because it's just flat-out expensive to deal with unecessary workplace injuries and the attendent lawsuits and medical expenses), efficiency and productivity, both recognizing that if the corporation isn't getting the job done, and doing so in a way that encourages the retention of skilled and enthusiastic employees who are incentivized to *want* the company to succeed, that the *long-term interests* of both board of directors and working class stiff are met.
Getting either faction to recognize the value of such long-term strategic goals is difficult, as too many are only gratified by short-term immediate gains, even if it comes at the expense of an unsustainable next quarter.
Sadly the mantra, both for individual employee and management, seems to be 'Cut everything you have to! Kill that golden goose! I want my big number payoff now!'
Anywho, on this topic, I'm with Reagan. Denying rights to tax-paying citizens is bad, and the sort of thing a nation that respects freedom and democracy should consider carefully.
@Daniel: Your comment about employees not wanting to be compared to the hardest workers makes me think of teachers that "curve" the grades for classes. In those cases the well performing students are harassed by the less performing students since they mess up the "curve".
@Set: You might be able to clear this up for me, or anyone else is also welcome to of course.
In my state, the legislature is currently working on passing a law that would make it so companies would not have to allow employees to send money to their union PACs directly from their paychecks. Unions are protesting, saying this is trying to stop them from having a political voice.
Now here is my question, how is making union members have to do direct withdraw from their savings accounts instead of from the paycheck silencing their political voices?
About this:
If this company was a Union company, I'd never have gotten the promotions, because somebody else with the most seniority would have gotten the position. yeah, I'm not big on unions.
To be honest, I've never known a union company (at least the ones I have worked for) to mandatorily give promotions based upon seniority.
Some places may have a bad habit of choosing according to that criteria, but choosing according to (unofficial) bad criteria is something that occurs everywhere and is not limited to unions. It is a sign of a poorly run business.
Most unions have jobs with pay that falls within a range.
When I worked for the Steelworkers Union at Buckeye Steel Castings, they had wage steps that started at 1 and would go all the way to twenty or thirty, I think. Differing jobs would be assigned a different range of pay (e.g. step eight to step thirteen) and hours worked while at that pay scale would build up until a threshold was reached and the pay raise would kick in automatically. But, this was not a promotion and after the top of the scale for that particular job was reached, there would be no further advancement in pay without promotion. Also, I knew of many people who would ask for in increase in step due to performance and they received it. In order to get a promotion, the job would need to be offcially announced within the workforce and "applications" taken. I saw many people with less experience pass those with more in that regard. For instance, there were the elctrician's helper, electrician, and technician classifications going from lowest to highest and it would take a promotion (open to all as previously stated) to cross from one to the other. Although not certain, I think that promotion into management actually removed one from the jurisdiction of the union altogether.
Now, I work for the federal government and it is a different pay system. It is unionized, not a closed shop (although the union will represent nonmembers for a price), but there is not collective bargaining involved if I am correct.
There are wage grade (WG), work leader (WL), wage supervisor (WS) and GS (gevernment salary, I believe), pay scales with the numbers ranging from one to fifteen or so for one and from to to 20 or so for others. A job is assigned a pay rate (e.g. WG8 or WG 12) that determines its pay rate. Each rate, has four or five "steps" and time in that rate automatically advances one to another step within that pay rate. Promotions from one job type to another, such as from a lesser paying job (electrical mechanic, WG 10) to a higher paying one (electronics mechanic, WG 11 or technician, GS9 or so), are done by announcing the job and going through the process of resumes and interviews. This is not seniority dependent, although experience is taken into account, and many newer exployees pass older ones in this regard. There are also promotions within "basically" the same type of job such as from worker to work leader or to supervisor. Those follow the same process as above.
My point is that although time at a position will result in automatic increases in pay, with a limit, I have never seen anywhere that promotions were based upon seniority and people with less time did not pass those with more with seniority. Granted, in some instances, unions can exert force and challenge promotions, but I don't think that happens very much at all.
Set, good post.
|
@The Thing From Beyond The Edge: I wish I had had your experiences, I probably would have a more favorable opinion of unions. As it is, I see them as being a nuisance, based on admittedly limited experience, and quite possibly with poorly handled/run Unions.
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill.
Unions are imperfect, but the alternative is worse.
The wages paid to the workers is based on what the owners believe the worker is worth, based on the value of the skills he provides.
The same people who decry "class warfare" when you question CEO salaries cry about overpaid Union workers.
When the question of returning taxes on people making over 250,000 dollars a year to 1990 levels, they screamed it would destroy the economy.
But pay-cuts and lay-offs for those making far less are good for the economy.
Full disclosure, I am a state worker. I've been furloughed for an average of 9 days a year for the last two years. While I'm not at real risk of layoff at this point, many others are. And many quality people in important jobs have been let go.
I get that the Union is imperfect. I really do. I think mediocrity and even failure can be overly protected by Unions, and that is a real problem. But it is also a real problem that the higher paid managerial staff are rarely laid off, while the people actually producing outcomes are considered "The problem" in the budget.
Unions are flawed. But, like democracy, the alternative is far, far worse. And depending on the good will of employers to do right by the workers is just ridiculous.
As the OP stated, we wouldn't have any benefits at all if not for collective bargaining. People were literally killed by employers trying to get the rights we take for granted.
Unions are flawed. But, like democracy, the alternative is far, far worse. And depending on the good will of employers to do right by the workers is just ridiculous.
Many people work in jobs without unions. And many of those people are not treaded into the ground by their employers.
How many of the Paizo staff are in a union?
|
|
Unions are flawed. But, like democracy, the alternative is far, far worse. And depending on the good will of employers to do right by the workers is just ridiculous.Many people work in jobs without unions. And many of those people are not treaded into the ground by their employers.
How many of the Paizo staff are in a union?
Yes. Because of labor laws. Which came into effect because of unions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law
The same logic would dictate that because many people aren't victims of crime, why do we need police?
Unions are flawed. But, like democracy, the alternative is far, far worse. And depending on the good will of employers to do right by the workers is just ridiculous.Many people work in jobs without unions. And many of those people are not treaded into the ground by their employers.
How many of the Paizo staff are in a union?
Yes. Because of labor laws. Which came into effect because of unions.
The same logic would dictate that because many people aren't victims of crime, why do we need police?
So the unions are the cops in your analogy?
I think a better analogy would be to say that since many people are not victims, then why would we need to organize them into posses or militias.
Also the statement I was quoting referred to the present tense, not the past tense.
Unions are flawed. But, like democracy, the alternative is far, far worse. And depending on the good will of employers to do right by the workers is just ridiculous.Many people work in jobs without unions. And many of those people are not treaded into the ground by their employers.
How many of the Paizo staff are in a union?
Yes. Because of labor laws. Which came into effect because of unions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law
The same logic would dictate that because many people aren't victims of crime, why do we need police?
Are you arguing that no employer would ever treat their employees fairly if it wasn't for labor unions and labor laws?
Who gets to decide what fairly is?
Do you think US safety and labor laws make a significant difference in the real world?
|
|
Unions are flawed. But, like democracy, the alternative is far, far worse. And depending on the good will of employers to do right by the workers is just ridiculous.Many people work in jobs without unions. And many of those people are not treaded into the ground by their employers.
How many of the Paizo staff are in a union?
Yes. Because of labor laws. Which came into effect because of unions.
The same logic would dictate that because many people aren't victims of crime, why do we need police?
So the unions are the cops in your analogy?
I think a better analogy would be to say that since many people are not victims, then why would we need to organize them into posses or militias.
Also the statement I was quoting referred to the present tense, not the past tense.
I wonder if you would use the same analogy regarding militias if we were discussing gun control...but I digress.
What is a Union, at root. It is the workers pooling their value to collectively bargain with management. Why? Because if they work together they can get better benefits, salaries, etc...and when they try to bargain as individuals they are at a disadvantage relative to management.
One person off the line is an inconvenience easily overcome by adding work to the existing staff. The entire line off is something you have to deal with.
Management makes contractual agreements with workers for pay, presumably because management believes they can pay the amount they contractually agreed to and make a profit. This is the job of management. And so the people who actually produce the goods and services get paid what is the value management feels they can pay and still make a profit.
Where is the accountability to management for offering bad contracts? I mean, shouldn't you expect the highest paid employees in the company to be able to perform their job of assessing the value of employees?
If you work for a small company, like Paizo for example, you don't need a union. Everyone is able to have a one on one discussion with the manager, and everyone is functionally the equivalent to an agency head at a large corporation. You can't plug and play in a small business, each employee fills a larger role, as a portion of the company.
But if Paizo offers Jason a ridiculous contract for millions of dollars, and then the gaming market crashes, Jason is still going to want his millions of dollars. He might decide to negotiate, but Paizo is expected to pay him what they agreed on. Jason is a little union in and of himself, relative to the size of the company.
What is going on now is that managers did a horrible job, in a number of fields. They offered contracts that they now cannot fulfill.
Who is at fault for that?
My Union offered concessions in exchange for avoiding layoffs, as most Unions have. But you act as if managers are innocent victims in all of this.
The people making the most money have failed at the primary job they have been assigned.
Look at other countries without Unions, or our own country before unions came into existence. Or even at fields to unskilled to unionize.
Even in non-union shops, half the concessions come when they threaten to unionize if demands aren't met.
Like I said, Unions are horribly flawed. They are prone to corruptions and rewarding mediocrity.
The alternative is still much, much, worse.
|
|
Unions are flawed. But, like democracy, the alternative is far, far worse. And depending on the good will of employers to do right by the workers is just ridiculous.Many people work in jobs without unions. And many of those people are not treaded into the ground by their employers.
How many of the Paizo staff are in a union?
Yes. Because of labor laws. Which came into effect because of unions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law
The same logic would dictate that because many people aren't victims of crime, why do we need police?
Are you arguing that no employer would ever treat their employees fairly if it wasn't for labor unions and labor laws?
Who gets to decide what fairly is?
Do you think US safety and labor laws make a significant difference in the real world?
I can tell you employers didn't treat their employees fairly prior to labor unions.
Some did. Generally smaller businesses with more personal connections to labor between ownership and workers treat employees better. In large corporations, where there is no personal connection between workers and labor it's generally worse.
Why?
Because you make more money paying your employees less money and giving them less benefits.
But if you believe in the altruism of the free market, might I direct you to...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecropper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour
To start.
|
|
Do you think US safety and labor laws make a significant difference in the real world?
It would certainly make an interesting argument that nations, like China, that forbid safety and labor laws, and quash any attempt at citizens organizing to have power separate from those benevolently handed down from their wise and caring leaders, are somehow 'more American' or would be better than the choices that have been made here in America.
Perhaps, but I'm fairly sure that the mythical "free market" is not where the solutions can be trusted to come from.
I think the status quo is entirely broken, but we have very different ideas about how to fix it.
And I don't think that increasing the power, cost and invasiveness of a corrupt and incompetent government is where the solutions can be trusted to come from.
At least trade unions can be voluntary associations of people.
Do you think US safety and labor laws make a significant difference in the real world?It would certainly make an interesting argument that nations, like China, that forbid safety and labor laws, and quash any attempt at citizens organizing to have power separate from those benevolently handed down from their wise and caring leaders, are somehow 'more American' or would be better than the choices that have been made here in America.
Are you under the impression that the PRC has no safety or environmental regulation? My understanding is the opposite. The state effectively owns everything and everyone. How much more regulation could you want?
EDIT: This not to suggest the the PRC is doing a good job.
Unions are flawed. But, like democracy, the alternative is far, far worse. And depending on the good will of employers to do right by the workers is just ridiculous.Many people work in jobs without unions. And many of those people are not treaded into the ground by their employers.
How many of the Paizo staff are in a union?
Yes. Because of labor laws. Which came into effect because of unions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law
The same logic would dictate that because many people aren't victims of crime, why do we need police?
Are you arguing that no employer would ever treat their employees fairly if it wasn't for labor unions and labor laws?
Who gets to decide what fairly is?
Do you think US safety and labor laws make a significant difference in the real world?
I can tell you employers didn't treat their employees fairly prior to labor unions.
Some did. Generally smaller businesses with more personal connections to labor between ownership and workers treat employees better. In large corporations, where there is no personal connection between workers and labor it's generally worse.
Why?
Because you make more money paying your employees less money and giving them less benefits.
But if you believe in the altruism of the free market, might I direct you to...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecropper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labourTo start.
I'm aware that workers haven't always been treated well, but in spite of the tens of billions of dollars that just the federal government spends every year on things like the department of labor we still don't live in some workers paradise. How much more government money and control would it take for labor to be treated fairly, or should everyone who is not management just organize? Would the current level of government be adequate in that case? What would you do about those who don't want to be in a union?
I have no issue with voluntary association. I think that's a basic human right, but should people be forced into unions for the greater good? Should management be forced by the state to bargain if they are not so inclined?
Not really. At heart, a Union is a good idea, workers coming together to present a unified front to big businesses, ensure they are adequately protected from workplace harm and mis-management and to ensure everyone starts off from the same page.
Things go rapidly downhill when you start adding people to that ideal.
Where I live in Australia, I have the great misfortune of living smack dab between two militantly pro-Union regions. Was in Fremantle once when the warfies decided they wanted to go on strike, having lunch with a mate of mine (we'll call him Bruce) who worked as a truckie whom often took cargo from the docks to the next step in the equation. When I asked him what the deal was, it was that the CMFEU ( I think that's their acronym ) was protesting about one of their 'rights', a break of 10 minutes or so, being revoked or removed by one employer because too many people were going well over the break and wasting the time and money of the employer.
Unfortunately for us, a couple of the warfies had popped into the pub to have a beer before us, and one overheard. As Bruce was explaining to me the other shenanigans that went down at that part of town, including items that would go missing from the sea-containers and the pressure to join a Union even if you didn't want to, and the consequences of not joining, one of the warfies wandered over, stubbie in hand, and smashed it across the back of Bruce's head, cutting him open to the bone and then spitting on him, calling him a scab, before walking back to the bar.
Nobody helped. Nobody ejected this thug and his mates. Nobody called the police and nobody said a damn thing, and nobody would look me in the eye when I asked for help. I had to drive my friend to the nearest hospital, blood pouring out of his injury, and then talk to the police for close to an hour before the senior officer said "Sunshine, even if we catch the guy, his mates will come up with alibis. Just get your friend patched up and go home."
I responded that it wasn't fair, and that as a police officer, he shouldn't give up on the matter. I was informed that Fremantle was a Union town, and that even if they could nail the guy to the wall, all he'd get would be a minor offence at best and then there would be 'payback' on both myself and Bruce. They had seen it before and they would see it again, and so long as the Union maintained its code of silence, there wasn't a damn thing the Police could do without pissing off the majority of the Union's members over what they would see as 'justice' on a 'scab'. It's been seven years since that day, and still I feel such rage that rather than coming over to say 'that's not right', the Warfies, and by dint of their inaction, the people in that not one person would so much as call the police for me or even help me get Bruce something to place ontop of the wound, considered themselves justified in their assault.
Are all Unions like this? Are there not similar people in big business and private enterprises who have not done similar and worse? Yes, yes there is! But my biggest beef with the Union movement is their willingness to appoint thugs and standover men as the leaders of their groups, and then stand behind these animals as they blackmail businesses and commit abuse, extortion, standover tactics and outright assault against people who will not or do not want to sign up to the Union.
I've stood up to the militant unions several times when they forced their way into the Workshop I am employed at and slapped down forms for us to join the Misc Workers Union, forcing their way past the boss and into the staff-only section. I've endured the abuse hurled my way when I refused, I've reported them to the police when I've gone out to find my car's windows all smashed in, urine and s#%$ all through the car's interior and the words 'Scab' and 'Maggot' scratched into the bonnet and roof, I've fought them in court for slander when they marched back into the shop and called me a 'f~%$&*' for going to the police and put restraining orders on them after one leaned across the counter and punched me in the face. I've had my house vandalized, been physically assaulted in three separate occasions, one of which involved me having to go to the local emergency ward to have a 5 centimeter piece of glass removed from the back of my neck when one of the local Union-Rowdies decided he was going to 'teach the Scab a lesson'. And then He, his mates and the local official all lied under oath in court and due to the owner of the establishment not having any cameras opperating in the location I was blind-sided by the thug, they got off with a warning. A Warning. That shard missed a major artery by less than a centimeter and they got off with a warning.
Unions need to be slapped down hard, muzzled and reminded that they represent a choice, not a g&@!!*n State Religion. They do not exist to force, usually through intimidation, workers to sign up, although I do agree that a Union based upon co-operative bargaining should be able to get better results for their members than an individual working on their own, unless said individual can offer more than the average Unionist.
Union officials should be ploughing the surplus money from their members towards things other than junkets, expensive wage-packets and dinners, such as state of the art nursing homes for their members, so that at the end of their working lives, the Unionists don't have to worry about what will happen to them in their old age. Other uses for the funds could be slush funds for the legal arena when the companies do try to really screw over their employees, not when the Union's members get burned for being slack bastards.
I'm a tradesman, a fully quallified, classically trained Jeweller. Many of my friends got out of High School at year twelve and rather than go to University, we went to TAFE and got Trades. Very few of us, including the plumbers, electricians and brickies, joined the Unions associated with our Trades out of a dislike of the thuggish stand-over tactics they employed against their Employers, and have suffered the backlash for standing by our principals.
Unions will get the respect they deserve, and for most of the Unions I've encountered, that's less respect than what I scrape off the underside of my boot.
|
|
At their heart unions are a method to strong arm and blackmail employers with threat of financial loss.
As opposed to to employers paying the least wages and benefits possible so that they can acquire the most financial gain.
It's called negotiation.
Employers don't make money without workers. Workers are the ones who produce the products and services. Employers, after a business grows to a certain level, are in charge of hiring employees and deciding what wage is appropriate for the skills they deliver. If they don't want to pay the wage, they need to find others with the skill set.
It isn't like the union employees don't lose if the business fails. Both sides want the business to succeed. But both sides want as much of the profit as they can get.
Somehow you find this trait altruistic for the employer, but to be blackmail for the employee.
If an employer says to the union "You all need to take a pay cut or I am laying people off" by your logic, isn't that also blackmail?
Stupidly, if Unions came across less Mafia Tactics and Employers took a less Third-World approach to employment conditions, we'd all be a lot happier, more productive and have a hell of a lot more loyalty to our places of work.
Still, Unions do tend to take a big steaming dump on the 'survival of the fittest' in the work-place, ie support even the idiots who should never have been employed, the Survival of the Fittest does tend to weed out the lazy, the incompetent and those who won't work as a team. Lost count of the idjits who came to work with excellent credentials but couldn't work under somebody else without having a episode in front of the customers or trying to 'turn' the other staff against that person.
The other side of that argument is Employers who go to heavily into that mind-set. Employees need to know that every day will not be a dog-eat-dog situation, that there is support from the boss and that their co-workers will not stab them in the back. Pay your staff reasonably for their hours, give them their award rates per hour, sick leave and the like, and then offer them better pay or more time off if they're willing to work longer hours or do other things at work. [sarcasm]Surprisingly [/sarcasm] most people will go the extra mile if you are willing to do the same. But obviously, in writing that they have to do X to get +Cash/Leave/Whatever.
|
|
Stupidly, if Unions came across less Mafia Tactics and Employers took a less Third-World approach to employment conditions, we'd all be a lot happier, more productive and have a hell of a lot more loyalty to our places of work.
Still, Unions do tend to take a big steaming dump on the 'survival of the fittest' in the work-place, ie support even the idiots who should never have been employed, the Survival of the Fittest does tend to weed out the lazy, the incompetent and those who won't work as a team. Lost count of the idjits who came to work with excellent credentials but couldn't work under somebody else without having a episode in front of the customers or trying to 'turn' the other staff against that person.
The other side of that argument is Employers who go to heavily into that mind-set. Employees need to know that every day will not be a dog-eat-dog situation, that there is support from the boss and that their co-workers will not stab them in the back. Pay your staff reasonably for their hours, give them their award rates per hour, sick leave and the like, and then offer them better pay or more time off if they're willing to work longer hours or do other things at work. [sarcasm]Surprisingly [/sarcasm] most people will go the extra mile if you are willing to do the same. But obviously, in writing that they have to do X to get +Cash/Leave/Whatever.
I agree. Like I said above, unions are horribly flawed ways to handle things, but they are far better than the alternative.
When they system rewards employers who take advantage of employees, the only way employees can have leverage is to speak with one voice.
I wish people were all nice to each other. But this is the real world.
|
|
The only time I've ever seen a slowdown in the workplace, the company, a printing company, let go of 50% of the salaried managerial staff, approximately 12 individuals. Then to further cut expenses in the long run, they offered a severence package to all non-salaried employees in which they would receive 3 weeks pay for every year they had been with the company. Additionally, they would continue have company paid medical expenses for another 6 months AND they could file for unemployment, which the company would not nor did not fight. The company hadn't given any raises - merit/time on job - for 4 years at this point and was doing everything possible to stay a float. The company was non-union and did did everything possible in a very honest fashion, as far as I could tell, to dissuade the place from becoming a union shop. Everytime there was talk of unionizing, the HR Manager would stress that all a company had to do with a Union is have discussions in 'good faith'. I have no problems going without raises if it means I have employment. Hell, I worked without medical benefits for 10 years, and would do so again if it meant a choice between having a job and not having one - and yes, I do have a family, wife and three kids.
Printing is tough, as it is an industry in trouble. As someone in Paizo pointed out in another thread as to why they use oversea printers, it is cheaper to have it done on the other side of the world and shipped here than to have it done here.
I worked without health care for about 3 years, leaving a job with a fortune 500 company that had good benefits and health care to pursue something I actually wanted to do for a living. That company was non-union and would give us the "please don't unionize" speech every few months, as the warehouse staff was always threatening to organize.
But it was the threat to organize that made management give some concessions they wouldn't otherwise.
It is the job of management to hire good staff and try to keep wages and benefits at a level where they are still be able to be profitable. If they fail to do that, they failed to do the job for which they are paid to do. Generally higher paid, I might add.
Interesting article relevant to the discussion...
The way the GOP has rammed their legislation through is just very frightening. Whether you support unions or not, the Republicans showed complete disregard for the democratic process. I hope the legislation is declared void. I think all Americans (and Canadians, for that matter) should be very worried...
The way the GOP has rammed their legislation through is just very frightening. Whether you support unions or not, the Republicans showed complete disregard for the democratic process. I hope the legislation is declared void. I think all Americans (and Canadians, for that matter) should be very worried...
At least the way the Republicans forced the bill through striped away the lie that geting rid of collective bargaining rights had anything to do with balancing the budget.
The way the GOP has rammed their legislation through is just very frightening. Whether you support unions or not, the Republicans showed complete disregard for the democratic process. I hope the legislation is declared void. I think all Americans (and Canadians, for that matter) should be very worried...
I dont think it was just republicans who showed complete disregard to the democratic process in this case. After all, if the democratic senators had bothered to show up, it would have been put to a full vote.
EDIT: I am not a republican, but I have no problem with this. A Public Service union uses its dues money to get a friendly politician elected, then bargains with said friendly politician. Its a conflict of interest. I think a compromise could have been reached (Like say, collective bargaining with a neutral mediator), but in order to compromise, you kinda have to at least show up.
|
EDIT: I am not a republican, but I have no problem with this. A Public Service union uses its dues money to get a friendly politician elected, then bargains with said friendly politician. Its a conflict of interest. I think a compromise could have been reached (Like say, collective bargaining with a neutral mediator), but in order to compromise, you kinda have to at least show up.
Of course this is all political, unions fund democrats and tell the members to vote for them. They are NOT for the workers, they are a political machine. I am not a republican either but i will be damned if my money would be taken from me to fund a politician i do not support under the LIE that it is for my own good.
Last i knew this applied to people working for the gov. don't like it find another job
Great idea, all the teachers in WI. should quit and get jobs at private schools. Wait that won't work, there's not enough private school to hire them all. I guess the ones that can't get hired will have to find other private sector jobs like pumping gas or waiting tables. All the teachers quiting won't hurt WI anyway after all the only kids that need education are the ones whose parents can afford to send them to private schools.
|
|
Last i knew this applied to people working for the gov. don't like it find another jobGreat idea, all the teachers in WI. should quit and get jobs at private schools. Wait that won't work, there's not enough private school to hire them all. I guess the ones that can't get hired will have to find other private sector jobs like pumping gas or waiting tables. All the teachers quiting won't hurt WI anyway after all the only kids that need education are the ones whose parents can afford to send them to private schools.
And teachers that don't want to make demands that break the state will take their place.
And if they do the job right they will succeed and without union backing the bad ones will get fired too. Making for better schools when they have some incentive to DO the job
I love people who buy into the myth that teachers make tons of money, and get awesome bennies, and only work part time. And are responsible for breaking the states budget.
The Wisconsin Republican party needs to be slapped down for what they pulled. They used a non-fiscal ploy to pass a fiscal plan. Even they admit it.
Which couldn't have been done had the Dems been there to do their job.
Great idea, all the teachers in WI. should quit and get jobs at private schools. Wait that won't work, there's not enough private school to hire them all.
If they perform, they'll keep their jobs in a private school.
I guess the ones that can't get hired will have to find other private sector jobs like pumping gas or waiting tables.
Wow. So a teacher's skillset is equivalent to flipping burgers?
All the teachers quiting won't hurt WI anyway after all the only kids that need education are the ones whose parents can afford to send them to private schools.
Vouchers.