Let's Talk Unions again [Split]

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does a union do with any extra cash collected from dues each year?

Do they re-imburse union members, or throw a pizza party, or what?

I am not an expert, but I believe it varies depending upon the union. Some may put it into a strike fund, some a injured workers/compensation fund, pension fund, or some may alter dues for a year or differ increases.

Think of due like an extra tax, except it goes to a union instead of the government (although if you think about it, both are fairly similar).

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Poison

There are full time jobs within the union that need to be paid somehow......

When your pounding the pavement because your company locked you out you receive a weekly paycheque, nothing close to a living wage longterm but sure nice to have for some type of income.

I could go on but that gives you an idea on where those dues go to, though the pizza party is a nice thought.

Yeah thanks for the sarcasm Mr. On The Defensive. As Bobblehead got, I was asking about extra money collected. No collection is ever exact (look at your taxes) and there is typically a minor over-allocation of funds.

But keep crucifying yourself, it's helpful.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does a union do with any extra cash collected from dues each year?

Do they re-imburse union members, or throw a pizza party, or what?

Pay the staff and travel expenses and other costs associated with grievances. They probably will have a lawyer on staff or at least on retainer. Most Unions participate in the training of their membership and also communicate with other unions North American wide concerning safety and health issues as well as political concerns. Unions also lobby the different levels of government on behalf of their membership.

[Poison]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yeah thanks for the sarcasm Mr. On The Defensive. As Bobblehead got, I was asking about extra money collected. No collection is ever exact (look at your taxes) and there is typically a minor over-allocation of funds.

But keep crucifying yourself, it's helpful.

Crucifying myself....riiiiiight....

You honestly think the sarcasm with your pizza party comment wasnt going to get you some back?

You got your answer, extra moneys go into a fund.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Well, I'm not going to say that's not your experience, but it's certainly not mine. Some of the benefits the union brings me - like legal protection, and yes, the protections relating to discipline - are, to me, like the Children's Hospital - glad they're there, but hope to never need to use them.

I think this is also a big difference in the view points. Being a Male, Junior High school teacher is obviously quite a different experience than a female grade 2-3 teacher. Not saying she can't get in those type of situations but the thought of the union as protection in that manner never crossed her mind once.

I mean, obviously you're looking at this from a very anti-union POV and there's nothing wrong with it, but when you take a job as a teacher for a public system, you take everything that comes with it. There's benefits and there's costs, sure, but if you're working the job then you are implicitly, if not explicitly, agreeing to them.

I agree she has to take it, as with Unions they do a good job of making sure you have no choice, hopefully she wises up soon enough and does something that doesn't involve association with such an evil group.

But she stupidly loves teaching too much and likely will stick with it for a few more years.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Poison

Companies shouldnt be forced to keep people they dont like? Really?
So if this said person is doing their job just fine you have to ask why this person was fired?
Race? Color? Sex?
Yes we have human rights etc that would protect you regardless of unions but like i said in an earlier post good luck trying to get a complete stranger who doesnt know your job to prove you were doing your duties just fine and there was obviously another factor that came into play that contributed to their termination..

I think that private companies should be able to fire anyone they want for whatever reasons that they want. I have stated it before and still belief it.

If it wants to be racist/sexist/anti-gay in its hiring it certainly should have every right to do so if they think that is the best way to run their company. I would expect they wouldn't be that successful as I don't think many people would want to be associated with that company but they should be free to run their own company they way they want.

Personally I am would not want to work for a company that keeps me on only because the law forces them to. If they don't want me there then personally I would have no desire to stay and work there.

Its funny as well moon, you mentioned in your second paragraph if you dont like the way the company is run then quit, but you finish off your post saying some jobs require you to be union and associated with those "pieces of crap" (which by the way shows your maturity and intelligence level)

So follow your own rule bud, if you dont like the way the company is run (ie workers are union) then dont apply!!!

Sorry I forgot that expressing my opinion, which is that unions are pieces of crap meant that I was immature, I will make sure to ignore other people's questions/posts and act like an aloof jackass like yourself to prove my maturity/intelligence in the future.

I don't work for companies with unions so don't worry I do follow my own advice. It has been pointed out already that some jobs require union membership i.e. teachers and I don't think people should be stopped from pursuing their dreams because of the fact that a greedy union wants to ensure they can steal their dues from that individual.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Poison

Allright so obviously alot of people had differing views for me to tackle, ill use moons as a foundation to try to retort to as many as possible.

Companies shouldnt be forced to keep people they dont like? Really?
So if this said person is doing their job just fine you have to ask why this person was fired?
Race? Color? Sex?
Yes we have human rights etc that would protect you regardless of unions but like i said in an earlier post good luck trying to get a complete stranger who doesnt know your job to prove you were doing your duties just fine and there was obviously another factor that came into play that contributed to their termination..

In this day and age of absolute political correctness, the human rights commissions and their investigative budget, the courts, the courts of human rights, government equity programs, I really have trouble with seeing where a company would get away with racial or sexual based denial of employment.

I

Originally Posted by Poison

ts funny as well moon, you mentioned in your second paragraph if you dont like the way the company is run then quit, but you finish off your post saying some jobs require you to be union and associated with those "pieces of crap" (which by the way shows your maturity and intelligence level)

So follow your own rule bud, if you dont like the way the company is run (ie workers are union) then dont apply!!!

And thats his right. However, I have had dealings with union shops that have a lot of trouble with removing bad elements and bad workers. However, I'm not as much blaming the unions, as blaming the companies for agreeing to a bad deal.

Originally Posted by Poison

Also it was mentioned earlier that someone was mistreated and terminated unjustly and were glad no one was there because they didnt want their job back or work for that company.

Thats fine, noone is going to force you to try to get your job back if you dont want it, for some that may however it sure is nice to know you have someone that will go to bat for you and prove you have done nothing wrong.
They will also fight for compensation if you are found to have been let go without reason so you have that option as well, its not just about getting your job back.

Again though, do you really need a union when you have labour boards, market competition for jobs, the human rights commission, the press and other avenues.

While I agree that Unions have their place, mostly in 2nd and third world countries where workers are unskilled, under paid and abused, I have troubles seeing it needed in a country like Canada.

To me Unions are a more destructive entity in a free market business environment, where they actually hand tie organizations from having the ability to change their business model to respond to the current economic times.

[troutman]

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does a union do with any extra cash collected from dues each year?

Do they re-imburse union members, or throw a pizza party, or what?

They buy advertising on the Fan 960.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

However, I'm not as much blaming the unions, as blaming the companies for agreeing to a bad deal.

This doesn't seem to come up very often in this discussion but it can't be stressed enough -- nobody had a gun to their head when they signed these deals with unions. The poor business owners and corporations know exactly what they are getting into. If it doesn't work properly for them, you can't blame the union.

[Devils'Advocate]

I have worked non-union jobs.
I have worked unionized.

And there are pros and cons to both, but in the end I have chosen unionized. For the simple reason that I have seen far too many good people screwed over in non-unionized jobs. In the last non-unionized job I worked, I saw:
- a former OHL player who didn't want to play on the company hockey team offered a promotion in exchange for his services on the ice when there were others far more deserving of the promotion
- when a man of 50-odd years was hitting on a 20 year old fresh out of university, she put in a complaint of sexual harassment. Because the company needed the guy, they fired the girl.
- a co-worker was taking shifts taking care of his dying mother so he had to be there evening and weekends to help her out. When the director announced that we were behind on our project and everyone had to come in that weekend, my boss told my co-worker that she understood his situation and he did not have to come in. Within an hour my boss was fired for "not being a team player".

In all three circumstances my head almost exploded in absolute rage. I just saw far too many good people thrown under the bus while the slimier you were the better off you were. Where I currently work (systems designer, federal public service) I've not seen anything that near outraged me as much as those three cases. That happened in a span of 3 months. We do have other issues (near impossible to get rid of lazy employees - I've had to spend 25% of my time prodding one lazy ass to do 50% of his work; fighting my own union that I pay into trying to discipline someone who's behaviour is way out of line).

Add to that, I have seen my parents work 28 1/2 years for a company, needing 30 for a pension, being laid off and now my brother and I are talking about having our mother stay with one of us because she can't afford to keep the house. But my mother said she'd never work for a union... called them leeches... that worked out quite well for her.

The only thing I would consider would be going into business for myself. Which is difficult given my education... even as a computer consultant you are at the whim of the company you are working for. There is even less job security than at a private firm.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Poison

There are full time jobs within the union that need to be paid somehow......

When your pounding the pavement because your company locked you out you receive a weekly paycheque, nothing close to a living wage longterm but sure nice to have for some type of income.

I could go on but that gives you an idea on where those dues go to, though the pizza party is a nice thought.

Union big wigs need to be paid thier full wages while thier members are pounding the pavement collecting peanuts in strike pay. Maybe if they collected strike pay like thier members there would be less strikes and lock outs.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

This doesn't seem to come up very often in this discussion but it can't be stressed enough -- nobody had a gun to their head when they signed these deals with unions. The poor business owners and corporations know exactly what they are getting into. If it doesn't work properly for them, you can't blame the union.

Not entirely true.

Once a union is in, you pretty much have to shut the company/location down to get them out.

There is some grey area for sure, but the choice of agree to what we want or close your doors, maybe forever, kinda is a gun to the head.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Not entirely true.

Once a union is in, you pretty much have to shut the company/location down to get them out.

There is some grey area for sure, but the choice of agree to what we want or close your doors, maybe forever, kinda is a gun to the head.

Here's a prime example.....

Wal-Mart Closes Unionized Store Early; Nearly 200 Jobs Lost

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. closed its first unionized outlet in North America today, a week earlier than planned, eliminating almost 200 jobs in Jonquiere, Quebec.

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, announced in February it would shut the store after failing to sign a contract with the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada. The discounter said the union's demands would raise costs at a store that was unprofitable. Wal-Mart faces union drives in at least 25 stores across Canada, including 15 in Quebec.

``The business is done,'' said Groh. ``It was a situation where we had set out to operate the store until conditions justified the closure and at this point, merchandise levels are so diminished that it really no longer makes sense for us to remain open.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...4&refer=canada

[Calgaryborn]

Many Unions like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers began when working conditions were terrible. One of the big selling points of the first organized shops was the death benefit. They would give you money to bury a member who died as a result of on the job accidents. WCB, Holiday pay, bereavement leave, severance pay were all results of Union work. The government just copied some of these benefits Union members fought for and applied them to all workers.

Today you could argue that their usefulness has run its course. I'm not convinced of that: The IBEW local 258 here in B.C. has a full time lawyer on staff just to deal with WCB. You have to live a pretty sheltered life not to know people who have struggled with that organization; many of which have been starved into settling for less than they were owed. The WCB makes ICBC (auto insurance in B.C.) look like the Salvation Army. From stories I've heard WCB in Alberta is even worse in B.C. when it comes to settlements and dealing with complaints in general.

Bottom line is unions have always lead the government by the noise into insuring safety and fairness in the workplace. If Unions were to disappear tomorrow you would see progress in these areas grind to a halt and slowly over time a fall back to the conditions which made organized labour so neccesary.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Dion

Wal-Mart Closes Unionized Store Early; Nearly 200 Jobs Lost

Wal-Mart is pretty well the corporate devil incarnate, so I wouldn't take anything they say about why a store was shut down without verification. Wal-Mart is exactly the kind of organization that could use a good union, as they skirt as close to the law as possible in their treatment of employees and occasionally go over the line; they also actively campaign against unionization directly to the employees, who have a HUGE turnover because the conditions and pay are so poor.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by jammies

Wal-Mart is pretty well the corporate devil incarnate, so I wouldn't take anything they say about why a store was shut down without verification. Wal-Mart is exactly the kind of organization that could use a good union, as they skirt as close to the law as possible in their treatment of employees and occasionally go over the line; they also actively campaign against unionization directly to the employees, who have a HUGE turnover because the conditions and pay are so poor.

alright, if Wal Mart is such a bad place to work, how do they attract employee's?

why dont those employe's quit and go work somewhere better?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

alright, if Wal Mart is such a bad place to work, how do they attract employee's?

why dont those employe's quit and go work somewhere better?

jobs aren't plentiful in some places? comfort? apathy? no qualifications?

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

jobs aren't plentiful in some places? comfort? apathy? no qualifications?

Even in Calgary's tight labour market of late, they seemed to have not much trouble attracting employees...

[jammies]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

alright, if Wal Mart is such a bad place to work, how do they attract employee's?

why dont those employe's quit and go work somewhere better?

You know, back in the mid-19th century, that was the same argument that the factory owners used to justify 12 hour working days, 6 days a week, in hellish conditions and at wages that paid barely enough to keep their employees from starving. Dangerous jobs, with no regard for employee safety, and where if you got injured it was too bad and you were out the door.

I'm not saying that conditions today are comparable, but it was a bad argument then and its a bad argument now. Just because you CAN get employees to work under sub-standard conditions doesn't mean that it is moral or acceptable.

We live in a capitalist DEMOCRACY, not some corporatist fantasyland where money recreates the feudal societies of the past. The right to unionize is derivative of the right of assembly, and a fundamental part of a healthy democratic society - corporations, left to their own devices, will take the most profitable course of action regardless of morality, for by their very nature they are amoral vehicles for making money, and decidedly not focused on looking out for the best interests of their employees and customers.

The defining corporate ideal that making short-term profit is somehow more important than anything else is how we end up with, for example, mining companies making huge profits for a few decades and then shutting down their mines and going bankrupt while sticking government with astronomical clean-up bills. It's how useless parasites can manipulate exchange rates between currencies to squeeze money out of the world economy by creating artificial inefficiencies. It's how small, innovative companies get swallowed up by big, stodgy companies that strip them of their ideas and then junk them. It's how shady accounting practices are encouraged as long as they make the numbers look better, regardless of underlying reality.

No human institution is perfect. There are unions which destroy or stifle companies; there are also companies which are antithetical to worker's rights and interested only in exploitation. It is in everyone's interest to point out examples of either and seek to change them; the Darwinian argument that the economy and job-market must simulate the natural world of competition for resources ignores the fact that humans are intelligent and need not play mindless zero-sum games when positive alternatives exist.