UNIONS: Good, Bad... which and why?

[Yoyoma1910]

The economic and social policies are reflective of a nation with strong labor. One example, the 35 hour work week.

[LittleGrizzly]

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

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Mangudai]

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.

[LittleGrizzly]

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...

[Fragony]

Unions have been of great importance, but the worker are now (too) well protected.

[seireikhaan]

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.

[Meneldil]

The economic and social policies are reflective of a nation with strong labor. One example, the 35 hour work week.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[yesdachi]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then isn’t it worth trying to find the best one you can, even if it takes a year and a city move?

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.

[Kralizec]

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

[yesdachi]

Everytime I hear someone claim that corporate management is institutionally sexist I cringe

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

Men in jobs more than women (top city jobs): Sexist!
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.

[yesdachi]

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.

I think I got one. If anyone wants to hear about it I will start a new thread!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...3tUhwD94S03UG0

An example of union's doing good for ya'll...

[Divinus Arma]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.