Purpose
I'm spawning this thread from the dabate that started in a most unreliable car thread about the Cobalt.

My belief:
I don't think a union is necessary if an employer provides his employees with the necessary things such as health care competitive wages, and profit sharing. A union takes your money then drops you when you retire, my stepdad is looking at retirement and his healthcare costs are going to double because once he leaves the company he losses protection of the union.

I am against unions, I believe they are unnecessary, and hurt the economy. It's a cache 22, once a company gains union workers in the majority of casses they have to pay higher wages to workers regardless of their performance and skill level. That money is then not available for the company to use in improving their buisness.

I do not think that problems in employment today can be solved with unions, but rather better buisness practices.

For the record. I make 47.4K a year, I'm non-union. I realize that as a person I need to keep my skills up to date, move into developing and growing industries, and be competitive in my pay request. If your lazy you shouldn't benefit just because you have "union" protection. I belive that unions hurt more than help.

If a union is part of the company you work for, you may want to think twice about it. Because if a union is there then the company is obviously not doing what is necessary to keep their employees happy.

The time of the union has come and gone, and is a relic of old that is hurting the economy today. How can a company be competitive when their additional profits are eaten every year by an increasingly hungry union.

Other Information:
Wal-mart is non-union and they have some of the highest unskilled hourly wages in the industry and provide their employees with health benefits, and stock options. This comes from personal experience working for them for a summer.


-Chris

It depends...

If unions were to go away fully, the workers would be raped like Paris hilton onstage at a GWAR show. I think the system needs to be fully revamped.

Give me a bit to outline *how* to do it, with the ability to keep crooked owners in check, and still make sure that workers are working...


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

[quote=Keeper of the Light™]Give me a bit to outline *how* to do it, with the ability to keep crooked owners in check, and still make sure that workers are working...

My argument would be that as an employee working for a crooked "employee" you should seek employment elsewhere. Employees have the power to control a company with or without a union. An employer should have the ability to fire an underperforming working, a good employer will sit down with the person and discuss the percieved lack of peformance becuase skill attained on the job is hard to replace. We gave a guy that worked at my company a 3 week straighten up or get out, he didn't straighten up so we let him go.


-Chris

Unions can be both good and bad. I'm not (completely) for unions. Back in my undergrad days I worked as a summer student for the Sask. geological survey (unionized government job for 3 summers) as a geological field assistant. The secretaries in the office always took advantage of their union positions. Every day they took a 1/2 hour coffee break in the morning and afternoon, at least an hour for lunch, and went home a half-hour early; they were technically only allowed 2-15 minute breaks and a half-hour lunch, but they always stretched things out, and spent half their "working" time on their phones talking to friends. Looking back at it, the unionized people at the core lab were also extraordinarily lazy as well (always on coffee breaks). Being that I was only a temporary (summer) employee, I wasn't entitled to any union benefits, but the union thieves took $370/month in union dues which I didn't get back at the end of the summer. That was alot of money to take from a student for no real benefit. I agree with Keeper - unions can be very beneficial, but I think there needs to be a massive overhaul in the system. It would be a bad idea to get rid of them completely - there are just too many corrupt owners and managers out there.

On a side note: I rather enjoyed your GWAR reference, Keeper. I found it fitting seeing that I just saw them in concert last wednesday. Unfortunately, they didn't have Paris Hilton, but they did have Bush, Sharon Osbourne and the new Pope in their show. What a show!!




The 50-50-90 rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong.

IamRascal wrote:
I am against unions, I believe they are unnecessary, and hurt the economy. It's a cache 22, once a company gains union workers in the majority of casses they have to pay higher wages to workers regardless of their performance and skill level. That money is then not available for the company to use in improving their buisness.

I'm a little concerned that you reach such a black and white conclusion (don't like unions) when you clearly understand it's a grey situation. It doesn't jive. I'd like to know more about how you reached your conclusion.

IamRascal wrote:
I do not think that problems in employment today can be solved with unions, but rather better buisness practices.

Not going to happen.

IamRascal wrote:
Other Information:
Wal-mart is non-union and they have some of the highest unskilled hourly wages in the industry and provide their employees with health benefits, and stock options. This comes from personal experience working for them for a summer.

What? Funny you quoted the worst offender in America for employee treatment as a good example.

Here are facts about walmart...

The national median family budget in the United States for a two-person family (one parent and one child) in 1999 was $23,705, well above the average associate's annual wages of $13,861.

Wal-Mart's health insurance plan excludes contraceptive coverage.

Wal-Mart can cover the cost of a dollar an hour wage increase by raising prices a half penny per dollar. For instance, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee.

Wal-Mart reports that its health insurance only covers 48% of their employees. Wal-Mart has approximately 1.3 million US employees.

Part-timers—anybody below 34 hours a week – must wait 2 years before they can enroll. Moreover, part-time employees are ineligible for family health care coverage. Full-time hourly employees must wait 180 days (approximately 6 months) before being able to enroll in Wal-Mart’s health insurance plan. Managers have no waiting period. (Wal-Mart 2005 Associate Guide)


Wal-Mart’s most affordable plan includes a $1,000 deductible for single coverage and a $3,000 deductible for family coverage ($1,000 deductible per person covered up to $3,000).

If a full-time employee elected for family coverage, an average employee would have to spend 27% of their average earnings before the health insurance covered any costs.

Despite $10 billion in profits, President and CEO Lee Scott said, "In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value - with relatively high income limits to qualify, and low premiums." (Transcript Lee Scott Speech 4/5/05)


Your tax dollars pay for Wal-Mart's greed

* The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion. [“Harper’s Index,” Harper’s Magazine, Vol. 310, No. 1858, 3/2005]
* One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. This cost comes from the following, on average:
o $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
o $42,000 a year for low-income housing assistance.
o $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families.
o $100,000 a year for the additional expenses for programs for students.
o $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP)
o $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance.
[THE HIDDEN PRICE WE ALL PAY FOR WAL-MART, A REPORT BY THE DEMOCRATIC STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 2/16/04]



Your tax dollars subsidize Wal-Mart's growth

* The first ever national report on Wal-Mart subsidies documented at least $1 billion in subsidies from state and local governments.
* A Wal-Mart official once stated that “it is common” for the company to request subsidies “in about one-third of all [retail] projects.” This would suggest that over a thousand Wal-Mart stores have been subsidized. [“Shopping For Subsidies: How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance Its Never-Ending Growth,” Good Job First, May 2004]



Wal-Mart wages negatively impact overall wages

* The influx of big-box stores into San Diego would result in an annual decline in wages and benefits between $105 million and $221 million [San Diego Taxpayers Association (SDCTA)]
* “[The threat of Wal-Mart's incursion into the southern California grocery market] is already triggering a dynamic in which the grocery stores are negotiating with workers for lowered compensation, in an attempt to re-level the `playing field.’” [Rodino and Associates]


http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/



---

Here's a page outlining the philosophy of my company and why it has remained union free. Read it and see if you agree or disagree with the management style and whether you would or wouldn't like to work for a similarly managed company.

AGuSTiN wrote:

IamRascal wrote:
I am against unions, I believe they are unnecessary, and hurt the economy. It's a cache 22, once a company gains union workers in the majority of casses they have to pay higher wages to workers regardless of their performance and skill level. That money is then not available for the company to use in improving their buisness.

I'm a little concerned that you reach such a black and white conclusion (don't like unions) when you clearly understand it's a grey situation. It doesn't jive. I'd like to know more about how you reached your conclusion.

My second statement is my explanation of why

AGuSTiN wrote:

IamRascal wrote:
I do not think that problems in employment today can be solved with unions, but rather better buisness practices.

Not going to happen.

My point is that it would solve the problem, I don't see unions dissapearing antime soon either.

AGuSTiN wrote:http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/

I stand corrected on the wal-mart issue. Working at Wal-mart as a summer job I viewed as good pay for good work. I didn't ever consider wal-mart employment as a plausible career move where people would make their livings.

For example I'm working at gamestop in the evenings for some extra spending cash and to get rid of college debt and loans. I don't expect them to give me any benefits at all. I'm just working there for some extra cash, and their payrate is minimum wage, but then again I can borrow games from them as a perk and get a discount off of them.

This seems to come back around to a problem with the dissemination of wealth in the US.


-Chris

Labotomi wrote:Here's a page outlining the philosophy of my company and why it has remained union free. Read it and see if you agree or disagree with the management style and whether you would or wouldn't like to work for a similarly managed company.

One more time... with the link

Nucor

Your basic premise is absolutely correct. If companies treated their employees well, unions would not be needed.


---

IamRascal:

Apply the "laziness" factor on the part of the Unions, and the "complacency" factor on the part of management, and you have the whole reason why unions exist.

I won't break it down into minute details, but, Unions exist because of 2 reasons:
- Employers would use slave labour and pay them a pittance if anything if there weren't laws forbidding it.
- bad employees are like turds: They rise up to the top.

I've worked in extremely poorly managed private companies and government, both union and non union in the case of the private side, and frankly, Even though I don't like the laziness factor, I'll take a union job over a non-union for the simple reason that I know brown-nosers and other dregs of working society tend to get noticed more because they can ply or stroke the boss's ego (or other things). I prefer having a set of rules to which people can and cannot be hired/promoted/fired.

IF you stand out more in one respect, you get considered... Seniority means something, and I don't think that some new hire should get a job over someone with more time in the company, UNLESS they are more qualified.

I like the way the Gov't in Canada does it, but there are problems sometimes too...Nothing is perfect.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

<aside for Trog>

THANK YOU!!!!! We were trying to figure out who the smeg the woman was that they killed (caught the concert on the 11th--bloody-awesome show!) Although, honestly, i thought they should have put Slymie in a deathmatch with Ann Coutier to the tune of "America Must Be Destroyed"


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Seniority is a great thing until it's accompanied by complacency. My biggest beef with unions is that they often promote and protect complacent/lazy workers. When it reaches that point, I think that it's time to give new people their chance.








The 50-50-90 rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong.

[quote=Keeper of the Light™]Although, honestly, i thought they should have put Slymie in a deathmatch with Ann Coutier to the tune of "America Must Be Destroyed"

I agree completely!! Looking at Alexis' post, GWAR should have no lack of complete idiots to mock-kill on-stage.






The 50-50-90 rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong.

I should reemphasize the fact that companies, like Wal-Mart mentioned above, still DO pay people pennies an hour when they can. They just do it oversees now.




---

Trogdor burninates all! wrote:Seniority is a great thing until it's accompanied by complacency. My biggest beef with unions is that they often promote and protect complacent/lazy workers. When it reaches that point, I think that it's time to give new people their chance.

^^ agreed. One of the Reasons I like the RCMP... if you start abusing your Civ.Member status, you're shown the door.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I agree that employees need to have a voice and a way to voice their opinions. I will use my place of employment as an example. While researching some different things about the company I work for (Due to a confidentiality contract I can't disclose who I work for.) I found that they recently reported a 1500% increase in profits last quater. The company has also been reporting increased proffits for sometime now. However after talking to people that have been working with this company basicly from its inception there has never been a raise given to the employees. Now recently the company sent out a News letter talking about a confrence they held in Boston for some of our managers in which everything was provided for by my employer.

I could see if this information were skewed in the right way I could see how a call to create a union could be formed. As employees for this company we have a great bargining tool to utilize as well. We moderate chat rooms and message boards for some very large companies and deal with Teen areas with some of our clients. All of the employees must undergo a criminal background check and extensive training. Along with this we also require a program from a third party in order to perform our job which takes about a week to get. Now if we as employees decided to walk if we dont recieve a raise our employer would be screewed big time. None of their clients would get serviced and their clients are some of the biggest names on the internet. The way I see it they would have to cooperate with us.

While I see the draw to unionize I just dont think it would happen. I dont think most of the people that I work with would be smart enough to pull it off. Now with that being said the company only had 2.4 million in revenue and 2.0 million in expenses. So their proffit was really only about $400,000 which is a lot of money but not really in the grand scheme of things. At this point if a union was formed and it abused its power it could very easily put this newer company out of business.

Mike: In that case, you wouldn't gain really anything by unionising.

Tech is also a very precarious industry to unionise in because of transient workers... When I worked @ Compaq, we found out (officially) about 2 days before the hammer fell what was happening, a group of us knew something was up when we were told to close all our open engineering cases, and not open any more until after a certain date. We were given a BS line about product review, but we knew what was happening. If we were given anything approaching the truth, we'd have unionised, I would have made sure of it. The problem is we needed concrete proof of peril to our jobs, and to get that would take time, to get the wheels rolling would take time, and basically, we didn't get that.

I know that in my area, Tech jobs were plentiful, but basically evaporated after the tech bubble burst, and after 9/11/01, we knew it was a matter of time.. HP has priorities elsewhere.

Anyhow, I'm not worried... I got time off to relax, and I know that the people that were left (ie. the cream of the brown-noser crop) are worked harder and haven't been given even a 1% raise, while right now, I'm earning double what I was earning, and I actually love my job.

I think the RCMP is a really good arm of the Gov't to work for, and while I'm not unionised (my job is termed essential), they keep us happy, and once these job re-organisations get done (after the new AFIS system gets installed and the records side is updated), we'll be earning on par with what other police agencies are paying their civillian staffs, or about double what we're making now.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Gam I agree with you in the case I am speaking about there isnt much to gain other than putting our employeer out of business just saying I can see both sides of the arguement in the place I work right now.

Yeah, most employers aren't going to over work their employees, mainly because they don't want a high turn-over, it costs to train, right?

Some employers will welcome a union given a proviso that there is a regimented work action in place and that they have the rights to make a decision on whether a worker stays or goes, some avoid unions like the plague. If there is a good working relationship between the Union and the employer, it's a benefit to everyone involved. When there's dysfunction, and it languishes... that's when you get problems (ie. what trogdor was talking about with lazy-ass secretaries/admin assistants, That's ineffective management at work right there).

Personally, I think that letting a Union run rough-shod over your business, you deserve what you get.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

IN GM's case union = bad.

Knowing a few people who work for UPS and what they get through thier union I would imagine UPS will be GM in a few years. UPS drivers should not make over $100k a year.
It doesn't take a CDL to drive a UPS truck.

OK, so I've worked in union and non-union factories and freight. Presently I'm in a non-union office. Here's something to kick around...

Two trucks taking two loads of freight from Cleveland to LA. One is JB Hunt, the other is ABX Freight. (btw, ABX is a real freight company in the Cleveland area).

The JB Hunt driver is making about 1/3 the wage of the ABX driver.

The JB Hunt driver doesn't have the health care that the ABX driver does.

The JB Hunt driver can contribute to his 401k out of his paycheck, if he can afford it.
The ABX driver is earning contributory time to his Central States pension fund as part of his union dues.

The JB Hunt driver is employeed "at will", which means he can be fired at any time, with or without justification.
The ABX driver has union protection against unjust termination.

The really odd part of this, both loads cost almost the same to ship. So where are the additional funds going?

It's not to grow the business, they have exactly the right amount of workers and equipment.If there was work not getting done, they'd hire or buy more trucks. If there were too many people standing around, they'd reduce staff and sell equipment.

It's not to improve their employees compensation package, they have one of the worst in the industry.

It's not for better health care for their employees. Basically, if you get hurt you'd better have a solid B plan.

So the stock holders get a nice quarterly report.

In this case, unions are a good thing. I am fortunate enough to have a valued skill that keeps my salary at a comfortable level. But that wasn't always the case for me, and it's not for a lot of people. It's the objective of business to make money, some do so without concience or regard for long term goals. That's where unions are needed.

That's my two cents.



John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto