Unions have been of great importance, but the worker are now (too) well protected.
Printable View
Unions have been of great importance, but the worker are now (too) well protected.
And forresters! :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
These indeed. Europe's best example would be the Netherlands. Unions and Industry don't regard each other as having conflicting interests, but as sharing long term interests. Labour tranquility and sustainable wage demands are the result. Polder ModelQuote:
But outside of that, in the private sector (where unions are the most needed, by far), there's basically no or little unions left since the 90's and the downfall of the communist party.
If you want to see a country with strong and representative unions, you should rather look at Norway, Sweden or even Germany.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Generally good, well actually good full stop.
The rights and security for workers gained via unions is nothing short of life changing. Unions have helped more people than pretty much all other organisations in the modern age.
I found a new theme song for Divinus Arma ...
I say generally bad.
Every interaction I have had with a union has been negative.
While working for FedEx (one of the nations largest non union companies) we did work for GM and while touring a GM facility were we picked up I noticed they were running behind in a situation where being late would cost them large late fees, I offered to help and picked up a box and everyone of the GM workers bit my head off about how I cant touch their boxes and steal their work…
Also while setting up a trade show booth I have had to use union labor to do the physical set-up and electricity stuff and most have been uncooperative. In one situation the guy was on a ladder and needed a screwdriver from the counter but wouldn’t let me hand it to him.
Another company I did some contract work for had a union dispute because the company wouldn’t install picnic tables for the patio; they had regular tables but not picnic tables.
I can thing of a few other encounters that are similar but why beat a dead horse.
If you were to see the John Stossel episode on the teachers unions you would probably want to explode! The cover-up of incompetent and sex offender teachers was sickening.
I think the time for unions has past with the industrial revolution. With all the choices in the civilized countries today there is no reason to stay working for a company that doesn’t treat you well. If employers don’t treat their good employees well they leave to companies that do. Leaving behind the employees that are less than good bringing the entire company down which allows other companies to rise. That said I am beginning to feel a little under appreciated, it might be time to move on to a better, more appreciative company.
From a management perspective I think how much I can pay my people not how much can I get away with paying them. Upper management will growl but they don’t complain about the successes – I really encourage bonuses based on performance in addition to modest base pay rates.
Treat your people good and they don’t need a union, if you are not being treated good leave.
Besides the fact that rent is due and the job market is terrible?Quote:
I think the time for unions has past with the industrial revolution. With all the choices in the civilized countries today there is no reason to stay working for a company that doesn’t treat you well.
I understand what you are saying and would never recommend storming off the job but if you are not being treated well start looking and make a plan, it might take a few months but at lease you have an exit strategy. The job market may stink now but think long term. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
It reflects of a nation in which you work to live and not live to work. And actually, the 35 hours week was introduced officially to create jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910
Don't get me wrong, we have very vocal unions. Yet, they're mainly limited to the public sector and don't represent the french workers/society as a whole. Most private workers stoped to join unions a while ago.
The job market has been stinking for a few decades now. By long term, do you mean 50 years old long term ? I think I'll get a McJob for 15 years, but no worries, by 2025, things might get better and I'll hopefully find a real job.Quote:
I understand what you are saying and would never recommend storming off the job but if you are not being treated well start looking and make a plan, it might take a few months but at lease you have an exit strategy. The job market may stink now but think long term.
What choice ? I think you're seriously overestimating the size of the current job market. Most people will take the first half-arsed job they can, because doing otherwise is just too much of a risk when your whole life is determined by your job or lack thereof.Quote:
I think the time for unions has past with the industrial revolution. With all the choices in the civilized countries today there is no reason to stay working for a company that doesn’t treat you well.
And then they will probably shut their mouth, even if the boss is an ass, even if they're being underpaid, because well, if you lose your job, you're screwed.
Eh.....
As a concept, unions are a great idea. There needs to be a balance of power between employers and employees. The need for unions may not be what they used to, but they can still be highly useful in some industries.
Unfortunately, unions are also easily susceptible to the same kind of corruption they originally intended to fight. Union members need to be vigilant about their leadership and ensuring that no one person serves for any length of time longer than a few years at most at a head position. Additionally, some unions have gotten too powerful and unnecessarily hamper their employers and the economy as a whole. Prime example would be the UAW.
However, on principle, I voted for generally good.
My experience on the other hand has been incredibly good.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
I work under an agreement made under Union Collective bargaining and my pay rate is higher than most of my friends in equivalent positions. I have other protections such as not being allowed to work for more than 5 days per week without Management making a special request. I get time and a half on Sundays and I get double time and a half on Public Holidays. I plan on joining the union at the start of next year and I want to get more actively involved in them.
The intersection of conflict is born out of the managerial fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder wealth within the constraints of the law. Business ethics argues otherwise. Stakeholders, not just shareholders, must be considered in decision making. Suppliers, communities, the environment, employees; All have a stake in the activities of a relevant business when the consequences of their decision making directly impact them. We can not, as many pro-business pundits who have you believe, rely on the "good will" of management. "Good will" must be legislated. What do we call the legislation of ethics? Regulation.
The whole argument against labor rights, against environmental protection, and against honest accounting regulation is based on the challenges of competitiveness in free trade.The pundits would argue that that regulation undermines the ability of American companies to compete in the free trade global marketplace. Tell me how we can call it free trade when we allow the importation of slave-labor merchandise produced in heavy polluting manufacturing plants? It is no wonder we can not compete, when we are required to pay our employees a dignified wage in factories that meet strict environmental rules. It is only free trade when our trading partners are forced to follow the same rules of ethics as we are.
If foreign nations wish to trade with us, we ought to demand that they follow a dollar-for-dollar concession in industry-specific regulation, be it labor, accounting, or environmental standards. If they import vehicles, they must compensate their employees the standard-of-living equivalent to American auto workers while additionally meeting the same strict environmental regulations as American companies must meet on our soil. Arguing that we must eliminate worker rights, ignore environmental concerns, and sacrifice our principles because foreign nations do not share our ethics perspective is simply wrong.
In the face of unfair and unethical foreign business competition, we compromise our ideals at great peril.
Free trade is not truly so until it is Fair Trade. We regulate our companies to secure the environment, provide for shareholder protection against criminal acts of management, and protect employees from unsafe and oppressive working conditions. Those who we trade with must be required to meet the same standards in order to qualify for tariff-free trade.
I've never had my own thoughts put so eloquently. I take my hat off to you sir :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Or to put it another way "it's not fair that others do things differently to us. All should be penalised to ensure that our products are cost effective. Only when the playing field is level or preferably heavily in our favour will we deign to play fair and stop throwing toys out of the pram".
America already uses weapons to force its cultural values on others. I suppse it's not surprising that they expect everyone to do business in their way.
Who decides the cultural impact? The locals, or do we fly over some Americans to assess it for us?
~:smoking:
Much of the world is already forced to do this through the IMF and the WTO.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I will admit that right now is not the best time to be looking for your first job, a recent grad is going to be taking what he can get but someone with some experience and a few years on the job can find other things, especially if they are good at what they do and don’t mind moving to another city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
A negative attitude isn’t going to help you find a new/better job. If you have an attitude that the job market sucks and its going to take you 10 years to find a better job then you’ll be lucky to find a new job in 10 years. Realistically, a positive outlook on the situation and a casual hunt could bear fruit in a much shorter timeframe.
Then isn’t it worth trying to find the best one you can, even if it takes a year and a city move?Quote:
What choice ? I think you're seriously overestimating the size of the current job market. Most people will take the first half-arsed job they can, because doing otherwise is just too much of a risk when your whole life is determined by your job or lack thereof.
And then they will probably shut their mouth, even if the boss is an ass, even if they're being underpaid, because well, if you lose your job, you're screwed.
I am frustrated that I might not be maximizing my earning potential right now, I’m in my 30s and this is when I should be making the bulk of my career money and savings for retirement. I may start looking myself. :2thumbsup:
I voted "generally good". You can count on both unions and employers' organisations to act in their own interest; as long as the system works they'll ballance eachother out.
...wich means that they're far from always right, and occasionally launch some really inane ideas. The boss of our largest union said a couple of months ago that there ought to be a law forcing companies to adopt a quota of woman in their top management. She took her inspiration from Norway, where companies who don't employ women for at least 1/3 of their top management lose the right to have their stocks traded publicly.
However in Norway woman labour participation is greater because the costs of living are generally higher and because tax and subsidy programs effectively penalize single-provider families who don't dump their kids at day care. Young Dutch parents have much more freedom of choice, and the simple fact is that many women simply opt to freeze their career for 10+ years in order to raise young kids after wich they often lack the experience of male candidates of the same age.
Everytime I hear someone claim that corporate management is institutionally sexist I cringe :wall:
Why cringe, I think it is true. Everyone likes to hire women they just don’t like to treat them equally. Some countries are better at it but if you look globally the world is still very sexist. Although I would call it culturally sexist and institutionally by default as a representation of the culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
I voted Generaly Bad
Unions are good in theory. In practice they stunt the economy.
Some exaples:
Erossion of Competitiveness: By negotiating greater than inflation wages, without equivalent gains to productivity to back it up, the Unions drive inflation up. Moreover, when unions are strong, any competitive advantage that might be obtained, even if it comes from Capital and not Labour, will be sucked in as higher wages. Consequently Competitiveness is eroded and as a result investment drops and fewer jobs are created since investors move to other markets. That results in huge social costs so it balances out like this 'a few benefit from good wages but the whole country stays below its steady state equilibrium and the general population suffers income penalties because of it'
Insiders/Outsiders : Union workers end up getting paid more than non-union workers and are more difficult to fire. This is unfair and beats the purpose of a Union.
A Steping Stone to Politics: I dunno about where you people live, but in Greece most ex-Union leaders become MP's
Men in jobs more than women (top city jobs): Sexist!Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Women in jobs more than men (Paediactrics, GP, primary school teachers, child minders): that's fine.
Greater proportion of whites in job that others: Racist
Greater proportion of others in a job compared to whites (Medicine in general): that's fine.
Statistically, women have more time for maternity leave than men. there are some high-flying women who are back to work 2 weeks after birth, but these are very few. As a result of this men become GPs quicker than women. Is this sexist too?
Purely from experience, men will get it faster as they take less time off work on average. This is true after child bearing age.
Men are prepared to work longer, more unsociable hours and to relocate more than women.
Could it be that perhaps having a massively high paying job isn't the goal of everyone? Perhaps some like to have less pay, but more security, more holiday and less travel?
I am sure if you saw the amount of holiday that men and women get men would be far lower; ditto with time off for all causes.
~:smoking:
Actually that's the entire purpose of a Union.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
Yep, in Australia almost every member of the Labor Party (The current government) is a former Union President, Secretary or lawyer.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
I think I got one. If anyone wants to hear about it I will start a new thread! :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...3tUhwD94S03UG0
An example of union's doing good for ya'll...
Which is why I offered GENERALLY in the poll question. If you would like it to say "marginally", feel free to interpret it as such.
It is better to have a union and its protections (and excesses), than not have a union and see the abuse of management and their excesses. A union simply levels the playing field and enables the common worker to have a fair say in how they are treated.
You mean it levels the playing field and allows unmotivated, poorer performing employees to be treated just the same as highly motivated, exceptional ones. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
If anyone needs proof that Union agreements provide much needed protection for various employees, I suggest you do some research into the Australian WorkChoices legislation. Basically this meant that all employees in small businesses would be signed up to individual agreements - within a year of this being introduced the horror stories of (Particularly young) workers signing away their rights and benefits for 2 cents per hour started. This forced the government to introduce a 'safety net', which again proved woefully inadequate.
Now we are moving back to an entire Industrial relations system based on collective agreements (with Unions being optional for the employees).
Generally good, provided the union leadership can regularly be voted in or out in truly free and fair (and secret ballot) elections by an informed electorate.
That is critically important. I've seen unions that try to force everyone including non members to pay dues to the Union, for example local teachers unions. I've also seen union construction workers picketing job sites because non-union workers were doing the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
As long as the union is completely voluntary for the workers, and management is free to hire whomever they want including non-union workers then I'm fine with them. But, in my experience they are seldom necessary, and often make unreasonable demands.