Unions

[Jam Stunna]

You're never going to find a better example of differing attitudes towards unions.

Pro-Union:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-cutler6-2008dec06,0,301245.story

Ant-Union:

http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

Who's right?

 

[lonejedi]

I'm in the middle, I think Unions are needed, but at the same time, they are abused. A union was a great idea when they were first created. Unions today mostly consist of workers who just want everything given to them on a silver platter, causing many companies to struggle financially. I'm not against Unions, but I think they should be reformed.

 

[Crimson King]

Offering my opinion now since I can't read/watch those links yet.

Unions are antiquated and counter-productive. First off, unions force all workers of a sector to join. My dad said he was threatened into joining his union, and this is quite common. Basically, if you don't join a union, you end the unions power. When they strike, you, and people like you, will cross the picket lines and work. Legally speaking, you are doing nothing wrong, but to the unions, you are evil and killing them. Also, there are numerous examples where union leaders have firebombed management bosses just because they refused to meet their demands. Now, we have the unskilled labor union movement starting where people at Wal-Mart, McDonald's, etc want to form a union, but what this will do is give people without skills or a college education the ability to strike for more money.

 

[Aesir]

I've been pro-union for as long as I can remember and that'll probably never change. Unions give the workers power to improve conditions in their working environment.

You can however be pro-union and not support all their stances, I can think of many issues unions represent that I would fight to death on them on, but that doesn't mean you can't support them. Ultimately as long as the unions are being used to improve working standards then they should continue to exist. I always thought it was wrong for companies to deny workers the right to union.

 

[Crimson King]

The problem with unions is who really deserves them? Unskilled Workers want them, but do they deserve them? No, they do not.

After the issues of working conditions are established and solved, unions will still exist, and their ability to strike will be ever present. I spoke with a socialist on the issue and he believes that McDonald's workers should make at minimum $40 an hour for working where they work, and that is ****ing ridiculous. Why should someone with no skills and no marketable experience deserve such a wage? Plus, if I am guaranteed to make no less than $40 an hour, I will do the bare minimum to get by. This is one of many issues with worker's unions.

 

[RDK]

I love how I don't even need to participate in topics about economy because Crimson is like my alter-ego.

Aesir, as to your post, I think ultimately the business owner gets to determine the working conditions at his business. If the workers don't like it, they can simply leave.

Remember that a large part of economics is the buying and selling of services. It's just like if you went out and bought something from a store; you're paying for a good. It's the same way with working. The business is paying you for a service; you're not being forced to work there.

If you don't like the conditions, quit.

 

[Aesir]

The problem with unions is who really deserves them? Unskilled Workers want them, but do they deserve them? No, they do not.

After the issues of working conditions are established and solved, unions will still exist, and their ability to strike will be ever present. I spoke with a socialist on the issue and he believes that McDonald's workers should make at minimum $40 an hour for working where they work, and that is ****ing ridiculous. Why should someone with no skills and no marketable experience deserve such a wage? Plus, if I am guaranteed to make no less than $40 an hour, I will do the bare minimum to get by. This is one of many issues with worker's unions.

That's lol, I just thought I'd point that out. Did he really say 40 dollars an hour? That's really funny lol.

Jobs like McDonalds and Wal-mart I've been torn on, because you're right they're unskilled work. But Business needs rules to follow to ensure their workers are treated fairly.

I mean I'm not saying unions are perfect and there isn't some form of reform needed but if unions form and their demands are reasonable I don't see a problem.

Aesir, as to your post, I think ultimately the business owner gets to determine the working conditions at his business. If the workers don't like it, they can simply leave.

This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read. I read a lot of junk conservative articles too.

So you think it's okay for unsafe working conditions to exist and for the worker not to get compensated for that? That's a new extreme to the libertarian philosophy.

Remember that a large part of economics is the buying and selling of services. It's just like if you went out and bought something from a store; you're paying for a good. It's the same way with working. The business is paying you for a service; you're not being forced to work there.

If you don't like the conditions, quit.

That's bad business, it's like if I sold bread with glass in it. You don't have to buy it, but if word gets out that your business doesn't allow for safer working conditions and a decent pay out for working in unsafe conditions then your business will surely go under.

No one wants to work where the risk of injury far outweighs the pay out. That's why I left fedex.

 

[manhunter098]

Safety is one thing, asking for wages that you dont deserve and then using the power of a union to organize strikes to obtain those unnecessarily high wages is another thing.


Also riskier jobs tend to pay more, if people had the option of making more money in a less safe environment I am sure that there are plenty of people who would be willing. So if a business can cut costs more by making their factory a bit less safe, but be able to afford higher wages (and still have a net gain on the part of the business) I think that they should be allowed to take that initiative. Of course we need regulations to make sure things are too unsafe, but even then, as long as people are educated in the sense that they know what they are getting themselves into I dont really have a problem with people working riskier jobs for better pay.

 

[Aesir]

Safety is one thing, asking for wages that you dont deserve and then using the power of a union to organize strikes to obtain those unnecessarily high wages is another thing.

Right I mean the system isn't perfect and needs to be reworked, but to out right ban unions is irresponsible.

I do think those jobs need to pay their workers more, but not 40 bucks an hour that's ********, not even my mom makes that much. (she's a RT)

I do support a living wage which is enough money to pay for the necessities, and that's it.

Hazardous working conditions should be paid more, but generally speaking they don't pay enough, the risk at fedex of getting injured is high. To give you an idea, it was considered a good month if no one got injured.

That rarely happens.

 

[manhunter098]

I dont really think they need to pay people more at all. Granted that its the organization of corporations that allows for them to hand out lower wages, sort of like a monopoly on employment, but when the cost of goods go up because the cost of hiring workers rises, it buts a burden on everyone else. There is a balance, but I dont think that with the way unions work, that they are going to be able to achieve that balance.

 

[Aesir]

Without workers they have nothing, without business workers have nothing. It's not unreasonable for them to give a living wage.

There needs to be clear guidelines of workers rights, what can and can't be done business should be able to follow those rules. Like-wise workers need to follow laws that so they're not making unreasonable demands to their employees.

It goes both ways here.

Just thought I'd clarify real quick

Stupid lazy wage = 40 dollars

Living wage = Something like 10.

 

[RDK]

That's lol, I just thought I'd point that out. Did he really say 40 dollars an hour? That's really funny lol.

Jobs like McDonalds and Wal-mart I've been torn on, because you're right they're unskilled work. But Business needs rules to follow to ensure their workers are treated fairly.

I mean I'm not saying unions are perfect and there isn't some form of reform needed but if unions form and their demands are reasonable I don't see a problem.

This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read. I read a lot of junk conservative articles too.

So you think it's okay for unsafe working conditions to exist and for the worker not to get compensated for that? That's a new extreme to the libertarian philosophy.

I think you kind of took my post and ran with it. I'm not saying unions should be abolished altogether; things like safe and sanitary working conditions should definetely be a concern, but you can't honestly believe that that's all unions do nowadays. Many of them are a blight on the progress of business.

That's bad business, it's like if I sold bread with glass in it. You don't have to buy it, but if word gets out that your business doesn't allow for safer working conditions and a decent pay out for working in unsafe conditions then your business will surely go under.

No one wants to work where the risk of injury far outweighs the pay out. That's why I left fedex.

But you're proving my point; if the business doesn't meet workers' or consumers' standards, then it fails as a business. That's just the free market at work.

 

[Crimson King]

That's not a libertarian philosophy; it's a free market, capitalist philosophy.

If I run a ****ty business, no one will buy from me. So, I will be forced to lower price. If I treat my workers horribly, they will quit, and I'll have to hire more, and I'll have to pay to train more. Eventually, I'll stop having people work for me because I am an awful boss, I don't pay well, and I don't give people the days off, so either I adapt or I go out of business.

This is why when I see "Thank Labor Unions for the Weekend," and I laugh. Labor Unions were never involved in the creation of the weekend; capitalists were. Just like Labor Unions opposition to child labor was that they got paid better and scabbed more, thus making their strikes worthless.

 

[Aesir]

That's part of the libertarian philosophy though.

I think you kind of took my post and ran with it. I'm not saying unions should be abolished altogether; things like safe and sanitary working conditions should definetely be a concern, but you can't honestly believe that that's all unions do nowadays. Many of them are a blight on the progress of business.

Nah maybe I took your comment at face value, or you didn't realize how the comment could be taken. Though I will say I'm use to libertarians saying stupid things. So I probably just assumed.


But to addresst he issue with unions, they're not some evil monster that'll devour America's Economy (Corporations have already done that.) They're business neutral, a good union won't be making unreasonable demands that would be counter productive. When you demand to meet with your employer it's because you want better working conditions because you want to STAY not drive the company into the ground.

I would argue unions have done a lot of good, not just in America but in most industrialized nations. Unionized workers generally do a better job. (not to say there aren't those bad apples who only want to exploit their employers.) I mean I'm probably the most progressive person in the DH, but if I was the owner of a fast food restaurant and a union came up to me after hours and demanded 40dollars an hour. I would laugh at in their face. It's one thing to demand fairness (living wage, possibilities to advance up the corporate ladder, certain benefits ect..) But it's a completely different thing when you're demand higher wages because you're a lazy worker sitting in your moms basement.

I see unions as a necessity, it helps keep business from exploiting their workers and maintaining a fair and just working environment.

 

[cman]

Unions are self regulating as well, in the sense that if they ask too much, then they drive the business into the ground (ie. UAW and big 3) then other companies start to take over (Toyota), and all the union members lose jobs.

I'm rather undecided on how unskilled workers should be treated though. On the one hand, I have problems with paying someone large amounts of money when a machine could do a better job, but on the other, I don't really want the majority of the population living close to povertyor unemployed.

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

Government is responsible for protecting workers AND consumers from unsafe environments and goods, at least in Canada. If my employer threatens the security of my job to do unsafe work, screws me out of my pay, "forgets" to pay me for a holiday, or refuses to pay workman's compensation, I can make one phone call and there will be an investigation launched. And it will probably end poorly for my employer.

Likewise, if a faulty and unsafe product is released, the same process is launched. No one is going to sell bread with glass in it because that will obviously be reported, and that business will be in all sorts of trouble, not to mention all sorts of bad PR.

I'm not sure about the USA though.

Unions are ultimately useless in this age. The government oversees almost all the important aspects of job protection. Assuming that your tax dollars are being spend well and the system is properly maintained, your employer should be weary of trying to screw you over.

The only USEFUL thing that I've seen unions doing recently is dealing with insurance companies when people become ill. Workers who are diagnosed with life altering diseases like Cancer are often met with poor treatment from insurance companies, who often get "second opinions" that state a person can go back to work FAR earlier than is safe. Unions have the lawyers and authority to counter this. This is ESPECIALLY important in the US, where your insurance companies pay for most of your medical care.

Otherwise, unions jack up bottom lines far too much for the economy to handle. The most obvious example of this is with the auto industry. US auto makers were easily 3-4 times more per employee by the time pensions and benefits were factored in compared to Japanese auto makers. This resulted in Japanese auto makers being able to produce similar quality cars for far less. And we all probably know the result of that.

I believe that unions need to to focus on protecting the worker and their families from the unforeseen and often derailing occurrences in life, not from the company they work for. Most unions have already established good pay and benefits for their workers, and are just becoming greedy at this point. The only ones I can honestly say haven't gotten to that point in Ontario are Essential Service Workers and MAYBE teachers.