Let's Talk Unions again [Split]

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by Poison

Oh you have recourse, but let me know how that works out for you if the person defending you has no idea about your job or whats required to do it.

They can eat whatever they want, not at my expense however.

Who said anything about it being a cake walk?
Im arguing they should not take money out of my pocket for themselves because there is nothing forcing them to give back to the "front line"

so are if you were working for the big three would you accept a 25% wage roll back if it was accross all employees, including mgt?

[Bobblehead]

Economics of Trade Unionism.

Simply put, the demand curve of the union and the demand curve of the employer never meet.

I sort of view unionism as having a place, but for quite a while they have had too much power and the businesses who capitulated to union demands have lost the flexibility to react to market conditions.

Do unions have a purpose? I think so.
Have they strayed from what I think their purpose should be? I think so.

Unions have the right to strike for higher wages. I have no issues with that, it is simply a group using their bargaining power. As people on CP say, don't buy paper 'X' as long as writer 'X' is working there. That is also working as a collective, axcept that unions organize to try and prevent the "free rider" principle. Where I think Unions have fubar'ed is an area many of the anti-union people in this thread have mentioned. Unions protect bad workers. They kind of have no choice - both bad and good workers pay their dues (which I see as another level of taxes), so unions must support those who pay their bills. But by protecting bad workers, this is a dis-incentive to the good workers. Which is bad for the business, etc.

And yes, everyone's wages and job conditions are bumped up by unions. As evidenced by:

Originally Posted by Sample00

and from one small business owner to another, I wish you nothing but success. Just be careful if your employees try to unionize. Pay them a fair wage, treat them with respect and you wont ever have to deal with a union.

So while I personally think unions such as the UAW/CAW are killing themselves as well as the Big 3, I'm not sure I blame them for thinking that GM is "crying wolf" about being poor when you see headlines like this one today:

GM and Chrysler LLC are seeking 14 billion U.S. dollars in emergency aid from the U.S. government to keep operating through the first quarter. However, Kevin Wale, president and managing director of GM China, expressed his confidence in GM's future development in China. "GM will not slow down its development in China despite the tough times", Wale said.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...t_10520950.htm

So is the bailout simply helping GM move jobs to China? Not that the UAW is helping themselves by pricing themselves out of the market, but perhaps they are correct in smelling a rat.

[KTrain]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Ehhh, depends what you do. I do a lot of work in social media and keep track of discussions Calgarians are having. Calgarypuck is a surprisingly good source.

Aren't you skewing your "research" by participating in the discussion?

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Thats a pretty blanketing statement considering I personally comprise 50% of my companies output at this time of year (less lease construction in winter obviously), despite being 1 of 18 employees on for the Winter Season.

I'm just fast, so I have time for internets.

You could be doing so much more for your company without posting while you work. 60%. 70%. The percentages could be endless.

[metallicat]

Wow, did this thread actually get started because of my being late confession?

I would have been all over this discussion, but I was too busy working hard (or hardly working) at my unionized place of employment.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Wow, did this thread actually get started because of my being late confession?

I would have been all over this discussion, but I was too busy working hard (or hardly working) at my unionized place of employment.

no, it grew from the lay off thread

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

no, it grew from the lay off thread

Yeah, I just looked into that thread and saw some of the discussion.

For what it's worth, and I'm not going to get into this thread now, I hate unions and I work in such an environment. I hate that you can't get rid of crappy employees, I hate that seniority is the #1 issue when it comes to new jobs and promotions, and I hate the battles between union and management.

[Poison]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

so are if you were working for the big three would you accept a 25% wage roll back if it was accross all employees, including mgt?

Yes i would, as long as it was proven that it was indeed across ALL management as well.
Alot of things are said and promised and rarely followed through upon when it comes to wage cuts for everyone....

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by KTrain

You could be doing so much more for your company without posting while you work. 60%. 70%. The percentages could be endless.

Actually, no.

I have a limited volume of work everyday that is designated to me.

Once I have completed this volume, I request others (if it is available).

Being winter, there is none more available, and as such, I have time to spend perusing the internet until more work becomes available.

My workload is determined by Alberta's construction industry. When they slowdown, I slowdown.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by KTrain

Aren't you skewing your "research" by participating in the discussion?

I'm not drawing from this thread. I am drawing from the "lay off" thread though.

And I'm supposed to engage in discussion to help formulate conversation. It doesn't need much help around here though, CP is usually pretty good for content generation and active posters.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by KTrain

Aren't you skewing your "research" by participating in the discussion?



You could be doing so much more for your company without posting while you work. 60%. 70%. The percentages could be endless.

so could you, quit screwing around at work

[KTrain]

Originally Posted by habernac

so could you, quit screwing around at work

Where's the fun in that?

I have no delusions about not earning my paycheque today...

[Poison]

Originally Posted by KTrain

Where's the fun in that?

I have no delusions about not earning my paycheque today...

T'is the season!

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by KTrain

Regardless of whether you work for a union or not, if you are currently at work, reading and posting in this thread, you're not working hard enough to earn your pay cheque.

Pfft....I got another 10 minutes for the code to compile.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Poison

So that if your boss or someone in power has something against you (Not for your work performance) you cant be tossed to the curb. (And if you think it doesnt happen that way in the workforce youre wrong)....

as someone who just had this happen to them, i still see no problem with it. why should a company be forced to keep people they dont want?

where is it written that you (or me in this case) should be guaranteed a job, even if the job is being done right?

according to labour standards, I was given a severance (well above minimum required) and i am moving on. i know that i contributed at a high level and it was simply a case of the CEO not liking having to go through me in his corporate structure, so he changed the structure and paid me to leave. i didnt need a union for it and i didnt expect the company to keep me, just because.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

as someone who just had this happen to them, i still see no problem with it. why should a company be forced to keep people they dont want?

where is it written that you (or me in this case) should be guaranteed a job, even if the job is being done right?

according to labour standards, I was given a severance (well above minimum required) and i am moving on. i know that i contributed at a high level and it was simply a case of the CEO not liking having to go through me in his corporate structure, so he changed the structure and paid me to leave. i didnt need a union for it and i didnt expect the company to keep me, just because.

Agreed. Of course, I'm looking at this from the perspective of a guy who has more or less been in business for himself for 6 or 7 years now. I have no problem firing someone that I simply don't like. Well, I sure feel bad doing it, but I certainly wont let my own business or productivity suffer because I've got an annoying person working for me.

When you hire someone, a complete stranger, how the hell are you supposed to know how well you'll work together?

Of course, Ozy works for the city, and I don't know where poison works, but it sounds like a larger organization than the one or two people I ever have working for me at any given time, so my argument is somewhat nullified by that.

So as for whether big organizations should be able to arbitrarily can someone because they're unpopular, I still gotta say yes. One rotten apple can ruin the barrel. Like a cancer in the dressing room. Just get rid of it. I don't understand the sense of entitlement that alot of pro union people seem to have. Like they are immune to good business practices. The owner of the company can't fire a guy because he has seniority. Or he's forced to promote one guy over another because of seniority. It's crap. And if my company ever gets big enough and a union approaches my employees and tries to get them to form a union, I'll fire everyone that joins. I don't owe anyone a job. They're either pulling their weight or they're not. If they are, and if they're good people to have around, then they have no reason to worry about me firing them arbitrarily. If they start to get belliegrent and are causing unrest within my company, I'll fire them so fasttheir head sill spin.
And if anyone that ever works for me feels that they deserve more, they can come and tell me why. And if they're right, I'll give them more. Of course, if the company can't afford it, the answer will be NO.

But poison, as far as my earlier rant was concerned and the back and forths after that, you aren't acknowledging that useless people should get fired. If you don't agree with that, fine. I guess. But I don't understand why. Why wont you acknowledge that its these useless people that get ensconced in these cushy union jobs, getting their incremental pay raises and racking up more and more holidays that are the real problem?
That is the problem with these gigantic unions like the UAW. They fight so hard for the collective, but they refuse to concede that there is alot of fat that can be trimmed.

If they don't want to take pay cuts, why wont they at least acknowledge that there are some redundant employees that need to be layed off to keep the union healthy and, more importantly, the company they work for? Without the company, they're all out of work.


I dunno. The union mentality just annoys me so much. Sorry poison, I'm not directly attacking you. I appreciate the way you've kept cool in this thread and just argued your points. So good on you.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Poison

Id like to ask anyone out there that had a non-union job and were truly railroaded through no fault of their own by their employer whether they would have appreciated someone being there to fight for their job back or at least to show they did nothing to deserve their termination.

I had a job just out of HS where i was let go due to discrimination after 3 months on the job.

Would i have wanted someone on my side to fight to get my job back? The answer is NO! I had no desire to work for a company that allowed such a thing to happen. I moved on and found better employment.

[CaptainCrunch]

While Unions had their uses up to a generation ago, I don't really see the use of them in the day and age of dedicated labor lawyers, labor standards organization and corporate retention strategies based around retaining people who are worth retaining.

Unions have taken the position on not working with the organizations that their members work for, but practically killing the goose that laid the golden age through threat of strikes.

The UAW and CAW have practically on their own been responsible for pricing North American cars out of the competitive market. Yes absolutely management practices for the big three have contributed to killing these companies as well, but and especially with the CAW when they've decided that they don't have to take some responsibility and rally with the companies to save these jobs it becomes a bit on the stupid side.

Yes the CEO's and management have to forgo salaries and bonuses to get the bailouts, but the Unions are going to have to come to terms with pay cuts and layoffs and if they decide not to do this then the car companies will die.

The Canada Post action is another ridiculous example of Unions out of control.

To me, the best solution was the Reagan solution around the Air Traffic Controllers.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

While Unions had their uses up to a generation ago, I don't really see the use of them in the day and age of dedicated labor lawyers, labor standards organization and corporate retention strategies based around retaining people who are worth retaining.

Unions have taken the position on not working with the organizations that their members work for, but practically killing the goose that laid the golden age through threat of strikes.

The UAW and CAW have practically on their own been responsible for pricing North American cars out of the competitive market. Yes absolutely management practices for the big three have contributed to killing these companies as well, but and especially with the CAW when they've decided that they don't have to take some responsibility and rally with the companies to save these jobs it becomes a bit on the stupid side.

Yes the CEO's and management have to forgo salaries and bonuses to get the bailouts, but the Unions are going to have to come to terms with pay cuts and layoffs and if they decide not to do this then the car companies will die.

The Canada Post action is another ridiculous example of Unions out of control.

To me, the best solution was the Reagan solution around the Air Traffic Controllers.

I am going to disagree with your first paragraph. Unions are as needed today as they were in the past. There are companies that would quickly return workers to the level of slave labourers if they could. I have been on both sides of this issue. Been Union and been management and I have seen both dick each other around.

That said, Unions needs to modernize. It is not longer early 20th century. Union need to be flexible and work with management. A good union should be able to work with the company to produce a safe, equitable environment all the while keeping working standards high. UAW and CAW are not these kinds of unions.　

[Ozy_Flame]

It's never an easy battle arguing in support of unions. I think they still serve a gigantic purpose for the working class, but in an age where flexible hours, contract work, high technology and whimsical employees rule the roost, I can see where the frustration lies.

I enjoy working for a union more than not. I like the treatment I get. However, I didn't sign up to my job because of the union; it just happened to be there when I signed on and I have nothing but good things to say about it during my time there.

To each his own.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I am going to disagree with your first paragraph. Unions are as needed today as they were in the past. There are companies that would quickly return workers to the level of slave labourers if they could. I have been on both sides of this issue. Been Union and been management and I have seen both dick each other around.

That said, Unions needs to modernize. It is not longer early 20th century. Union need to be flexible and work with management. A good union should be able to work with the company to produce a safe, equitable environment all the while keeping working standards high. UAW and CAW are not these kinds of unions.　

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.