Union Propaganda...amusing

[I-Hate-Hulse]

A little flash game that the Communications Workers of America put together to edumacate their members....

Link

I love how unions categorically brand management as evil and out to get you. I admit that happens sometimes but turning them into mortal adversaries is not the way to go IMHO (ahem....Goodenow). I love how they gloss over the bad parts about unions - being trapped in roles, difficulties in starting out and advancement, incompetent co-workers not being fired.

I''d like to see the NHLPA version of this SeeNSay....

[Agamemnon]

Apparently its also easy to ignore the good parts about unions...

[moon]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 13 2005, 03:09 PM
Apparently its also easy to ignore the good parts about unions...

Of course it is as there are so very few good things about unions

[Displaced Flames fan]

I've seen both sides of the coin.

I had an experience with a fortune 500 company where the union was counterproductive and hung it's junior membership out to dry for the gain of its senior membership. I was initially a union member, but after the first contract negotiation (and subsequent layoff) I did NOT rejoin the union when I was called back.

Now I'm in a union that is prohibited by law from striking...so there is no real power there....and I can tell you that without the union I'd have a heart attack from the stress that management would inflict.

There are good and bad points to unions. I'm glad I have one representing me now though.

[Flame On]

Of course it is as there are so very few good things about unions
Conversely there's very few good things about managers. In my experience many of them have been through some sort of management program which gives them no hands on skills at all. Anyway, the union I'm in at the moment; like Dis was saying; has little bite. But what bite it has is needed due to an incredible lack of competence and vision by "manage"ment.

[Cowperson]

A rule you can count on:

"Bad management causes strong unions." Ergo Bob Goodenow succeeding the owners patsy Alan Eagleson.

Then again, strong unions can also cause stronger management - Owners give Gary Bettman a 75% veto in the CBA negotiation, thereby negating Goodenow's tactic of freezing small markets while grouping medium and larger markets together.

The balancing act.

Cowperson

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Jan 14 2005, 04:33 AM
I've seen both sides of the coin.

I had an experience with a fortune 500 company where the union was counterproductive and hung it's junior membership out to dry for the gain of its senior membership. I was initially a union member, but after the first contract negotiation (and subsequent layoff) I did NOT rejoin the union when I was called back.

Now I'm in a union that is prohibited by law from striking...so there is no real power there....and I can tell you that without the union I'd have a heart attack from the stress that management would inflict.

There are good and bad points to unions. I'm glad I have one representing me now though.

That is pretty much what unions can do. They can help one at the expense of someone else (and that involves replacement workers who are hurt the most).

[Looger]

all i know is, here in bc there is more than one "union-only" bathroom i have seen on millsites.

i'm not going to make a comment that paints all management or all unions with a broad stroke, that is quite idiotic.

but the unions at this place and time are quite drunk on power and literally use fear tactics and hate-mongering.

oh and the lies. good god, the union radio announcements made here sound like bad soviet propoganda dfrom the 50s.

but hey, without unions pushing wages for plug-work through the roof, my copmpany wouldn't have as much work installing machinery that TAKES THEIR JOBS AWAY.

so go unions!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

The only real experience I have with unions was when my sister joined one (Air traffic controllers). They aren't allowed to strike, so the only job action they can take is to stop training the new members (My sister). So my sister, who is a member of the union (and isn't the whole idea behind a union that all members are equal?) ended up not working for almost 6 months. Kinda reminds me of the NHLPA. Screw the rookies, we want a good deal for us.

[Agamemnon]

Man, where are the 19th century capitalists now? They'd have had a hey-day w/ this crowd!

Break the Unions! Send in the Strikebusters!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Hey,
I think unions can serve their purpose and in the early days they were very important. But now I think most unions are not nearly as benevolent as they were in the past. Times have changed for the better, but I believe unions have changed for the worse.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 14 2005, 11:17 AM
Man, where are the 19th century capitalists now? They'd have had a hey-day w/ this crowd!

Break the Unions! Send in the Strikebusters!

trying to compare the need for unions in the 19th century to now is an absolutely joke.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Table 5+Jan 14 2005, 07:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Table 5 @ Jan 14 2005, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Jan 14 2005, 11:17 AM
Man, where are the 19th century capitalists now? They'd have had a hey-day w/ this crowd!

Break the Unions! Send in the Strikebusters!

trying to compare the need for unions in the 19th century to now is an absolutely joke.[/b][/quote]
Spending time criticizing Unions and not Management (Corporate Malevolence) is a joke.

Lots of jokes going around.

[AvengeR]

Unions are totally useless. I have had talks with a guy who works with big and small companies to help them be more efficient and less wasteful. He has been hired by companies like Chrysler, Ford, IBM. He said that of every single company he has dealt with, 100% of the time when a union is put into place, the productivity drops enormously. He noticed emplyees being lazy and doing just the minimal amount.

At Chrysler, they want to implement new robots so that they can do a model changeover in a couple of minutes, like they do at Toyota and Honda. Currently, it takes them 6-8 hours to change to a new model. But the union said that they could not do that cause it would cause loss of some jobs. They also wanted to implement the same procedure as the Japanese automakers, by giving workers on the assembly line the ability to stop the assembly line if they see any problems. The unsion squashed that idea too. So the union would rather the worker let a problem go by and have it be discovered near the end of the assembly process so they have to waste time going all the way back to find out where the problem orginated. What kind of union would rather save a few jobs than to see the company be more productive and improve its quality, and therefore make more profits?

Why is it that of the big 3 domestic automakers, the cars that are built in Canada/US have the most defect rates. Whereas, the ones built in Mexico (no unions), have the best quality? It has nothing to do with them having better equipment or being Mexican, it's because there is no union and they have a great working environment.

The guy I talked to said he noticed a big difference when observing Toyota workers and those from the Big 3. The Toyota workers too care and pride in what they did. The unionized workers couldn't give a damn, they jsut did their task and if they can clearly see a defect or problem, they ignore it and pass it on to the next person.

Unions should only have the ability to negotiate wages and working conditions and hours. They should not be able to decide who gets fired, what new equipment or manufacturing process gets implemented and what plant gets closed or not.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 14 2005, 02:42 PM
Spending time criticizing Unions and not Management (Corporate Malevolence) is a joke.

Lots of jokes going around.

why should unions not be held accountable? They have become the same overfed pigs that their management brethren where always accused of. Personally, I think both management and unions can be extremely painful to stomach in many instances. But just because unions hide behind this brotherly-love mantra doesnt make them any less evil.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Table 5+Jan 14 2005, 08:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Table 5 @ Jan 14 2005, 08:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Jan 14 2005, 02:42 PM
Spending time criticizing Unions and not Management (Corporate Malevolence) is a joke.

Lots of jokes going around.

why should unions not be held accountable? They have become the same overfed pigs that their management brethren where always accused of. Personally, I think both management and unions can be extremely painful to stomach in many instances. But just because unions hide behind this brotherly-love mantra doesnt make them any less evil.[/b][/quote]
Why should Unions be held accountable when so often management isn't? Unions are responsible for lack of productivity and responsibility? Boo hoo, that's nothing compared to 'Corporate (lack of) Responsibility'.

Why is being lazy worse than exploiting foreign labour or making off w/ the company's resources via "Golden Handshake" retirement/termination packages?

Don't get me wrong, innefficient Unions that screw over their own companies and members are probably not the best intstitutions these days. My peeve is that this board specifically spends a lot more time bitching about workers and their laziness than Corporate ethics and exploitation. If 'both sides can be extremely painful to stomach', where's the anti-management talk? I don't see an 'equal' distribution of blame here, I see it falling squarely on Union shoulders.

I guess that's a sign of the place/time we live.

[octothorp]

Yeah, think it's a completely unfair generalization to suggest that laziness is the result of union involvement in industries. I've never worked a unionized job in my life, and I'm as lazy as any senior level north-american auto-worker.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Why should Unions be held accountable when so often management isn't? Unions are responsible for lack of productivity and responsibility? Boo hoo, that's nothing compared to 'Corporate (lack of) Responsibility'.

If the company is public, management most certainly should be responsible. They in turn would report to the Board of Directors who in turn could toss management if they deem performance to be less than satisfactory.

My peeve is that this board specifically spends a lot more time bitching about workers and their laziness than Corporate ethics and exploitation.

I think there's a fundamental difference in Alberta due to the business culture here. There's the realization on behalf of most employees here that if the company is sucessful, so will I. (I understand this difference doesn't always exist though) Rather than trying to hide behind rules most people are likely to just change jobs as the economy is good enough to do so.

Why do we slag unions more than management? It's think it's because of their nature and role in business. There's a greater likelyhood you'll find an "outstanding" management team that still respects it's workers than you'll find an outstanding "union" that's acutually helped the business, not just stay out of the way. Treat employees right and there's no need for a union.

I've spent a lot of time working with government organizations who are all unionized and the level of waste and inefficiency is incredible. I'm convinced it's the reason why our government is so wasteful and inefficient. When everything is locked into job roles and you may only do what's specified - and NO more - where's the incentive to be innovative and efficient?

I got into an argument with someone a few months back about the CHR hiring non union staff to clean its facilities. The CHR was paying about $22 / hr to their staff but could get cheaper non union staff. This other person thought it was totally wrong to do that - that you needed to think about their families and how they had to feed them. While I understand the human side of them, I'm also thinking that the extra dollars could be used to open up a bed or MRI, rather than scrubbing floors (assuming both union and non-union staff do the same quality of job.

Once I almost took a job in a unionized environment (in an office no less) and was told that I had to leave immediately at 5:00pm. Any longer than that and my "shop steward" (what is this 1940?) would report me. I believe in getting the task done, but wouldn't be allowed to do so in that type of environment.

Talk to any new grad teacher right now and they'll tell you how frusturating it is to not be able to land a position when they're brimming with energy and new ideas, while seeing burnt out incompetent teachers that ought to be fired but aren't due to union seniority.

I do agree that unions do have a place, and that's with repect to physical saftey. If it's not a safe work environment then yes, I do believe they reserve the right for group decisions. But as someone pointed out, the ability to modernize and make the company more profitable shouldn't be held up by the unions.

The NHLPA certainly isn't help to present unions in a good light either, nor illustrate how unions are can be anything other than an obstacle to management.

[RougeUnderoos]

The worst union of them all is the Canada Post union. Who is to blame for that?

The pipefitters local union is pretty good. I was a longtime employee (1 month) one summer and from my vast experience the union members and management were both raking it in. Even with Hitler as a foreman things went well, but if that union wasn't there those bas**rds would make you work after you cut your hand off. Then the good folks at WCB would give you $50 and cut you loose if you refuse to go back to the same place.

[Agamemnon]

If the company is public, management most certainly should be responsible. They in turn would report to the Board of Directors who in turn could toss management if they deem performance to be less than satisfactory.

Right, thats the technical, official definition. Just like the technical, official definition of a Union would be that it exists to prevent management abuse of employees, provide a safe work environment, and generally ensure non-management welfare. Both definitions sound great. I'd suggest both work differently in practise. We can't use one definition and throw the other out the window for convenience.

I think there's a fundamental difference in Alberta due to the business culture here. There's the realization on behalf of most employees here that if the company is sucessful, so will I. (I understand this difference doesn't always exist though) Rather than trying to hide behind rules most people are likely to just change jobs as the economy is good enough to do so.

I do too, thats why I made the time/place comment. Walmart is doing pretty good, non-union environment, massive amounts of worker resentment/complaints. I think Wal-Mart shut down one of its locations in Quebec when they voted to unionize (though i don't recall what came of that issue). Wal-Mart pays minimun wage, and employs hundreds (or thousands) of illegal employees, as is evidenced by the Immigration sweep of several US locations last year.

I guess I can see how some unions have abused their position, but I just can't dwell on that in comparison to massive management abuse of the world, let alone their own workers. Golden Parachutes, Enron style accounting, and profit-before-people are worse offences (imo) than laziness and lack of productivity.