Union Propaganda...amusing

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse@Jan 17 2005, 06:10 PM
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.

Corporations cannot exist without Unions? Obviously companies need to exist for business to be done, Unions don't have to exist necessarily, individual employees could bargain with a company on a one-to-one basis (what employee leverage!).

As for the sharing of the wealth thing, I suppose thats just my frustration talking. Unions have done an excellent job of creating middle-class lives with lower-class jobs. I've a feeling North American might start to polarize a good deal if the blue-collars all drop below the poverty line, while us white-collars continue to push and exploit the overall bottome line, lining our pockets with stock options, exec. bonuses, etc.

I guess in the end I lament that our overall objective is healthy business first, healthy employees second. I'm not sure what corporations have done to deserve our admiration and respect in this regard. They've infiltrated and subverted many layers of government, creating a suitable political climate for increased profits. The profits are not to be shared any more than is necessary, with the government or the workers. The largest portion of it goes to the top layer of corporate management and the company's 'working capital'.

[Looger]

hey, i'm all for the existence of unions.

probably one of the big factors keeping europe from ruling over us, with their superior education system etc.

every once in awhile there are gigantic strikes in every sector there. friend of mine's dad was working in norway a few years ago until the whole oil extraction industry went on strike, all across the country. lasted months. probably billions in lost revenue. though put into perspective those reserves aren't going away, let's just say billions deferred.

and in germany it's common that 30% of the labour force is on strike, all the time.

and on a local note it does provide the opportunity for an uneducated working man to put his kids through university.

sadly however the high labour costs make new markets for our softwood lumber very hard to crack. what really sucks here is that countries with labour that's 10x cheaper are just barely underbidding us, it's not by a gigantic margin. that means if our labour was just a little cheaper maybe we wouldn't be so dependent on the US for our exports. not the same in every market but cheaper labour could not hurt in this regard. canadian lumber is of a stronger fibre than that grown in hotter climates, but we should be in more markets - our productivity and efficiency is very high.

quite honestly, i don't see what the big deal is. unions are an over-reaction to the power of big business. if unions were outlawed tomorrow we'd still find a way to enact this struggle, kinda like (not coincidentally) organized crime. wipe it out, the market forces that dictate its existence still remain. mafioso, bikers, whatever. people still get high, people still pay for sex.

and people still don't really want to work that hard. so unions or something like them will be here for awhile.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Duncan
As far as replacement workers, they are usually called scabs, and get no protection, as they deserve.

Interesting topic...some well thought out responses from both sides.

This thought though personifies how truly hypocritical unions are and the very reason so many see them as outated and out of touch.

So one worker is more worthy of benefits/wages etc, than another, becuase one worker pays union dues while another does not?? I thought the entire existance of unions was to protect ALL workers doing the same jobs? Look out and fight for the little guy...all that stuff. Yet, as has been seen for decades, when a guy goes across a picket line in an effort to make some dough and support his family, he is often threatened with bodily harm and even death. Nice.

Unions have outlived their usefulness...and did so long ago. Now their are government regulations and provisions available to every worker that will protect them from the evil forces running big business.

PS: I was a unionized guy for a while as well, and i know what went on inside the "inner sanctum". It was disgusting. Unions are as corrupt as business.

[duncan]

Originally posted by transplant99@Jan 17 2005, 10:58 PM


Unions have outlived their usefulness...and did so long ago. Now their are government regulations and provisions available to every worker that will protect them from the evil forces running big business.

[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE]

There are provincial laws against this, but many companies are quite happy to bypass them. The workers are willing to put their lives, and other lives in jeopardy, because this guy knows that they have little choice, and he threatens their job. Two lives were wrecked from this one, and several others were affected.

[Agamemnon]

Well,

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.

They did organize, they're called unions, and they do push for more share of the profits all the time. What am I missing?

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.

No, I questioned why so many more people were peeved about Union abuses than Corporate ones. Ask your mommy how that translates into me pushing for increased Union practising in bad faith. That's twisting it a little.

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.

No, I'd suggest the answers lie in increased government regulation, hopefully negating the need for the continuation of Unions. If government would comprehensively legislate employee/employer relations, there wouldn't need to be Unions, the people would be protected by the State (as has been evolving for decades).

I just don't see how pointing out Union incompetence in select cases = a win for Management activities across the board. I hear a little of 'their both guilty' and a lot of 'Union's suck'. That's not exactly balanced criticism. Again, maybe a sign of the time/place we live.

[transplant99]

There are provincial laws against this, but many companies are quite happy to bypass them. The workers are willing to put their lives, and other lives in jeopardy, because this guy knows that they have little choice, and he threatens their job. Two lives were wrecked from this one, and several others were affected.

Are you suggesting that unionized jobsites have no accidents??

Please.

If a company "bypasses" a law, then they are subject to being shutdown/fined etc. All it would take is a phone call to get the ball rolling if its something dangerous to workers and/or the public.

And people can always quit their jobs...no one forces anyone to stay where they are, doing something thye dont want to do, all for minimum wages. No one.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by duncan@Jan 17 2005, 04:58 PM
There are provincial laws against this, but many companies are quite happy to bypass them.

That's the problem. The laws don't work in reality.

[transplant99]

My curiosity was peaked when thinking about union vs non-union accidents.

I found this website that describes the 26 fatalities that happened on the job in Alberta last year.

It doesnt breakdown if its a union or not (though the road maintenance workers woud surely be AUPE)

http://www3.gov.ab.ca/hre/whs/fatalities/p...pfatal_2004.pdf

[Tron_fdc]

In my opinion....and this is speaking from an employers point of view, is that unions are both good and bad for employees.

Good in the sense that they encourage safety programs, retirement pension saving, secure wages and discourage exploitation.

Bad in the sense that once the union gets too much say in day to day operations it can cause a major hinderance to productivity. I once toured a Daimler/Chrysler shop in Indianapolis that was an absolute disgrace when it came to productivity, and the plant engineers knew it. They were spending millions of dollars automating the plant so they wouldn't have to pay someone $25/hr US to sit in a chair and wait for a line to go down so he could get on the phone and call maintenance. This was a great example of unions taking things way too far, and paying the price for it (job loss).

As for safety, the programs we instituted were a total pain in the arse, and seemingly excessive, but when you keep in mind that they're in place so you cut down the risk of someone getting caught inside a piece of heavy machinery they're worth it. I work at an 80 yr old manufacturing company, and some of the stories I've heard/have seen first hand are hideous. Since we implemented safety programs the occurences have been reduced, but not eliminated. You can have all the programs you want in place, but all it takes is one forgetful/careless employee and you've got a problem.

Unions can work, but a balance needs to be found so they don't hinder instead of help.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

They did organize, they're called unions, and they do push for more share of the profits all the time. What am I missing?

I think he's getting at - Why don't the employees all quit and form their own company? I've seen it happen lots in Calgary. The mice all decide they've had enough of "The Man" and set up their own shop.

No, I questioned why so many more people were peeved about Union abuses than Corporate ones.

I hear a little of 'their both guilty' and a lot of 'Union's suck'. That's not exactly balanced criticism. Again, maybe a sign of the time/place we live.

I'll answer your question of "Why are only Unions only getting picked on" directly....Were you not reading the papers from 2000-2004? Enron, Nortel, WorldCom, HealthSouth, Parmalat, Livent, and many others were directly blamed on Executive Management. Their executives were tarred and feathered in Newspapers, Magazines and Live TV. Then the feds got involved and threw jail time at them. Then government got involved and invoked the Sarbanes Oxley act, requiring CFO's and CEO's to personally certify the financial statements for all public companies. There's jail time involved for screwing these up now.

These examples involved fraud which is a bit different beast. However bad business decisions made by management get reported heavily in the media and are dissected by investment analysts. In turn they send the stock down, and if it goes down enough it executive heads roll. Bad decisions get management fired.

My point is - management gets equal criticism for bad moves in more public arenas.

[duncan]

Originally posted by transplant99@Jan 18 2005, 12:32 AM

It doesnt breakdown if its a union or not (though the road maintenance workers woud surely be AUPE)

Not sure. Here, the road work was privatized, so they are not part of OPSEU, and most are low bidders for the area, and not unionized.

[moon]

I will say that I am an admitted Union hater. Do not ever want to part of one and never want to have to deal with one.

My father has a much better pension, health care etc. plan without a union than my wife does with one. I have much more of a sense of security with his job than I do with my wife and her union job.

Union often tend to preach stuff that they can provide and non-union jobs often provide better because of the fact that they offer preformance based incentives.

I think that Coporations should benefit form all the profits they gather. If a employee does not feel that they are getting enough form those profits I have a simple solution quit. Corporations put up the money to fromt the projects that many of these union workers profit from.

Corporations deserve everything they get becase they EARN them through business practices. If these practices involve influencing the governmetn then more power to them.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by duncan+Jan 16 2005, 03:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (duncan @ Jan 16 2005, 03:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
I don't see a huge problem with this.
If a guy has been doing the same job for 30 years, why does that necessarily entitle him to make more money than the guy who just started. That's why unions sometimes p*ss me off. If we're doing the same job, why should you get paid more. If you do it better, or you do more, than yes, you should be paid more. But as you said, the new job is essentially the same, so why shouldn't the employer be able to pay someone less to do it?

Plain and simple, if a company wants to attract the best people they will pay better, with better benefits and reward you based on how you perform. The only companies that would drop benefits etc. if unions went away would be the ones that don't care about having a good workforce, and that's not really a company I want to work for.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 17 2005, 11:53 AM
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?

It's not a matter of pushing for better benefits that people don't like, it's a culture of rewarding people for nothing more than getting old. If you work too hard you're told to cool it because you're doing too much (I actually had a friend who worked for the city of Victoria and got in trouble from his union because he wasn't taking all his breaks). But if you just ride out your time, you get better wages and benefits. Sorry, but I think those things should be based on merit not seniority.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Jan 18 2005, 03:42 PM
It's not a matter of pushing for better benefits that people don't like, it's a culture of rewarding people for nothing more than getting old. If you work too hard you're told to cool it because you're doing too much (I actually had a friend who worked for the city of Victoria and got in trouble from his union because he wasn't taking all his breaks). But if you just ride out your time, you get better wages and benefits. Sorry, but I think those things should be based on merit not seniority.

Do we not currently 'reward' people for growing old by giving them pensions? Haven't we conceded the elderly the right to survive despite the fact that they can (often) no longer work? Companies and the Government both provide pensions to people when they hit 65, for doing nothing more than getting to that age.

Unions have provided blue-collar jobs with middle-class lives. Today.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 18 2005, 10:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 18 2005, 10:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bring_Back_Shantz@Jan 18 2005, 03:42 PM
It's not a matter of pushing for better benefits that people don't like, it's a culture of rewarding people for nothing more than getting old. If you work too hard you're told to cool it because you're doing too much (I actually had a friend who worked for the city of Victoria and got in trouble from his union because he wasn't taking all his breaks). But if you just ride out your time, you get better wages and benefits. Sorry, but I think those things should be based on merit not seniority.

Do we not currently 'reward' people for growing old by giving them pensions? Haven't we conceded the elderly the right to survive despite the fact that they can (often) no longer work? Companies and the Government both provide pensions to people when they hit 65, for doing nothing more than getting to that age.

Unions have provided blue-collar jobs with middle-class lives. Today. [/b][/quote]
No, we don't reward them for getting old, we reward them for working for their entire life. Should we take care of the elderly? Yes, I've never said anything different. Should we encourage them to be lazy their entire career knowing that they'll still get better wages/benfits and vactaion when they get older? Absolutely not. Work hard and do your best, if you do that you'll do just fine. The union motto seems to be do the minimum and you'll do better than the guy trying to work hard, because you'll fly under the radar while this guy get's punished for breaking union rules (like working too hard).

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+Jan 18 2005, 04:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ Jan 18 2005, 04:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Do we not currently 'reward' people for growing old by giving them pensions? Haven't we conceded the elderly the right to survive despite the fact that they can (often) no longer work? Companies and the Government both provide pensions to people when they hit 65, for doing nothing more than getting to that age.

Unions have provided blue-collar jobs with middle-class lives. Today.

No, we don't reward them for getting old, we reward them for working for their entire life. Should we take care of the elderly? Yes, I've never said anything different. Should we encourage them to be lazy their entire career knowing that they'll still get better wages/benfits and vactaion when they get older? Absolutely not. Work hard and do your best, if you do that you'll do just fine. The union motto seems to be do the minimum and you'll do better than the guy trying to work hard, because you'll fly under the radar while this guy get's punished for breaking union rules (like working too hard).[/b][/quote]
I'm pretty sure if you're 65 and Canadian, you don't have to have worked at all to receive a pension. Widowers who have never worked a day in their lives receive their deceased partners pensions. Should these widows be 'rewarded' for not working at all? Talk about lazy... right?

I'm also pretty sure that all Unions do not have some kind of 'don't work hard' motto. When I was unionized I was more afraid of my union rep than my manager, and was made to pull my weight very quickly.

As I said before, Unions have provided Middle-class lives for blue-collar jobs. They may cause innefficiencies, and there are probably examples of abuses. Regardless, the way of life they've provided for manufacturing and service jobs is one that is probably not achieveable without organized negotiation.

If Unions are so bad, do you think they should be abolished in North America?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 18 2005, 05:01 PM
Unions have provided blue-collar jobs with middle-class lives. Today.

And here I thought it was the rise of productivity that followed the industrial revolution what caused the dramatic increase of overall wellbeing.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Jan 18 2005, 05:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Jan 18 2005, 05:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Jan 18 2005, 05:01 PM
Unions have provided blue-collar jobs with middle-class lives.# Today.

And here I thought it was the rise of productivity that followed the industrial revolution what caused the dramatic increase of overall wellbeing. [/b][/quote]
Nope. The rise of productivity in the Industrial Revolution provided little increase in real wages for workers, especially in the 1800's and early 1900's. Conditions were horrible for most of the workers, and the IR saw a substantial rise in the labour of women and young children. Workers were often mistreated, and owed more to the company at the end of their employment (death) than the start. It wasn't until the Labour movement, as well as the Welfare State, that the 'average' worker's lifestyle became 'middle-class' as opposed to 'lower-class'.

And the 'dramatic increase in overall well-being' has yet to be felt in most reaches of the globe.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 18 2005, 11:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 18 2005, 11:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

And here I thought it was the rise of productivity that followed the industrial revolution what caused the dramatic increase of overall wellbeing.

Nope. The rise of productivity in the Industrial Revolution provided little increase in real wages for workers, especially in the 1800's and early 1900's. Conditions were horrible for most of the workers, and the IR saw a substantial rise in the labour of women and young children. Workers were often mistreated, and owed more to the company at the end of their employment (death) than the start. It wasn't until the Labour movement, as well as the Welfare State, that the 'average' worker's lifestyle became 'middle-class' as opposed to 'lower-class'.

And the 'dramatic increase in overall well-being' has yet to be felt in most reaches of the globe. [/b][/quote]
To be fair, the countries that haven't seen this darmatic increase in well being generally aren't industrialized, or have had incredibly corrupt govenrments. Examples include most of Africa, Russia, parts of Eastern Europe. Look at countries that are industrializing and you'll see that their standard of living is increasing very rapidly (ever hear of China).