I have the benefit of approaching this issue from the perspective of a union employee and an MBA. I understand the rights and motivations of both shareholders and stakeholders.
What is your perspective?
Printable View
I have the benefit of approaching this issue from the perspective of a union employee and an MBA. I understand the rights and motivations of both shareholders and stakeholders.
What is your perspective?
That you like to see people fight, by giving them two extremes and no compromise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Generally Bad because they eventually become as bad as the men at the top. Not to mention the mafia like tactics used to keep members in line. As rule an employer should treat his employees with respect and pay them a wage tied into there skills. While I understand this doesnt always happen I find unions to be a worse option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910
Please do not troll.
Banquo's Ghost delete this and his post and allow this thread to enjoy a fresh start. Thank you. :bow:
Respectfully, where did you get this information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I am a member of a powerful union and our board is approachable and honest. They are regular employees and anybody can run for their position. I have met several of them while they ran for office and just while working. They do their duties uncompensated and are easily replaced should they act with dishonor.
I speak from doing some reading when I have time to and some stories from family, so not very good. I will cede you know more than me however I would also like to point out that you are in a firefighter union right? That is a little different than a union for a private company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Teachers policeman and firefighters are little different than the autoworker or Wal-Mart butcher who didn't get and education and thought he would have a comfy factory job the rest of his life
I could be way off here but I come here to learn so enlighten me.
I wish they were more good than bad, but these days they are more bad than good. Maybe if things get crappy again they will serve a purpose.
:shrug:
I've been a union employee in California, and I am from the state of Louisiana, which is a "right to work state." I believe that in some instances unions can be exceptionally beneficial, insure a reasonable wage, as well as standards that produce skilled workers and a quality work environment. But also, in other situations they can cripple an industry, and do quite the opposite of what they should.
I would more or less agree with this, though I'm not entirely sure to what level they can cripple an industry and am unwilling to blame all of the auto-industry's woes on unions as they've been making horrible management level decisions for years now. To be clear I don't pretend to know your opinion on that Yoyoma. That was just my exhausted rambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910
They can be good or bad, just like companies can be good or bad. I see it as a system of checks and balances.
The American auto industry is a mess all its own. Its blame lies in all involved in the industry, and their unwillingness to adjust to growing international competition and markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
I respect your humility and integrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I haven't worked in a private union, but I have two friends who came from electricians unions. They spoke very highly of their experience and had no complaint. Formerly being a hard core Republican, I had my reservations. I will absolutely admit I was wrong about unions. They are essential to protecting workers from the power of management.
Unions are the only way for the workers to have a one-to-one exchange between managers and employees. Think about it from a manager's perspective: Your one and only duty, for which you are paid in bonuses if you are sucecssful, is to maximize shareholder wealth. Labor is a cost and every penny given to labor is a penny not given to the shareholder, the owner of the company and the grantor of your bonus. Whether that penny goes to pensions, health care, or salary matters not. It is a cost that must be reduced. With that said, not all labor is equal. While as a manager, I want to pay as little as possible, I understand that skills are an input to my business and I am a consumer of labor skills. Just as the consumer seeks value in products, so to does management want the most bang for his buck from labor inputs. Skills of value will be in shorter supply, and thus be more expensive. The impetus to reward strictly on merit is perfectly understandable.
This basic management perspective ignores two points: (1) The ethics of objectifying labor, and (2) the potential for forced intrapreneurialism.
Arguing point #2 is something that requires objective data to substantiate and I will not bother with that here.
Arguing point #1 is a little easier to chew on and digest. Objectifying labor is a managerial sin that fails to recognize the human toll of decision making. EDIT: Now look at it from a worker standpoint. You are 22 years old and just got out of the Army. You aren't quite sharp enough for college, and not ever really better than mediocre in school with low SATs. But you are good with your hands and you love working with machinery. You find a training school for heavy machinery and use your GI Bill to get through. Once finished, you find employment with a construction company, working a bulldozer. Thanks to your union, you make decent enough money to pay rent, buy a car, and be comfortable for your age. You look forward to staying with the company because you know you will get a small pension when you retire, you have fun driving your bulldozer in the bright blue sky outdoors, and you have good health insurance. You also know that you will get regular raises and that you can eventually buy a house and support a family. Life is pretty good. The union preserves living wages, healthcare, and a secure retirement. You can do your job and enjoy it because you don't have to stress out about cost-cutting layoffs or unfair treatment from a disrespectful arrogant boss.
I have no idea about real Unions, so I can't really comment. There was a lot of hankering here about Unions and "work-choices" in the last election. Pretty funny though that now the government is going back on its promises to the Unions. And I actually never understood why the Unions complained so much, having read up on workchoices they weren't actually bad at all.
Student University Unions are rubbish though. Anything that costs me $200-$250 a year for no benefits or return is a waste, of, time. I'm just glad that it'll take a while for the legislation to make them compulsory again to pass.
I voted generally bad, though there's some cases where they do good.
In general, I say they are a temporary solution to a permanent problem. The vast majority of problems happened at the first part of last century.
I've certainly worked my share of crap jobs - on a berry farm with a bunch of migrant workers, making minimum wage in 80+ hour weeks with no overtime, and I've also worked as a laborer in a industrial painting company that used to be unionized and then became un-unionized.
And I still generally am against unions. They limit flexibility in business, by making job descriptions very strict, among a thousand other things. The more powerful the union, the worse it generally is.
I've worked in a large non-union refinery and from all that I hear the experience, for all employees, and especially the relationship between hourly and salaried types, is much better than in unionized refineries under the same company.
Unions are a symptom of poor management or aggressive unionizing attempts by faltering unions (the UAW is trying to unionize the graduate students and assorted folks at my university), so it seems better to me that you solve the underlying problem instead of boasting about a powerful union. It's like thinking that taking strong antibiotics is better than not having a disease in the first place.
CR
I can see what your saying and I guess you're right. In my ideal wrold common sense and dencency would rule over the willingness to make a buck but it doesn't seem that is so. I also agree that many good companies have unions and still remain in the black.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I'm going to have to mull this one over. :2thumbsup:
None of this can happen without a union?Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Don't forget how they can discourage exceptionalism. When your pay is determined solely by how long you've been around, there isn't much incentive to bother providing anything than the bare minimum. Such standards hurt the employer and also hurt the employees who are more talented or hard working than their peers. Unions are generally setup to discourage individual excellence and initiative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
generally bad in that they were a tool for the Soviet Union. along with the Co-op bank.
Just some random thoughts.
Instead of having a conflict situation of company vs. employee, why not put them into a different construction?
In these days of recession, I, among many I assume, have been reflecting on several phenomena in our capital oriented societies and I think we should dare to question everything, even those things we have always taken for granted and un-changeable (sp?) thus far.
The more I think about it, the more I dislike the idea that a company is, in the end, owned by the accidental owners of some pieces of paper, the shareholders.
A company is a symbiosis of money and labor.
When a company starts, you need an input of money, but you also need work force.
The one who brings the money, gets the shares and owns the company and will get the profits made by the company. The one who works gets a salary, but no ownership, allthough his input is as crucial as the input of the guy with money. Can't have a company with money alone, can't have a company with labor alone, yet from the very start there is this discrepancy between the guy who brings in money and the guy who brings in labor.
But over the years, it is the people who actually work in that company that generate income and, once the initial investments are paid of, profit. At a certain point of time, it just feels plain wrong that the one who holds the shares that once belonged to a guy who put in a small amount of money (small in comparison to the income/profits made by the company over the years thanks to the hard work of the employees), owns the company (i.e. "the money" owns the company) and the years of hard work don't give ownership in the company (i.e. "the labor" doesn't get any ownership whatsoever) (unless they buy shares on the stockmarket or the benevolent board of directors decides to reward an employee with stock options etc., but that's not my point. The point is that ownership of the company should be inherent on working in that company, as in : you work for company A = you own a piece of company A).
It feels even worse when a company makes profits during e.g. 10 years and then, when it goes bad for one year, those who have worked their butts off, are the ones to lose their jobs, while the guy who had the piece of paper in the previouos 10 years ran away with most, if not all, the profits of the company. Sure, his piece of paper loses value, but he also had all the profits, and, unless the company goes bankrupt, if he keeps it, he'll get profits again when the company is back on its' feet.).
I know there are some flaws in the previous paragraphs, and it's more a feeling then rational thinking, but it just feels wrong somehow.
Why not giving the employees ownership of the company by attributing 25 or even 50 % of the shares to the pool of employees? Not as an individual right to each employee as in, each employee gets x shares in the company and even when he leaves the company, he holds those shares, but more as a permanent property right to the group of employees at any given time. Make abstraction of the individual employee, they come and go, but consider the employees an entity that always holds a certain percentage of the property rights in the company. A percentage that isn't for sale but will always belong to the group of employees and which gives them the right to vote on the meeting of shareholders. They can vote among themselves to decide how they will vote in a shareholder meeting or what points they'll put on the agenda.
Make the employees a group of shareholders in the company with actual decision power. Instead of the conflict model that is inherent on Unions vs. Employer, employees and employer would both, together, be running the company. Well, not running it, you have a board of directors for that, but both employees and (the other) shareholders will have the power to have the last say in the company. A form of obligatory employee ownership as an alternative for unions.
I hope this isn't too much OT, because this probably belongs more in a topic about corporate governance then about unions. My problem with unions is that it starts from a conflict model. Employees need protection, but imho (partial) employee ownership is a much better alternative.
Am I a communist now?
You are missing "The worker's best friend in the workplace" option.
Collective bargaining for wages, benefits, worker training, work place safety, seniority rights, health care coverage, etc... is what made the middle class. Would non-union shops today provide anything more than the barest minimum to labor without the past and present collective voice of labor unions? I doubt that very much.
Is management free from office politics, fair,ethical, non-vindictive, and objective in determining job positions, promotions, raises, downsizing etc...? Not unless human nature has changed recently.
Unions aren't perfect, but then neither is management.
Div'
It's difficult to answer your "forced choice" question -- so much begs qualification and exception. I chose generally bad, but there is more to it than that, as I know you intended.
First -- Background
During my career as an academic, I specialized in organizational conflict management and have done (and published) studies relating to strikes and management/labor disputes -- Notably Caterpillar Tractor and Newport News Shipbuilding. In the process, I interviewed dozens of management and labor leaders at a number of levels. I have family who were virulent unionists (one cousin even working as an organizer) and my father resigned from PATCO 6 months before the strike and stayed on the job.
Second -- Perspective
Your frame of reference, at the outset of this thread, as well as that of a majority of posters so far, is that of the US workplace. We should all be well aware that unions and unionism functions QUITE differently in other countries -- notably Japan and in W. Europe -- and that the adversarial character that so dominates the US Labor-managment landscape is fairly different in other regions.
Third -- Early Unions in the USA
The relatively unregulated capitalism of the 1870-1917 era was, all too often, a time when "management" did regard "labor" as nothing but a cost to be minimized and/or functionally enslaved (see company town). Organizing unions was perhaps the ONLY way workers could defend themselves from management excesses. This was, logically, opposed by management. The era was characterized by violence as both "sides" fought for their agendas.
There was, moreover, infighting between "craft" unionism as advocated by the AFL and pan-industry unionism as advocated by the Wobblies. One important source of differentiation between US and other Union experiences is that the craft unionist won (in part because the IWW peaked in the early 20s, shortly after our troops returned from fighting Russian communists and during a time when government was willing to repress any communist organization). The suppression of the IWW is important because European unionism is much closer to the IWW ideal "one big union" than is the American approach. Most if not all W European nations have a "Labor Party" and the ideal of "all workers united as one" was much more closely followed in Europe than in the USA.
Nevertheless, this early era saw the reduction of the workday to more bearable levels, the beginning of workplace safety practices, and the inception of retirement pensions and the like. Unions and unionism played a role in bringing all of these changes about. Effectively, the union was the tool by which labor brought "market" forces to bear in order to garner an appropriate share of the profits.
Labor Unions were gradually protected by laws and regulations, culminating in the Wagner act of 1935. Union power reached its peak following the passage of this act, and unions remained a particularly powerful force, often generating substantial economic gains for their members throughout the post World War II era (1946 through c. 1970).
Fourth -- A Failure to change with the times
I'll take a break and get back to edit this in.
Pretty much what I was going to say, but better worded. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
~:smoking:
Anyway, if you want an example of a nation with very strong unions, simply look to France. It is one of the last great labor powers, especially before Sarkozy.
generally bad in that they were a tool for the Soviet Union. along with the Co-op bank.
Well theres two good things i didn't know the soviet union did... if they really were essential in the forming and running of the unions then im glad that they did it, by doing so they improved the lives of millions in the western world and by advancing our middle classes helped defeat themselves!
In the past unions were essential, lots of things workers take for granted had to be fought for, if the fat cats had thier way back then and the unions were defeated we would still be dying and getting worked to death for a pittance, and society as a whole would be far worse off...
They are not as important now as they were in past times but there are still fat cats willing to walk all over thier workforce in the search of profit and still fat cats who would like nothing better than to slowly turn the clock back on workers rights, we need unions to defend the rights our forefathers worked so hard to earn us!
France certainly doesn't have strong unions, at least in the private sector.
We indeed have very vocal unions in the public sector (administration, public services), that can basically stop the country when something they dislike happens. They are basically the reason why teachers, railroad workers, judges and all are always on strike.
Let me say that I don't think this is how unions should work. They should promote dialogue and not simply decide to block the country whenever they want to. On the other hand, french governments most of the time aren't really interested in discussion and rather try to pass their laws and reforms without any talk.
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.
The economic and social policies are reflective of a nation with strong labor. One example, the 35 hour work week.
Well from what i hear of the 35 hour working week is not nessecarily all about employee's
because of the less hours worked the worker is more productive during the hours he is there
an extra job for every 7 people cutting down from a 40 hour week
Generalisation.
The employees are also becoming less skilled, require more people to swop shifts meaning more handovers and less efficiency. Many might also require more money than they can earn in the 35 hours.
Some might be efficient for 40 or more hours; a blanket ruling on all is hardly the most efficient way to manage the system.
~:smoking:
Employee stock options are useful, they help align everyone's interest.
Unions can be beneficial or harmful. I oppose Unions in industries like carpentry because there are (were) so many employers and owners that market mechanisms could satisfy everyone's demand. Union carpenters are just lazy protectionists.
Generalisation.
I was more trying to make the argument that a 35 hour working week isn't nessecarily down to labour demands because there are various different reasons different groups may want it, i realise a 35 hour working work has downsides as well...
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.