Let's Talk Unions again [Split]

[RougeUnderoos]

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.

That's a Mexican Standoff, not a gun to the head.

If it comes down to closing the doors instead of paying the going rate to the locals then nobody wins and neither side has done it right.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

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.

An old friend of mine worked in a metal yard in southern Alberta. He's half blind now due to a worksite accident in a non-union shop with blatant safety violations (that were rectified after he left in an ambulance, never to return). He was paid 10 grand for his troubles and cut loose when he learned to function with his new abilities.

[Thunderball]

Here's the question...

If we accept that Unions are an important binding check on Corporations/Employers to ensure safe and ethical practice, and allow their abilities to severely hamper an industry...

Then who is the check on Unions to be a binding check on their safe, ethical and responsible practice, and stop them from poor decisions?

Because in the case of the CAW/UAW v. The Detroit 3... somebody has to be able to force the Unions to realize their position of accepting zero fault, and refusing to adjust is dangerous and naiive, just like unions in the past were able to force employers to realize their positions were wrong. Employers only have one way of doing so, and it involves using a hacksaw instead of a scalpel. Governments are typically unwilling to enter the fray unless its one of the unions they deal with.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Here's the question...

If we accept that Unions are an important binding check on Corporations/Employers to ensure safe and ethical practice, and allow their abilities to severely hamper an industry...

Then who is the check on Unions to be a binding check on their safe, ethical and responsible practice, and stop them from poor decisions?

Because in the case of the CAW/UAW v. The Detroit 3... somebody has to be able to force the Unions to realize their position of accepting zero fault, and refusing to adjust is dangerous and naiive, just like unions in the past were able to force employers to realize their positions were wrong. Employers only have one way of doing so, and it involves using a hacksaw instead of a scalpel. Governments are typically unwilling to enter the fray unless its one of the unions they deal with.

If any union is so stubborn or too stupid to see that their members are going to become non-members (unemployed) unless the terms of their employment change and they all lose their jobs then tough break. Get in the soup line.

If they can gouge their employer for as much money as possible and that employer can still stay afloat, good for them.

That is capitalism, isn't it?

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Then who is the check on Unions to be a binding check on their safe, ethical and responsible practice, and stop them from poor decisions?

To me the answer to this is the union membership, they vote for who is leading the union just as much as you and I vote for who leads our country. It's the same question, really.

Now, that being said, this is a long-term answer to the question; in the short term, I'm sure, still, that a revolt by union members against any union policy is going to result in changes.

Unions are no more a dictatorship than our country is.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

To me the answer to this is the union membership, they vote for who is leading the union just as much as you and I vote for who leads our country. It's the same question, really.

Now, that being said, this is a long-term answer to the question; in the short term, I'm sure, still, that a revolt by union members against any union policy is going to result in changes.

Unions are no more a dictatorship than our country is.

Except you must join. It's like saying car insurance in Alberta is purely market driven. If you cannot exit, then it isn't much of a choice.

This is my big beef with unions.

If they were a) not tax supported and more importantly b) had to earn their keep, I'd have no complaints.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That's a Mexican Standoff, not a gun to the head.

Not sure I understand the distinction.

If someone holds me up and says your money or your life, am I negotiating?

[redforever]

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?

Someone already pointed out that those dues are used to pay their members if a strike incurs.

I will tell you what else happens with those dues that electricians pay, and I speak first hand, my son is an electrician.

Companies put in bids to win jobs. The union dues are used to subsidize ridiculously low bids, in an effort to put non unionized companies out of business.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by redforever

Someone already pointed out that those dues are used to pay their members if a strike incurs.

I will tell you what else happens with those dues that electricians pay, and I speak first hand, my son is an electrician.

Companies put in bids to win jobs. The union dues are used to subsidize ridiculously low bids, in an effort to put non unionized companies out of business.

This is one of my many problems with the amount of power that the Unions have in the work place.

Unions shouldn't be subsidizing and paying for competitive advantages.

The whole certification process and the use of seeding is oderous at best.

Organizations can't really negotiate deals with the more powerfull unions in good faith because of the spectre of strikes and walkouts. Their only recourse is to fire everyone and close their doors.

With Unions there is no give and take, and we're seeing that with the CAW.

I think in a recession economy, the right to strike needs to be recinded for the good of the economy and the work force.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by jammies

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.
.

well, i am not suggesting its right to take advantage of people either. what i am asking is if it is so bad, why dont those people vote with their feet and not work there?

if walmart (or any other bad company) cant attract and retain talent, they will change their ways. why dont people quit? i am just asking why they dont, not saying that Wal Mart is right.

i had a job a few years back and i hated it. every day i dreaded waking up to go work. so i quit. it paid me in the 6 figures, but i walked away because i couldnt stand the way they treated me. why do people let companies get away with sub standard conditions?

[PsYcNeT]

Because there is a significant portion of society that will never see a 6 figure wage. Hell, they are lucky if they can get 40 grand a year.

These are the people who cannot (or will not) work labour, and do not have the necessary skills to fill specialist or office roles.

They are the low-wage demographic, seniors, uneducated people, immigrants, young single parents, and the disabled.

The perfect group of people that cannot afford to lose money while job seeking.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Because there is a significant portion of society that will never see a 6 figure wage. Hell, they are lucky if they can get 40 grand a year.

These are the people who cannot (or will not) work labour, and do not have the necessary skills to fill specialist or office roles.

They are the low-wage demographic, seniors, uneducated people, immigrants, young single parents, and the disabled.

The perfect group of people that cannot afford to lose money while job seeking.

fair enough, but they arent tied down are they? people choose to work at walmart, there MUSTbe something besides the paycheque keeping them there. it cant be all the doom and gloom as some report.

i bet they do treat their workers fairly well. however, i guess if you dont want to be stuck in a dead end position, you can take some responsibility for yourself and do something about it? i understand students, semi retired people and secondary income earners working for menial wages, but i still dont understand when i see a 35 year old caucasian male working the cashier at Toys R Us.

[transplant99]

I own a business...if i wanna get rid of somebody i can...and thats how it should be.

Unions have run their course and are counter productive...and have been for a while now.

Far to much power to employees who have no financial stake in the company only means trouble when all is said and done.

I could cite numerous examples of that occurring right now...but im sure that isnt necessary.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

fair enough, but they arent tied down are they? people choose to work at walmart, there MUSTbe something besides the paycheque keeping them there. it cant be all the doom and gloom as some report.

i bet they do treat their workers fairly well. however, i guess if you dont want to be stuck in a dead end position, you can take some responsibility for yourself and do something about it? i understand students, semi retired people and secondary income earners working for menial wages, but i still dont understand when i see a 35 year old caucasian male working the cashier at Toys R Us.

Wow. No, really they don't.

Whereas Wal-Mart employees start at the same salary as unionized employees in similar lines of work, they make 25 percent less than their unionized counterparts after two years at the job. The rapid turnover - 70 percent of employees leave within the first year - is attributed to a lack of recognition and inadequate pay, according to a survey Wal-Mart conducted. Yet this can work to the company's advantage, since it is more difficult for unions to organize when there is constant employee turnover.

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Wow. No, really they don't.


http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html

so the fact they have trouble retaining staff is the outcome of how they treat them. as it should be.

people should stop applying so the turnover drys up and then walmart will have to improve conditions.

and for those of us who dont agree with the treatment of staff in this manner, should stop enabling them and shop elsewhere.

[CaptainCrunch]

Bottom line in this day and age.

1) Not everyone is going to make huge salaries, thats a misnomer. As my sainted father said, some people are just going to be ditch diggers, and they're going to have to work their way out of it.

2) In this day and age, everyone knows what they're getting into when they get a job offer. When you talk about Walmart abusing or mistreating their employees, if thats based around pay, benefits and hours, they know about this when they get an offer of employment and they accept it. Walmarts not doing anything to their employees that their employees aren't or shouldn't be aware of. Plus last time I checked I didn't see leg shackles and overseers in the stores.

Walmart doesn't really care about retention of their lower end staff, they realize that retail positions in that kind of environment are transitional roles with these people moving on when they find something better.

The owners of walmart aren't answerable to their employees, they're answerable to their shareholders and their bottom line, and they've made it perfectly clear, they're not building a workers paradise.

3) It pisses me off that Unions foster a worker vs owner or management mentality. Its almost as if they're stating that the workers are more important then the people that actually have a stake in the company, or the people that make decisions that allow companies to grow and sustain their employment numbers.

In North America you have the right to negotiate your own salary and decide where you work and what you do for a living. While Unions might be invaluable in terms of work place health and safety and in limited equity roles, the rest of it is where they hammer companies into being non competitive and a prime example of that is subsidizing businesses to compete with non union equivalents.

Unions have their place outside of North America, but I don't see too many abusive racist enviroments in North America.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Except you must join. It's like saying car insurance in Alberta is purely market driven. If you cannot exit, then it isn't much of a choice.

This is my big beef with unions.

If they were a) not tax supported and more importantly b) had to earn their keep, I'd have no complaints.

I see your point but it's not exactly the same. As has been thrown out by others in this thread about Wal-Mart (and Jammies, I could not agree more with your post on that subject), if you don't want to be a part of the union, then vote with your feet and find another job.

Now, again, I agree with many of you in that I am opposed to the existence of many unions - I hope this doesn't make me a hypocrite (I need mine but you don't need yours) - but some workplaces I don't feel need to be unionized. I'm probably making an ass of myself for making that argument.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Bottom line in this day and age.

1) Not everyone is going to make huge salaries, thats a misnomer. As my sainted father said, some people are just going to be ditch diggers, and they're going to have to work their way out of it.

2) In this day and age, everyone knows what they're getting into when they get a job offer. When you talk about Walmart abusing or mistreating their employees, if thats based around pay, benefits and hours, they know about this when they get an offer of employment and they accept it. Walmarts not doing anything to their employees that their employees aren't or shouldn't be aware of. Plus last time I checked I didn't see leg shackles and overseers in the stores.

Walmart doesn't really care about retention of their lower end staff, they realize that retail positions in that kind of environment are transitional roles with these people moving on when they find something better.

The owners of walmart aren't answerable to their employees, they're answerable to their shareholders and their bottom line, and they've made it perfectly clear, they're not building a workers paradise.

3) It pisses me off that Unions foster a worker vs owner or management mentality. Its almost as if they're stating that the workers are more important then the people that actually have a stake in the company, or the people that make decisions that allow companies to grow and sustain their employment numbers.

In North America you have the right to negotiate your own salary and decide where you work and what you do for a living. While Unions might be invaluable in terms of work place health and safety and in limited equity roles, the rest of it is where they hammer companies into being non competitive and a prime example of that is subsidizing businesses to compete with non union equivalents.

Unions have their place outside of North America, but I don't see too many abusive racist enviroments in North America.

good post, you said what i was thinking much better than i did.

[jolinar of malkshor]

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?

I hate this arguement. Why dont people go work elsewhere. Why to people work as Janitors? Why do people do any crappy job? There is always going to be crappy jobs. Not that working for Walmart is a terrible job but lets be honest, most people don't start their life wishing a career as a Walmart employee. They either don't care, don't have the skills for better employement or their life situtation prevents them from doing something else.

Any job will always attract people, it does not matter what that job is. Doesn't mean it is a good place to work.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

I see your point but it's not exactly the same. As has been thrown out by others in this thread about Wal-Mart (and Jammies, I could not agree more with your post on that subject), if you don't want to be a part of the union, then vote with your feet and find another job.

More often then not that means another career or province, not just another job, but I guess you are right.

I don't think unions deserve to be placed above all else. I think the best way to make sure unions are always relevant is to have workers choose to pay from their own pockets. At the very least they should face annual certification or something.

Right now, once in tax payers and consumers have to fund them, they pretty much can't be fired, workers can't choose to participate or not or sometimes even disagree - forever. It makes no sense in this day and age.

[Torture]

Wal-Mart is a pretty terrible example to use when arguing against Unions. Wal-Mart is an argument for unionization. Unfortunately Wal-Mart's strategy to fight unionization is to close up and move somewhere else as soon as a union trys to get in.

People have a right to decent treatment at work and to be treated like a person. People don't choose to work at Wal-Mart, they have to because they don't have any other skills (for whatever reason that is) and they don't have much of a choice to support themselves or their family. Nobody grows up saying "I wanna work at Wal-Mart when I grow up" or "I wanna be a janitor!"


Some Unions are really adversarial with management and foster the Employees vs Management fight, but not all of them are like that. I just finished taking a Labour Relations class at UofC (the "profs" were both from CP Rail) and they have a very good working relationship with some of their unions, and a very adversarial relationship with others where everything becomes a grievance.