Aren't they all, in working democracies ? :dizzy2:
Printable View
Aren't they all, in working democracies ? :dizzy2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Simple question required a simple answer. If I was sure of how things worked in Scandinavia, I wouldn't have asked it. :2thumbsup:
Doesn't France get shut down and held hostage by paralyzing strikes every few years or so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Is that what you call "working like a charm?"
Maybe you should simply answer my question instead of resorting to crypticisms. Is it one single union, or a confederation of unions led by some sort of a council? Are they negotiating all contracts for all workers both government and private sector?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
If you want me to understand your system, try to explain it rather than just being smug about how superior it is.
I'll try to keep up, I promise. I was a PolySci major before switching to Commerce, so I just might be able to follow what you're saying.
Fortunately, I think we Canadians have struck a much better balance than both of you. To paint with broad strokes, the U.S. is ruled by corporations, and Europe is ruled by Big Labour. Canada, I think, has managed to find a bit of middleground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
There, my turn to be smug.
:beam:
Depends on the context. But I can blame both nature and nurture for having grown up an acerbic smartass. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Why would the union members put up with a leadership they didn't choose anyway ?
Seems to work fine for them. Do recall that they have institutionalized civil disobedience as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
But you'd really have to ask a Frenchman or someone otherwise more closely aquainted with the system there. They do things differently from us Scandinavians.
Note that the Finnish and Norwegian systems aren't identical. Off the top of my head I can't recall anything specific about how they do things, but around here basically the representatives of main branch labour union associations and the employer equivalents get together every year and wrangle up a consensus framework contract that basically sets out the wage developements and suchlike for the next year, with the governement acting as a sort of referee and quarantor. As might be imagined those negotiations can go on for a while, as many of the two main parties' interests are almost diametrically opposed (eg. the employees would prefer as high wages as possible, the employers as low as possible by default) and major strikes and all that jazz occasionally spiced up the proceedings in the past. I understand the threats of such labour fights are still occasionally flashed as part of the negotiation tactics, and sometimes followed through as well although that level of confrontationalism has gotten rarer these days.Quote:
Maybe you should simply answer my question instead of resorting to crypticisms. Is it one single union, or a confederation of unions led by some sort of a council? Are they negotiating all contracts for all workers both government and private sector?
If you want me to understand your system, try to explain it rather than just being smug about how superior it is.
I'll try to keep up, I promise. I was a PolySci major before switching to Commerce, so I just might be able to follow what you're saying.
Makes for some good serial drama too, since they redo it every year, and obviously a lot of the audience have their own stakes in the game.
People tend to sort of forget that you guys even exist, though. ~;pQuote:
Fortunately, I think we Canadians have struck a much better balance than both of you. To paint with broad strokes, the U.S. is ruled by corporations, and Europe is ruled by Big Labour. Canada, I think, has managed to find a bit of middleground.
There, my turn to be smug.
:beam:
If people just treated each other fairly there'd be no need to unionize. The only time people ask for some outragoues benifts is when some populist demagouge tells them they deserve it. If employeers paid a fair salary and worked with there employees unions wouldnt exist. Trust me it can be done with big compaines I work for one that doesnt have a single unionzed guy in it and everyone thinks they have the best job for there skill set.
Good for you. Doesn't work out that way most of the time though, which is why the unions came into being. In spite of being for a while illegal and all, and in some places having to deal with honest-to-God hitmen the irate employer side sent (elements of the Spanish Left learned to be pretty good at urban combat this way; this was of some use in the Civil War).
But since the choice was ultimately between labor unionization and labor militancy most governements figured out the better bet eventually and brought the more recalcitrant among the employer side to heel.
Maybe weak by your standards, but when they contribute to a state recession like we are having in Michigan, I don't see them as weak at all. I'm sure you would know more about this than I would though, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
That's just stupid of so many levels.Quote:
Come to Europe, and you'll see what a union should be like. Take Norway, for example. Last fall during the national budget talks, the leader of our biggest union basically told our prime minister to sit down, shut up and do as she said(and he did, with barely any struggle). That's a strong union.
I'm glad President Bush isn't dictated by from the unions. Like Goofball has said, God forbid we let supply and demand and the free market do their job.
Well, they usually do some pretty nasty things.
Why do you think people and states go to all the trouble and effort involved in reining them in ?
Some answers:
1. Our union, LO, is a coalition of just about every union in the country. So yes, it DOES represent almost the entire workforce.
2. The leader is democratically chosen, and that leader also holds a place in the labour party's sentral committee by default(a very powerful position).
3. The organisation of LO is pretty much like this:
1. Sentral committee(the highest)
2. Leader
3. All the various profession leaders
4. The early wage negotiations work like Watchman said, except that the "referee" isn't the government, it's an independent guy(Riksmeglingsmannen/Countrynegotiationsman) with no interest other than getting the two parties to agree.
5. Strikes are an uncommon sight nowadays. This years negotiation was settled within the first couple of days...
6. One of the reasons stated why our model is working great for us, is that both employers and employees are working together here. There aren't any outrageous demands, especially not when the economy is hot. Like in this year, we have to hold back a little on consumption to avoid a crash, and so the union didn't ask for a raise for anyone else than groups who are very underpaid(like our nurses). The demands are usually very reasonable, so if there are any strikes, it's usually some random groups who feel they've been overlooked.
7. As for turning to the dark side of market liberalism, I was referring to our PM who sometimes has an urge to privatize stuff best left in the hands of the government. Like our electricity, in the 5(?) years since that sector was privatized, we've had 3 energy crashes... The price has gone up by 300% or so... We're "constantly short on water in our reservoirs"(water energy is our primary source), yet we are exporting like there's no freakin' tomorrow... And then importing back at twice the cost.... Does that sound clever to you? Anyway, it's not what we, as voters, expect from a social democrat. I blame Blair.
I can't speak for the country as a whole, but where I come from, most teachers with more than a few years experience make well above the median income and most get 3 months off out of the year too- not a bad deal in my book. I'm not trying to say that they don't work hard or that there aren't good teachers- there are. But there are also incompetent and just plain bad one's too that are more often than not sheltered and protected by unions. Unions also prevent people who excel from getting ahead- their payscales are all carefully negotiated by seniority. You can be a terrible teacher yet make more than a brilliant one by virtue of the fact that you've been at it longer- that's not right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
The NYC schools apparently have a good union- let's see what it takes for the district to fire an incompetent teacher: clicky
They have an entire office building to warehouse bad teachers in. Some have had inappropriate relationships with students- but it's easier to keep them out of the classroom and on the public payroll than it is to dismiss them.
On unions in general, they are useful for workers when there are many workers vying for few(especially low-skill) jobs. In those situations employers can easily fire and replace employees who aren't satisfied with their work/pay. However, the US currently has a fairly tight labor market- companies are willing to pay to get good employees.
Taking this back to the schools... In a situation like this, good teachers should be paid good money. School boards are elected and therefore should be motivated to get results. If they won't pay for quality teachers, the quality of education would suffer accordingly. However, in the situation imposed by the unions good teachers are paid the same as the worst teachers. :dizzy2:
The European definition of "union" and that of the USA are substantially different.
The Euro "strong" union tradition has a much more specifically marxist origin -- ALL workers unite to control the means of production -- than do unions on this side of the pond. Our last effort along those lines was the Wobblies, and they took it on the chin. The AFL-CIO, by contrast, is an umbrella organization that seeks to imitate this one big union power bloc, but simply can't accomplish the level of needed solidarity -- the voices are too disparate and the agendas too independent among its constituent elements. In the USA, it is all too often the case that a union's International headquarters is quite a bit out of touch with its union locals, and for reasons surprisingly paralell to the reasons our elected representatives in DC can become out of phase with their own constituencies.
Union organizing in the USA, as in Europe, went through a period of out-and-out violence as well. Violence was a common component of strikes here well into the 1970s and still occurs on occasion. However, no union in the USA has ever been quite big enough, complete enough, or had the degree of solidarity necessary to actually de-stabilize the country or otherwise demonstrate a critical degree of power. In contrast, there are a number of instances in European history where large (at least relative to the country in question) unions have effectively paralyzed the whole nation until their issue was addressed.
Unions in the USA today focus most of their effort on: political lobbying and extracting the greatest possible amount of money from employers. Workplace Safety and Fairness issues feature in every contract, but for the most part the Unions are content to let OSHA dictate safety standards and to let 3rd party arbitrators keep worker grievances out of court. They really fight to take as much money as they can, with their favorite tactic -- pattern bargaining -- having become so important that some strikes appear to have been called by the International HQ more to preserve that tactic's power than to benefit the local union branches directly affected by the strike and the subsequently negotiated contract.
Sadly, this style of bargaining is not always done in an intelligent fashion. Unions in the USA have fought for and won contracts that have made the company decidely less competitive and contributed to the company's downfall. Their negotiating teams rarely have individuals who are truly knowledgeable about industry competition norms and standards or about the actual cost of manufacture/service in those industries (I've been led to understand that such expertise is often available in European union negotiation teams). To be fair, both the Unions and Management often take highly antagonistic attitudes into the negotiations -- rarely the most positive framework to start with -- so that part of the mess is shared all around.
Anyway....unions in the USA and Europe do not mean the same thing. Evaluating them using the same rubric would be difficult at best.
A question about the wage system you have, Seamus... Do you have a standard nationwide rate for each profession, or do you negotiate wages at a company level?
The latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
However, "pattern bargaining" is a tool that attempts to use this company-level approach against the employers during bargaining.
Step 1 = determine which company in an industry (say automotive) is "weakest" and can most easily be forced to accept an agreement including substantial increases in wage/benefit.
Step 2 = negotiate a relatively favorable contract with that company, using a strike if necessary (remember, you picked the weakest link) to force the agreement.
Step 3 = announce that this agreement has set the "pattern" for all future agreements expected because you (the union international) want to help all of your workers equally and create an "even playing field" for all companies in that industry. Prima Facie this appears quite reasonable of course (as it can be most of the time if the initial agreement is wisely constructed).
Step 4 = use this added leverage to force other comapnies to accept the new "standards" for wages and benefits.
While trying to establish reasonable "living wage" norms for an industry is not an inherently bad concept for unions, regrettably, the pattern bargaining tactic has been too frequently used in an extortionate manner. We really do have situations now, especially in automotive, where companies are carrying workers to do virtually nothing -- pure waste cost -- and this leaves the companies less competitive. Too many of our union leaders implicitly believe that the jobs are a right that will and must always be maintained -- regardless of economic realities and have NOT done a lot with their unions to make their workers better/stronger/smarter. The answer always seems to be "force the company to give us more" without also paying attention to "how do we aid our workers in becoming more valuable as workers" (and therefore less prone to being let go).
Changing from negotiations from company to nationwide(or perhaps statewide would be better suited for the US?) would do a world of good.
Both employer and employee suddenly get a lot more weight, and it becomes impossible to pick on the weak, as you say they are doing. It also means that every company in the industry has the same terms.
I think the idea of unions is sound although the values they once sttod for is sadly lacking these days.
In my view unions are there to protect individual workers by showing a common front for everyone in the companies employ, this should include fair pay/conditions/pension etc. These days though I think more and more unions are increasingly concerned with governmental policy and dictating terms to companies and have lost sight of what they should be doing.
For example I am a civil servant and lifelong union member, although granted more out of custom than choice. The MoD is currently going through a major cost cutting exercise which involves losing 10,000 posts, we have also just been through our annual pay talks and are in the process of being relocated from scattered sites to one or two main sites. The unions view of this is that the job cuts are wrong, the pay deal is too low and we shouldn't have to relocate, all of this sounds reasonable at first glance until you realise that once you get past a certain grade your contract includes a mobility clause where you agree to be a mobile grade, affectively agreeing to work where you're sent. Now the union is focusing not on the below inflation pay rise or the job cuts but on the relocation and trying to influence the members on which political party to support.
Anyway, I think the unions need to get back to basics which is to stop individual members being steam rollered by big companies and leave the running of the companies to the people who know how to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Welding is one of the best possible career choices over here. A good welder can make a fortune in a couple of years. Same thing with plumbers, hard to top what they make with a desk job, and they're not even in a union.
Personally I feel trans-company unions tend to be a bad thing since they undermine competition. A lot of unions do act irresponsible, I wish we'd evolve more to a system where the union (the workers actually) controls part of the shares of the company, that way their might be more incentive to keep the company profitable.
I'm not saying they should eb given the shares BTW, they should buy 'em like everybody else.
I agree. In Canada, if your business unionizes, then you have failed as a manager.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Management typically gets the union they deserve. In most cases, if they had paid a bit more attention to the well-being and happiness of their employees, there would be no union.
:applause: :applause:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Very good. My friend's dad a couple days ago was telling me how they were paying people 60 dollars an hour to cut the grass.
doc don't confuse Panzer with tales of the real world .Quote:
Welding is one of the best possible career choices over here. A good welder can make a fortune in a couple of years. Same thing with plumbers
What I find funny about some of this topic is that many of the Americans berating unions are the same people who complain about illegals .
The main reason I tell lads heading over to the States to go over legally is because if their paperwork is not in order they cannot join the union over there . Outside of the union you are going to get screwed come wintertime , and really really screwed when you have an accident .
One question for the Euros here: How do unions and their contracts mesh with the social security and health care systems of the nation? Unions here negotiate for pensions, health plans, and other benefits, as well as salary. Do European unions add to existing national health care benefits, or do they mainly negotiate salary? The most publicized complaint from the auto industry is the burden of the retirement/health care costs that manufacturers in other nations don't have to worry about. Are they just blowing smoke, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
*Tearing up educational credentials*
Alright, get me a lawn mower and a union card!
I make more than that atm, but would rather be outside cutting grass.
$60 per hour translates into $124,800 per year, if you believe a wage calculator. You're doing better than that? good on ya! When I was doing computer work for an investment bank in NYC, I was quite happy to be earning the equivalent of $48 per hour. $125k per year must go a long way in Iowa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
They are billable hours and yes what I make does go a long way in Iowa especially since I'm not limited to 40 hours a week or pay union dues, but I am incorporated.
I'm pretty sure we use standardized rates for that stuff here in Finland. Sorta like the tax on goods really. Not sure though, haven't had a reason to find out.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
'Course, different countries have different systems. Remember that the EU alone has 27 member states already, and not all European states are in it either... We got a lot of countries in a fairly small geographical area here. :beam:
Oh I know. I was laughing pretty pretty hard when I heard that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
For somebody who has been chiding others for their lack of understanding of the real world, you've just demonstrated a serious lack of understanding yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Health and dental benefits, salary, and accident coverage do not have to hinge on being in a union, they hinge on who you work for. Good employers will offer all of those benefits to their people. I have worked in non-union positions for the last 17 years, and my benefit package would shame those available to most people through their unions.
I can attest to that stateside as well. My pre-college post USMC careers found me in a few manufacturing positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
1. Benefits were almost always better when not under union.
2. Benefits were more stable. Benefit packages under unions are used constantly as a bargaining tool and while one year you may have great benefits, the next year's negotiations will bring you a horrible benefits package as the unions overreached the previous year or negotiated for some other benefit this year etc etc etc.
3. Depending on the size of the Union and their affiliation you will be subject to group insurance which as you know will fluctuate in cost to you by the respective health of that group. At one position an aging group had the pay in cost for our benefits substantially larger than if we purchased our own policies privately.
If you read what I wrote you may see that it is about a specific job and the union for that job , non union workers in that job get screwed in America(northern) every winter just as non union workers in that job get screwed in Ireland Britian Germany Holland .......every winterQuote:
For somebody who has been chiding others for their lack of understanding of the real world, you've just demonstrated a serious lack of understanding yourself.
Health and dental benefits, salary, and accident coverage do not have to hinge on being in a union
I can understand Goof's confusion. Here's your post and I'm still not sure what job and union you're referring to. 'Lad' is a fairly nonspecific job description. Doc's post which you quote mentions welders and plumbers, but I'm not sure if you're referring to one of them, or which one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Ajax