Union Propaganda...amusing

[duncan]

Originally posted by Table 5@Jan 14 2005, 07:06 PM

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

I guess this is a slam to the Teachers' unions. :unsure:

Most of the things we take for granted, have been instituted by labour unions in the early to mid-twentieth century. Things such as length of workdays, child labour laws, health insurance, pensions, unemployment insurance, maternity/parental leave, vacation allowances, and minimum wages. Most colleges now have courses on the modern labour movement, and unions in Canada. While most of the battles have been fought, there are still as many lousy employers out there as there are lazy employees.
I have been a member of a Public Service Employees Union for 13 years, acting as a local president or v-p for the past 4. My employer being the provincial government, has changed 3 times during my membership, but the battles remain the same. Each successive employer has made promises to rebuild the public services, but has in actuality decided to cut jobs and slash budgets. We have experienced toxic water deaths, tainted meat, and infectious disease epidemics due to thousands of jobs being cut. Our employer continues to hire managers, and grant themselves raises, but refuses to identify the budget issues.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I think part of the reason I don't really like unions is due to the fact that many of the things that they were originally founded to fight for have been achieved and legislated across the country.
i.e.
Safe work places (there are now federal and provincial laws that ensure/require this. If you don't think it's safe to work you don't have to, and believe me, the government agencies would love to nail your boss for making you do unsafe work.) No union needed for that.

Minimum wages (Minimum wage is still pretty crappy, but it's illegal for companies to undercut people by offering them less or to hire illegal immigrants and pay them less. You don't need a union to turn your boss in for that, and there are whistle blower laws in place to ensure you don't get screwed because of it)

Job security (Am I part of a union? No. Do I worry about job security? No. Why? Because I do a good job and am not afraid of being fired)

I can't really think of any other reasons unions should exist (I may be wrong, please give me some examples, I'm willing to hear them out, though I'm also likely to try to find flaws).

So seriously, pro union folks, give me other legitimate reasons why a union is necessary in this day and age. (I'm not being a dick, I'm serious)

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Jan 14 2005, 11:01 PM
I think part of the reason I don't really like unions is due to the fact that many of the things that they were originally founded to fight for have been achieved and legislated across the country.

Soooo... are you under the impression that if Unions in N America were abolished, it would be business as usual? Do you think things would get better for workers now that they're unshackled from innefficient and counter-productive 'protection'?

If worker's rights to organize and represent themselves collectively were taken away, I know of several companies that would take steps to take advantage of the situation (reduction in pay, benefits, # of workers, location of facilities, etc.). After all, its all about profits, right? Efficiency and Competition? Thats what we're looking for after all, not living standards or quality of life, but higher margins and a better next quarter.

I guess it depends on what you feel is important. And how naive one is at believing that w/out Unions workers would be as well off (in N. America) as they are. Past and Present examples point to no.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by AvengeR@Jan 14 2005, 08:20 PM
Unions are totally useless.

Stopped reading your post there.

I know that statement to be false, why should I go on?

I love the polar stances people take in this forum...too funny.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Jan 14 2005, 11:01 PM


So seriously, pro union folks, give me other legitimate reasons why a union is necessary in this day and age. (I'm not being a dick, I'm serious)

Health care benefits, retirement plans.

2 huge reasons there.

If unions were disbanded today do you really think companies would continue these programs for their employees? Do you think wages would increase with the cost of living? Do you think they'd increase at all?

Wow.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Jan 14 2005, 04:01 PM
I think part of the reason I don't really like unions is due to the fact that many of the things that they were originally founded to fight for have been achieved and legislated across the country.
i.e.
Safe work places (there are now federal and provincial laws that ensure/require this. If you don't think it's safe to work you don't have to, and believe me, the government agencies would love to nail your boss for making you do unsafe work.) No union needed for that.

Minimum wages (Minimum wage is still pretty crappy, but it's illegal for companies to undercut people by offering them less or to hire illegal immigrants and pay them less. You don't need a union to turn your boss in for that, and there are whistle blower laws in place to ensure you don't get screwed because of it)

Job security (Am I part of a union? No. Do I worry about job security? No. Why? Because I do a good job and am not afraid of being fired)

I can't really think of any other reasons unions should exist (I may be wrong, please give me some examples, I'm willing to hear them out, though I'm also likely to try to find flaws).

So seriously, pro union folks, give me other legitimate reasons why a union is necessary in this day and age. (I'm not being a dick, I'm serious)

Sure there are all sorts of nice laws and rules and regulations but your average worker bee simply is not going to rock the boat. Joe Lunchbox raises a fuss or two about poor safety standards or mandatory overtime and he's gonna get canned and no labor law in this province will be able to help him anytime soon.

Example: I've ranted about a friend of mine getting the screw-job by work/WCB before. He worked in a metal shop, lost his eye, got 10grand and they cut him loose. That's it. They are done with him. He's trying to appeal but even if that's wildly succesful and he doubles his settlement he gets 20grand. Woo hoo. His employer has benevolently given $2 protective glasses to the remaining employees and nothing else changed. Management did complain to him that it was a hassle to drive him to the doctor and that their insurance would be going up and say "you aren't the only one hurt by this".

Think he was part of a union?

So... this guy doesn't have a lot of education but he's a pretty capable person. He could have had dozens of different kinds of labor jobs but with that one eye he's pretty screwed. Can't drive a forklift, work in a warehouse, drive a delivery truck, work construction, you name it, he basically can't do it with one eye because it's too dangerous for him and the other workers. No government agency, worker's protective agency, worker's compensation board, nobody wants anything to do with it. As far as they are all concerned, he's off the books.

Any protections we have look great on paper but they don't cut it in real life.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Jan 14 2005, 05:37 PM
If unions were disbanded today do you really think companies would continue these programs for their employees? Do you think wages would increase with the cost of living? Do you think they'd increase at all?

All these benefits and wages seem to paid out and increase just fine at some of the companies out there that are a non union shop.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse+Jan 14 2005, 05:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (I-Hate-Hulse @ Jan 14 2005, 05:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Jan 14 2005, 05:37 PM
If unions were disbanded today do you really think companies would continue these programs for their employees? Do you think wages would increase with the cost of living? Do you think they'd increase at all?

All these benefits and wages seem to paid out and increase just fine at some of the companies out there that are a non union shop. [/b][/quote]
Yeah but they are competing with union shops so they gotta pony up something if they hope to keep decent employees.

If unions were abolished and the other shops decide to ditch the dental plan and cut wages across the board then the non-union shop would follow suit immediately.

[8 Ball]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Jan 14 2005, 05:01 PM
I think part of the reason I don't really like unions is due to the fact that many of the things that they were originally founded to fight for have been achieved and legislated across the country.
i.e.
Safe work places (there are now federal and provincial laws that ensure/require this. If you don't think it's safe to work you don't have to, and believe me, the government agencies would love to nail your boss for making you do unsafe work.) No union needed for that.

Minimum wages (Minimum wage is still pretty crappy, but it's illegal for companies to undercut people by offering them less or to hire illegal immigrants and pay them less. You don't need a union to turn your boss in for that, and there are whistle blower laws in place to ensure you don't get screwed because of it)

Job security (Am I part of a union? No. Do I worry about job security? No. Why? Because I do a good job and am not afraid of being fired)

I can't really think of any other reasons unions should exist (I may be wrong, please give me some examples, I'm willing to hear them out, though I'm also likely to try to find flaws).

So seriously, pro union folks, give me other legitimate reasons why a union is necessary in this day and age. (I'm not being a dick, I'm serious

I wouldn't consider myself "pro union" but the reality is trade unions set the wages. If it wasn't for them tradespeople would not make the wages they do now.
If unions were abolished, we would witness the end of the middle class in North America. IMO.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse+Jan 15 2005, 12:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (I-Hate-Hulse @ Jan 15 2005, 12:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Jan 14 2005, 05:37 PM
If unions were disbanded today do you really think companies would continue these programs for their employees? Do you think wages would increase with the cost of living? Do you think they'd increase at all?

All these benefits and wages seem to paid out and increase just fine at some of the companies out there that are a non union shop. [/b][/quote]
Yep, they have to be able to compete with the companies who have union negotiated collective bargaining agreements.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 14 2005, 04:07 PM
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.

Who says the shouldnt be held accountable? Just because I'm not a fan of unions doesnt mean I am a fan of big business either. You know, it IS possible to hold a moderate view on the situation...especially when both sides have taken advantage of their employees and members in very greedy ways over the years. Personally, I distrust BOTH. The bigger a business gets the more corrupt and inefficient things get on both sides of the equation.

small business all the way.

[duncan]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jan 14 2005, 01:31 PM
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).

I was going to respond to this, but I think I need it translated into English first.

Unions protect the most senior members of the local, because they tend to be the ones hit first. Companies love to see the top of the seniority pile go, because they save on benefits, wages and vacation. Eventually, the bottom guys in seniority become the top, and so on, and so on.... As far as replacement workers, they are usually called scabs, and get no protection, as they deserve.

For those that feel unions have no place;
A friend of mine's father worked 31 years for the same company, as an office clerk.Shortly after his 54th birthday(4 years ago), the plant manager called him into his office, and informed him that he was finished at the end of the day, his position was downsized. A week later, a new position was created, and a new employee was hired, to do the same work, under a different title. The new employee starts at $6 less per hour, and gets 3 weeks fewer vacation.
The following year the lady in the next desk, who had 25 years there, was also 'downsized' and quickly replaced by a fresh face at $5 less per hour, and less vacation time. Last year, the office manager was given the handshake, at 57, because he was up to 6 weeks vacation and the top pay rate. After a couple other people were promoted, another fresh face stepped in, at the bottom of the pay scale and starting level 2 weeks of vacation. My father-in-law, now is the longest serving worker in the office, and is to go to 5 weeks vacation...... guess where he will be next year. None of these people were negligent in their duties, their only fault was they could be replaced cheaper, and they had no union protection.

A local Landscaping company, has 40 employees, the owner has made himself a very wealthy man, opening up several other businesses in the past 10 years. His claim to fame, he pays minimum wage, works his employees for the maximum amount of hours (legally), and is willing to put his employees in whatever situation he can make a buck at. He hires mostly ex-cons and dropouts, that have a hard time getting work anywhere else, and exploits them as much as possible. He puts them in used equipment, and runs those machines until they are taken off the road by the MoT. Last winter, a loader he owned, ran over an elderly lady, killing her. The loader had no backup alarms, its back window had been replaced with plywood, and the driver had been removing snow for 15 straight hours. The driver had a nervous breakdown, the owner got a $5000 fine.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by duncan@Jan 16 2005, 04:34 PM
For those that feel unions have no place;
A friend of mine's father worked 31 years for the same company, as an office clerk.Shortly after his 54th birthday(4 years ago), the plant manager called him into his office, and informed him that he was finished at the end of the day, his position was downsized. A week later, a new position was created, and a new employee was hired, to do the same work, under a different title. The new employee starts at $6 less per hour, and gets 3 weeks fewer vacation.
The following year the lady in the next desk, who had 25 years there, was also 'downsized' and quickly replaced by a fresh face at $5 less per hour, and less vacation time. Last year, the office manager was given the handshake, at 57, because he was up to 6 weeks vacation and the top pay rate. After a couple other people were promoted, another fresh face stepped in, at the bottom of the pay scale and starting level 2 weeks of vacation. My father-in-law, now is the longest serving worker in the office, and is to go to 5 weeks vacation...... guess where he will be next year. None of these people were negligent in their duties, their only fault was they could be replaced cheaper, and they had no union protection.

um, no offense, but that's reality.

if you were a business owner, you'd be looking for ways to maximize profits as well. people fail to realize what business is about....making money. There are better ways to conduct business of course, but when it comes down to it, they are the ones putting in all the risk into their business, not the employees (think NHLPA), and in the end handle their business how they want. The example you showed above might not be the nicest way of handling employees, but there is nothing in there that can be regarded as unsafe, discriminatory etc.

And if all these old people had their seniority, what would happen to young people who want to get into the workforce? Do they get left in the cold with their college educations and rising tuition loans? Don't they deserve to get a chance?

What would a union do? Tell the owner how to run his company? Give everybody big fat vacations and then eventually have the company be bogged down in heavy expenses to the point where they go out of business?

Look, Im not on the corporations side by any means, but look at it from the other side. It's all nice and dandy to give every employee big wages and nice vacations, but somebody's gotta pay for all those concessions.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by duncan@Jan 16 2005, 10:34 PM
As far as replacement workers, they are usually called scabs, and get no protection, as they deserve.

Stopped reading right there.

I have a factory, my workers go on a strike and you say that I and replacement workers have no right to engage in a voluntary trade (salary for labor).

Nice.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Table 5+Jan 16 2005, 11:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Table 5 @ Jan 16 2005, 11:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-duncan@Jan 16 2005, 04:34 PM
For those that feel unions have no place;
A friend of mine's father worked 31 years for the same company, as an office clerk.Shortly after his 54th birthday(4 years ago), the plant manager called him into his office, and informed him that he was finished at the end of the day, his position was downsized. A week later, a new position was created, and a new employee was hired, to do the same work, under a different title. The new employee starts at $6 less per hour, and gets 3 weeks fewer vacation.
The following year the lady in the next desk, who had 25 years there, was also 'downsized' and quickly replaced by a fresh face at $5 less per hour, and less vacation time. Last year, the office manager was given the handshake, at 57, because he was up to 6 weeks vacation and the top pay rate. After a couple other people were promoted, another fresh face stepped in, at the bottom of the pay scale and starting level 2 weeks of vacation. My father-in-law, now is the longest serving worker in the office, and is to go to 5 weeks vacation...... guess where he will be next year. None of these people were negligent in their duties, their only fault was they could be replaced cheaper, and they had no union protection.

um, no offense, but that's reality.

if you were a business owner, you'd be looking for ways to maximize profits as well. people fail to realize what business is about....making money. There are better ways to conduct business of course, but when it comes down to it, they are the ones putting in all the risk into their business, not the employees (think NHLPA), and in the end handle their business how they want. The example you showed above might not be the nicest way of handling employees, but there is nothing in there that can be regarded as unsafe, discriminatory etc.

And if all these old people had their seniority, what would happen to young people who want to get into the workforce? Do they get left in the cold with their college educations and rising tuition loans? Don't they deserve to get a chance?

What would a union do? Tell the owner how to run his company? Give everybody big fat vacations and then eventually have the company be bogged down in heavy expenses to the point where they go out of business?

Look, Im not on the corporations side by any means, but look at it from the other side. It's all nice and dandy to give every employee big wages and nice vacations, but somebody's gotta pay for all those concessions. [/b][/quote]
I fully agree Table 5.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

um, no offense, but that's reality.

if you were a business owner, you'd be looking for ways to maximize profits as well. people fail to realize what business is about....making money. There are better ways to conduct business of course, but when it comes down to it, they are the ones putting in all the risk into their business, not the employees (think NHLPA), and in the end handle their business how they want. The example you showed above might not be the nicest way of handling employees, but there is nothing in there that can be regarded as unsafe, discriminatory etc.

And if all these old people had their seniority, what would happen to young people who want to get into the workforce? Do they get left in the cold with their college educations and rising tuition loans? Don't they deserve to get a chance?

What would a union do? Tell the owner how to run his company? Give everybody big fat vacations and then eventually have the company be bogged down in heavy expenses to the point where they go out of business?

Look, Im not on the corporations side by any means, but look at it from the other side. It's all nice and dandy to give every employee big wages and nice vacations, but somebody's gotta pay for all those concessions.

Well put Table 5, especially the part about new blood trying to crack the hierarchy that's created in union environments. Don't get me wrong, I don't think senior staff should be replaced just because their old and cost more - however I do believe that the decision to keep someone employed should be based on merit and the ability to do a job well, not just the fact they are 25 year employees. This is where unions miserably fail in my opinion. It would be one thing if they were able to discern between merit & ability vs time of service but unions just judge based on time of service. Which is frusturating to both employees and employers alike.

A corporation exists to be profitable, plain and simple. It's not there to provide social security or welfare payments. In the office examples you cited - you haven't mentioned what exactly the people involved did but ultimately the tasks and skills that their performed could be done equally as well by someone else cheaper. Sounds cold and heartless but that's just reality.

When unions start dictating how business is run is another issue. They are simply too narrowly focused on "employees" to see the big picture, which is something that frusturates me to no end. Air Canada's restructuring was a classic example of how unions can be obstacles rather than partners in business. As I understand it, the unions refused to budge on the fact that Trinity wanted all new employees to be on a Defined contribution (DC) vs a Defined benefit (DB) type of pension. For those that don't know, a DC sets how much the company contributes monthly upfront but doesn't fix how much it pays out when someone retires 30 years from now. In a DB the amount paid out on retirement is fixed. To make things more attractive and make up for the additional risk premium, the DC is usually set to pay out more than a DC in the end, plus it gives the employee better discretion to invest. Most companies, if they still have pension plans, are DC now. You hear all sorts of horror stories about DB pensions due to "unfunded liabilities" or the fact that money doesn't exist to pay out retirees.

Point of all this is that it wasn't an unreasonable request of Trinity to ask for. The question at the time I had for the employees was - is it better to have a different pension or no job at all? Which is what AC was on the verge of doing. One of the very real options at the time was to implode AC and let a new airline rise anew - without unions. Still may happen yet, after it's 3rd overhaul and corporate re-org and billions in govt aid it's about to go down the tubes. Rightfully so.

[Agamemnon]

Seems wierd that Corp's are forgiven (no?) for completely ruining some place/people's way of life, but if a union wants a better pension deal, its receiving its orders from Satan. Union's pushing for better benefits for blue-collar workers isn't the most heinous business practise out there.

How can we blame Union's for getting what they can? Companies are doing it, and its a natural way of business for them. Why do Corp's have more right to their profits than employees? Why is sharing the billions $ in revenue such a problem? Is the company there for profit, to the exclusion of the welfare of their employees?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Regardless of what rules anyone operate under, some people will take advanatge of the system, others will get screwed, and eventually those rules will create winners and losers.

All unions do is provide a different set of rules to work under. They don't provide any extra security or benefit as a whole, they simply shift the winners and losers - both between staff and management and within staff and management.

My only gripe with unions is that they often refuse to be accountable or want the system tilted in their favour.

Make membership optional, make their revenues taxable, and hold unions to the same standards as every other business, and I'd be happy.

Edit: I just played the see and say game. It's cynical, sarcastic, and politcally incorrect. Which in my mind makes it pretty funny.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 17 2005, 12:53 PM
Why do Corp's have more right to their profits than employees?

oh, i dunno. maybe because it's THEIR business? and they are the ones putting in all the capital and taking all the risk? If all those unions want more profits, they should organize and start their own corporation.

your biggest reasoning so far is unions should be able to practice in bad faith because the corporations are doing the same. I dunno bout you, but my mommy told me two wrongs don't make a right.

And you know what,you're right, corporations DO get a lot of concessions (especially in places like Alberta). But the answers and sollutions sure as hell don't lie in having more unions.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 17 2005, 11:53 AM
Why do Corp's have more right to their profits than employees? Why is sharing the billions $ in revenue such a problem? Is the company there for profit, to the exclusion of the welfare of their employees?

Because one can not exist without the other. Without a place to work at - employees are just plain out of work. Ask any NHLPA member that.

As for the whole sharing of the wealth part between employees and employers - a means to do this does exist - buy shares in the company. That's what most employers here in Calgary do, and they usually sweeten the deal by matching what employees put in. Pension plans are a rarity here, and the investment in the company by employees helps them keep a vested interest in what's good for the company, not just themselves.

EDIT- added bolding and cleaned up quoted material