Would you cross a picket line?

[bicker]

You have protection, you absolutely do not have the same protection.

That's a condemnation of unions. No one has any right to more protection than others have.

 

[bicker]

In my husband's 25 years of working in union jobs, you know how many times he went on strike?? ZERO.

And he shouldn't have the right to collude with other workers in a manner that non-union people are prohibited from doing by the law, because unions no longer serve the public good (as they did when such protections were appropriate).

They almost went on strike twice, that hardly constitutes "collusion."

It absolutely does. It would be criminal conspiracy if it wasn't for applicable labor laws.

I love your idea about requiring transparency, which is greatly needed in my job. If you think it is easy to do, think again.

"Easy" has nothing to do with anything we're talking about in this thread. We're talking about fairness, and the public good. This isn't a matter of what's good for people who are in unions. Unions exist only by the sufferance of ALL the people. There is no inherent right, and since unions no longer serve the public good, they should no longer be allowed to collude against employers.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

That's a condemnation of unions. No one has any right to more protection than others have.

WHAT? You think that bc I have no rights at my job all should have no rights? Oh my goodness.

 

[Magic Mom]

You obviously did not read the reply at all. I said people can be fired. Workers are required to stay at a job unless they have a good reason to quit??? I don't even understand what that means. They aren't required to stay at a job unless they quit, ever.

I did read the response. There is no reason to get nasty. You think companies should be required to keep an employee unless they have a good reason (that's so subjective), and I am ASKING you if you think companies deserve that same protection. Should we require employees to have a good reason before they quit to protect companies?

 

[Magic Mom]

WHAT? You think that bc I have no rights at my job all should have no rights? Oh my goodness.

You have rights at your job.

 

[bicker]

WHAT? You think that bc I have no rights at my job all should have no rights? Oh my goodness.

Say again?

Employees have rights, wholly apart from the special extra protections granted to unionists. What I'm saying is that essentially those rights that all workers have are all of the rights that any workers should have.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

And he shouldn't have the right to collude with other workers in a manner that non-union people are prohibited from doing by the law, because unions no longer serve the public good (as they did when such protections were appropriate).

It absolutely does. It would be criminal conspiracy if it wasn't for applicable labor laws.

"Easy" has nothing to do with anything we're talking about in this thread. We're talking about fairness, and the public good. This isn't a matter of what's good for people who are in unions. Unions exist only by the sufferance of ALL the people. There is no inherent right, and since unions no longer serve the public good, they should no longer be allowed to collude against employers.

It would NOT be criminal conspiracy to make sure you are treated right and not taken advantage of at all. People have that right and unions exist to help people. If you don't like that, don't work for a union job.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Say again?

Employees have rights, wholly apart from the special extra protections granted to unionists. What I'm saying is that essentially those rights that all workers have are all of the rights that any workers should have.

Then by your own statement here, my job can rip me off like they do, and put fear in us to take it, like they do. AND THAT IS WHY we have unions thank goodness.

 

[bicker]

What unions do would be criminal conspiracy if laws enacted to allow unions to do those things were repealed, which is what should happen since those laws were put in place because society determined that unions served a public good at that time, and they no longer serve that public good.

Your employer, without the special protections afforded you as a union member, cannot do anything to you that other, non-union employers cannot do to their employees. And there is no justification for you having any more protections than anyone else.

 

[Quiksilvr]

A lot of this, I feel, is envy of how some other people have it better. Yes, executives get paid more, and get better benefits. And doctors get paid more than nurses, and nurses get paid more than orderlies. Professional baseball players get paid a lot, and teachers get paid less. None of this is earth-shaking news, nor is justification for colluding with each other to deprive the public from services entirely, because you're envious of what others have and you want. If you don't like your job, find another. If you didn't have the foresight to do so when the economy was better, or didn't have the foresight and industry to make yourself worthy of some other job when the economy was better, then blame yourself, don't blame others, and don't punish others for what you failed to do for yourself.

I agree with this 100%. I have to admit, bicker, that I'm surprised to see this comment from you considering earlier discussions on the now-taboo threads.

After taking some time to read some of these posts, I see something of a distinction in philosophy that I think is a product of upbringing and life experience. The most vocal in favor of unions seem to come from union families or have union jobs and they argue in favor of unions because of things like "protection". Because of their experience with unions, it seems that protection and grievance procedure has created something akin to an entitlement mentality re jobs, compensation, and benefits.

Those who don't have experience with unions seem more prone to say things like: "the company has the right to do what it wants/needs to in order to make a profit." This idea of an entitlement to the job doesn't seem to enter into the equation because it hasn't had a lifetime or two to sink into that family. It's interesting.

 

[MushyMushy]

WHAT? You think that bc I have no rights at my job all should have no rights? Oh my goodness.

That's not what he said at all.

But why should a union laborer working for company X have more rights than a salaried lower management position?

 

[Judy from Boise]

I think as the recent poster said, this is really a world view issue. I do not credit any employer with the power to marginalize or "put the fear" into me. I see myself as powerful, capable, and professional. That is my world view. Because of that it is hard for me to understand anyone who likes the paternalism of a Union, or feels the need for "protection".
Of course I am also a product of my non union family, and live in a "right to work" state. I am now bowing out, as I think we had hit the impasse!

 

[Quiksilvr]

With the destruction of the middle class that has been going on, unions are not obsolete and more important than ever. I can tell you personally what my company has done to me (non-union) and its not pretty lol. You have much more safety and job security. You can voice your concerns w/o retaliation, something that you cannot do at my company. Most of my family are union and my father rallied in Washington for his union workers bf he retired. Wo a union you are at the mercy of whatever your company wants to do, etc. Many companies try to break unions tho at least in our experience, they are absolutely not obsolete. Some unions are better than others. Union jobs where I live are precious and many are offered non-union including my husband who wouldn't dream of leaving his union job.

I see what you're saying, but at the same time, I don't share the fear that you seem to have about this issue. I accept the fact that my firm can fire me whenever they want and for whatever reason. It was part of the terms of my employment. I don't feel like the firm owes me anything; I don't owe them anything other than billable hours.

From where I sit, the middle class has been destroyed partially because of union representation. The middle class manufacturing jobs have all moved to places where the company can produce the items more cheaply. Why? The following:

The American consumer demands increasing (or constant) quality of goods at a cheap(er) price.

The American stockholder demands increasing revenues and profits in order to boost the share price.

Generally, profit increases in one of two ways. It either increases due to increased efficiency/lower cost of production, or due to increased sales. To maximize profits, the smart corporation tries to do both. American unions tend to make demands that result in higher costs of production, not lower. What is an American corporation to do? Move production to places where it can decrease costs... which translates into get away from the unions.

I understand what you're saying about union jobs being precious. I know that all too well. I represent a large US-based manufacturer, and we've had situations where we've advised the client re employee matters. One thing I've heard several times is how the union employees stay on as long as possible because there is no way they'd ever find another job outside of the union shop that pays as much as what they get at the client's facilities for doing the same job they've been doing for 20 years.

Does the union provide protection and good wages for those employees? Of course they do. I'm not disputing that. Still, those protections and good wages come at a cost, i.e., the "cost of goods sold". If COGS is high, and the corporation is under pressure to cut it... as I said above there are really only a few ways of doing so, most of which involve cutting the jobs of employees who are too expensive for the function they perform (whether they be management or union). It's the trade-off. So long as investors demand performance and consumers demand cheap products, there's not really anything you can do about it.

 

[daughtersrus]

because unions no longer serve the public good (as they did when such protections were appropriate).QUOTE]

Do you think that's true of all unions including those that represent firemen, policemen, nurses, teachers...?

 

[daughtersrus]

Does the union provide protection and good wages for those employees? Of course they do. I'm not disputing that. Still, those protections and good wages come at a cost, i.e., the "cost of goods sold". If COGS is high, and the corporation is under pressure to cut it... as I said above there are really only a few ways of doing so, most of which involve cutting the jobs of employees who are too expensive for the function they perform (whether they be management or union). It's the trade-off. So long as investors demand performance and consumers demand cheap products, there's not really anything you can do about it.

What is the "cost of good sold" when referring to teachers, firemen, policemen...?

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

I see what you're saying, but at the same time, I don't share the fear that you seem to have about this issue. I accept the fact that my firm can fire me whenever they want and for whatever reason. It was part of the terms of my employment. I don't feel like the firm owes me anything; I don't owe them anything other than billable hours.

From where I sit, the middle class has been destroyed partially because of union representation. The middle class manufacturing jobs have all moved to places where the company can produce the items more cheaply. Why? The following:

The American consumer demands increasing (or constant) quality of goods at a cheap(er) price.

The American stockholder demands increasing revenues and profits in order to boost the share price.

Generally, profit increases in one of two ways. It either increases due to increased efficiency/lower cost of production, or due to increased sales. To maximize profits, the smart corporation tries to do both. American unions tend to make demands that result in higher costs of production, not lower. What is an American corporation to do? Move production to places where it can decrease costs... which translates into get away from the unions.

I understand what you're saying about union jobs being precious. I know that all too well. I represent a large US-based manufacturer, and we've had situations where we've advised the client re employee matters. One thing I've heard several times is how the union employees stay on as long as possible because there is no way they'd ever find another job outside of the union shop that pays as much as what they get at the client's facilities for doing the same job they've been doing for 20 years.

Does the union provide protection and good wages for those employees? Of course they do. I'm not disputing that. Still, those protections and good wages come at a cost, i.e., the "cost of goods sold". If COGS is high, and the corporation is under pressure to cut it... as I said above there are really only a few ways of doing so, most of which involve cutting the jobs of employees who are too expensive for the function they perform (whether they be management or union). It's the trade-off. So long as investors demand performance and consumers demand cheap products, there's not really anything you can do about it.

If companies can go overseas and they can more the money they do, they are even give tax breaks to do so. They did that at my company with some of their accounts, and WE ARE NOT UNION, AND NO ONE THAT DOES MY WORK THAT I KNOW OF IS UNION. It is so easy to blame unions for these issues. Do you know I read an article about the Auto Workers and it was the healthcare, the big wig Insurance companies that was causing a problem and how hard it was to insure the workers. Why don't we address that. It isn't about me being owed anything, its about fair treatment and fair wages, not greed, not jealousy, etc. You want to work for 12-14 dollars an hour then? You can't live on that. We all see what has happened with the large corporations and it isn't the unions, its what happens when they are given too much power, no transparencies, etc, what do you think they would do their workers? It's plain old greed at the top.

 

[Lib E]

Do you think that's true of all unions including those that represent firemen, policemen, nurses, teachers...?

I do. I worked as a nurse in an ICU for 15 years and my former union went on strike twice. I'm thrilled to be in a non-union job now.

I think unions have outlived their usefulness. We have laws to protect us from abuse. Unions now exist to protect an entitlement philosophy. As I said before, if you don't like your job, get a new one. If an employer cannot keep good employees with the compensation package they offer, they will be forced to upgrade it. That's the why it should work.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Say again?

Employees have rights, wholly apart from the special extra protections granted to unionists. What I'm saying is that essentially those rights that all workers have are all of the rights that any workers should have.

My job rips me off every single day. I also get paid less than I used to bc they started outsourcing a lot of the work and WE ARE NOT UNION as another poster blames the unions as the reason we outsource. We are not allowed to complain about anything bc we are sent e-mails discouraging this and keeping us in fear of losing our jobs. We all feel it and talk about it amongst ourselves. Oh sure, I can hire a lawyer at $300 an hour sure, that would immediately get me fired, and I cannot afford it anyway and they know it. There is another issue and other issues which I'm not going to get into bc it's too lengthy. If I had a union or if I could get everyone to stop the fear and just band together for one single solitary day, we could stop these issues. You want to know why they do it, because they can. Thats how many companies operate unfortunately.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

I do. I worked as a nurse in an ICU for 15 years and my former union went on strike twice. I'm thrilled to be in a non-union job now.

I think unions have outlived their usefulness. We have laws to protect us from abuse. Unions now exist to protect an entitlement philosophy. As I said before, if you don't like your job, get a new one. If an employer cannot keep good employees with the compensation package they offer, they will be forced to upgrade it. That's the why it should work.

You don't like unions, don't work for one. And when you look at your supervisor Ms. Suzy Q the wrong way one day and she doesn't like u and you get fired, maybe you'll wish you were back in one. Although I always see plenty of nursing jobs. That doesn't mean others don't have that right to work for a union job and unionize.

 

[MushyMushy]

What is the "cost of good sold" when referring to teachers, firemen, policemen...?

Quality of service. For schools -- updated textbooks, supplies, smaller class sizes, etc. For firemen & policemen, updated equipment.