Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I don't see that happening in the day and age that we're in. Maybe in developing companies, but not in a market place where your competing not only for the best people, but the best public image working towards recruiting and building your company.
On the second part. I have trouble seeing a Union agreement as being a suicide pact, and that's what the agreements in the auto industry that were negotiated in better economic times is. Unions remove a lot of the abilities for companies to show any kind of agility in the market place. The big three can't adapt to the credit crunch and on coming recession unless the union agreement allows them to renegotiate wages and employment levels until the crisis passes.
|
I don't disagree with you. Without a doubt unions make things tough for companies.That is where a union needs to see the writing on the wall, be flexible and work with the company.
UAW and CAW are prime examples of unions who will follow the Air Traffic Controller's Union into infamy(when Reagan fired all of them, way back), IMO. They will go down screaming, "We won't budge" and in 5 years time all their members will be working elsewhere.
There is definitely some ying and yang to unions. On one hand they protect the workers from dicks (manager, principal, etc...) who will trash people because they can, promote a safe working environment, improve the negotiation footing of the small guy. ( I refuse to say working class...that is so 1930's)
On the other they promote inefficiency, protect slackers, and prevent organisational flexibility.
BTW： People have been making really good points on this topic on BOTH sides!