Auto Workers...

[Duchess Jack]

While I agree with a lot of what RR says, this states my views pretty damn clearly....

 

Sorry RR, but this is patently and demonstrably false. Unions, like politicians, have one concern - their ........ continuing power.

 

Ursa's suggestion that people who do not believe in unions are not familiar with history is silly. They were really needed in the industrial revolution, before we had regulatory bodies looking out for the little guy. In many circumstances, they're still helpful today (cops and teachers fighting for good pay and benefits).

 

When unions can hold American industry by the balls - eg: autoworkers expecting world class benefits and pensions - and when not giving into their outrageous demands leads to your business failing - they become a problem. They often seem less like protectors and more like bullies.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Duchess Jack

[AtomicCEO]

While I agree with a lot of what RR says, this states my views pretty damn clearly....

 

 

 

Ursa's suggestion that people who do not believe in unions are not familiar with history is silly. They were really needed in the industrial revolution, before we had regulatory bodies looking out for the little guy. In many circumstances, they're still helpful today (cops and teachers fighting for good pay and benefits).

 

When unions can hold American industry by the balls - eg: autoworkers expecting world class benefits and pensions - and when not giving into their outrageous demands leads to your business failing - they become a problem. They often seem less like protectors and more like bullies.

 

I could have sworn that even just recently I've seen allegedly necessary benefit cuts for union employees followed by a round of executive bonuses. It does not seem like there is still quite the level of equity still yet. Maybe unions aren't the best solution to this problem, but I think things would be much worse without them.

[millerx]

I could have sworn that even just recently I've seen allegedly necessary benefit cuts for union employees followed by a round of executive bonuses. It does not seem like there is still quite the level of equity still yet. Maybe unions aren't the best solution to this problem, but I think things would be much worse without them.

what is a "necessary" benefit? why does everything have to be equal and what is equal in your mind?

[millerx]

With that last comment it seems as though you would like to circumvent "Due Process", a right all us deserve and are granted by the constitution. I don't think you want to do that....do you???

Is having a job a "right" or a "privilege"?

[AtomicCEO]

what is a "necessary" benefit? why does everything have to be equal and what is equal in your mind?

 

You should read that as the benefit cuts were "allegedly necessary", not "necessary benefits".

 

But I'm intrigued by your position. You're arguing that unions are unnecessary, and that executive bonuses when companies are troubled are necessary? Because if you feel that way, then you're making a pretty good argument for unions.

[Jimmy Neutron]

With that last comment it seems as though you would like to circumvent "Due Process", a right all us deserve and are granted by the constitution. I don't think you want to do that....do you???

 

Due process is a legal term, not one of employment. Every company that I am aware of (even in right to work states) has a defined disciplinary policy. They do this to both cover their butts legally and to help retain and reform borderline employees because it is expensive to recruit and train. In my experience, this system works very well. In cases where it doesn't, companies get sued and I think that's perfectly OK.

 

The bottom line is, IMO, managers should be able (and are obligated) to fire bad employees. Unions often make that practice difficult to impossible and thereby lower the overall standards and performance of the group. I don't think that makes all or even most union workers bad. I think it's an antiquated system in this day and age when there are so many laws on the books (yes, many thanks to unions) that protect employees.

[millerx]

You should read that as the benefit cuts were "allegedly necessary", not "necessary benefits".

 

But I'm intrigued by your position. You're arguing that unions are unnecessary, and that executive bonuses when companies are troubled are necessary? Because if you feel that way, then you're making a pretty good argument for unions.

I do think unions are unnecessary, but I don't think that executive bonuses when companies are troubled is necessary either. In fact, quite the opposite. When a company is in trouble I think heads should role, and that they start from the top down. I believe that most small businesses practice these principles and that is where most jobs lie.

 

I think working is a privilege, not a right. And that if you don't like it, you need to do something about it. I'm for personal responsibility. If you don't like your work environment, make some decisions in your life that will allow to change your surroundings...maybe sacrifice a little and get that degree so you don't have to be a "victim" of your own circumstances.

 

 

Let me preface my first comments about union vs non-union by saying that I do think they were needed at one point in our history. Now, they are a bloated like our govt. and tend to hinder a companies ability to adapt to a fluctuating marketplace. I have seen, first-hand, the complacency of workers in a union environment (mine was a right to work state) because of the conditions set forth in the union contract.

Edited October 14, 2008 by millerx

[millerx]

Due process is a legal term, not one of employment. Every company that I am aware of (even in right to work states) has a defined disciplinary policy. They do this to both cover their butts legally and to help retain and reform borderline employees because it is expensive to recruit and train. In my experience, this system works very well. In cases where it doesn't, companies get sued and I think that's perfectly OK.

 

The bottom line is, IMO, managers should be able (and are obligated) to fire bad employees. Unions often make that practice difficult to impossible and thereby lower the overall standards and performance of the group. I don't think that makes all or even most union workers bad. I think it's an antiquated system in this day and age when there are so many laws on the books (yes, many thanks to unions) that protect employees.

what he said.

[AtomicCEO]

I do think unions are unnecessary, but I don't think that executive bonuses when companies are troubled is necessary either.

 

How do you fight the executives then, when your benefits are being taken away and the dollars given to them?

 

If you don't like your work environment, make some decisions in your life that will allow to change your surroundings...maybe sacrifice a little and get that degree so you don't have to be a "victim" of your own circumstances.

 

Why do you not think that organizing with your fellow workings to ensure a quality workplace is a decision to change your surroundings?

[millerx]

How do you fight the executives then, when your benefits are being taken away and the dollars given to them?

 

State your concerns to those in charge. Make an attempt to reason with them and work together to find a middle ground. Benefits are not being taken from anyone. They are not a constitutional right to begin with. (Well at least not right now they're not!) It is not life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness... and benefits from the company I work for. If it gets to the point that you do not like what they are offering, go somewhere else where you will be appreciated. Their business will ultimately suffer and fold if it is treating employees like chit and the good workers that can get other jobs go elsewhere.

 

Why do you not think that organizing with your fellow workings to ensure a quality workplace is a decision to change your surroundings?

Because it is not your company to begin with. Your name is not on it. If you don't like the way it is run, then you are the one that needs to leave. Don't tell someone else how to run THEIR business. If they want to take the risk and have it tank, so be it. Nowadays, that's just not smart business practice.

Edited October 14, 2008 by millerx

[Ursa Majoris]

Ursa's suggestion that people who do not believe in unions are not familiar with history is silly. They were really needed in the industrial revolution, before we had regulatory bodies looking out for the little guy. In many circumstances, they're still helpful today (cops and teachers fighting for good pay and benefits).

 

How is my statement silly? And they were needed way past the industrial revolution - mine workers were still being beaten and shot by the authorities well into the 1920s, a full century later than the industrial revolution. As for the regulatory agencies - they do keep an eye on safety and so on but negotiating benefits and pay isn't something the gubment will do - that needs a union in some cases. However, many employers offer good bennies because they want to attract high caliber workers, of course.

 

I tend to agree the unions that have been around a long time are now for the most part bloated relics but the principle of unionizing to maximize the power of labor is still a powerful and necessary tool. Again - if employers all behaved in an equitable fashion, there would be no need for unions.

[dmarc117]

unions along with the electoral college need to be dismissed

[Skippy]

I just don't have the time to get into this and my views on this are pretty well known.

 

You guys that think unions should be done away with just don't have a clue how much the employer would take advantage of the worker if the union just went away.

 

There are good and bad things about unions but all you guys that moan about a union each have something about you working life that would be traced back to a fight that oranized labor went though. We all benefit one way or the other from a fight that a union went though. You may think that the time has come that no more fights are needed but I assure you that this is not the case for most people that work under a union.

[dmarc117]

and maybe some union workers are overpaid? just maybe.

Edited October 14, 2008 by dmarc117

[Ursa Majoris]

and maybe some union workers are overpaid? just maybe.

For damn sure some executives are.

[dmarc117]

For damn sure some executives are.

 

 

definitely.

Edited October 14, 2008 by dmarc117

[rocknrobn26]

Due process is a legal term, not one of employment. Every company that I am aware of (even in right to work states) has a defined disciplinary policy. They do this to both cover their butts legally and to help retain and reform borderline employees because it is expensive to recruit and train. In my experience, this system works very well. In cases where it doesn't, companies get sued and I think that's perfectly OK.

 

The bottom line is, IMO, managers should be able (and are obligated) to fire bad employees. Unions often make that practice difficult to impossible and thereby lower the overall standards and performance of the group. I don't think that makes all or even most union workers bad. I think it's an antiquated system in this day and age when there are so many laws on the books (yes, many thanks to unions) that protect employees.

Due Process can be applied to any contract dispute in a working environment, that is, a teacher's contract. Minimizing capricious behavior by the admins is the intent of a teacher's union as it applies to a teacher's rights. If this causes difficulty in firing a teacher, good, but it's not impossible to fire a teacher. The union just wants their member to have a fair hearing. We don't want bad teachers in our profession anymore than anyone else. But they deserve Due Process and a defense against an admins whim.

 

Enough w/ the teacher side. UAW is the topic at hand.

Edited October 14, 2008 by rocknrobn26

[dmarc117]

Due Process can be applied to any contract dispute in a working environment, that is, a teacher's contract. Minimizing capricious behavior by the admins is the intent of a teacher's union as it applies to a teacher's rights. If this causes difficulty in firing a teacher, good, but it's not impossible to fire a teacher. The union just wants their member to have a fair hearing. We don't want bad teachers in our profession anymore than anyone else. But they deserve Due Process and a defense against an admins whim.

 

Enough w/ the teacher side. UAW is the topic at hand.

 

 

our teachers are severely underpaid. uaw workers tightening a bolt are severely overpaid.

[Cunning Runt]

I cannot begin to express how anti-union I am.

 

There is a company where I live whose employees went on strike because the plant was intending to institute swing-shifts. The plant let it be known that if they couldn't get concessions from the workers on this, they would close the plant. The union played hardball. Guess what? The plant closed and all those people (a couple thousand) lost their jobs because their union thought the company would blink. Tire-maker. Is that UAW?

 

Served a purpose at one time, but that time is long since past.

[millerx]

In the same vein of this thread...

 

For those of you that are pro-union, how do you feel about eliminating secret ballots elections on whether or not to unionize a workplace?

[Skippy]

In the same vein of this thread...

 

For those of you that are pro-union, how do you feel about eliminating secret ballots elections on whether or not to unionize a workplace?

Well that sort of depends. There is a large fear of people that are considering going union as the company gives off all sorts of threats to people that they think are voting union. This is very true and I have seen it with my own eyes with a group of nurses just recently. Their vote came up short and within three months of the vote the most outspoken people that wanted to join the union are gone for one reason or another. One of those people worked for the same facility for 19 years and was very vocal about joining the union and she is gone. There are all sorts of nit picking reasons that she is gone but the entire staff of nurses knows it is total BS as they should all be fired for the same exact reasons.

 

I don't know of many things that matter that have people vote out in the open.

[millerx]

Well that sort of depends. There is a large fear of people that are considering going union as the company gives off all sorts of threats to people that they think are voting union. This is very true and I have seen it with my own eyes with a group of nurses just recently. Their vote came up short and within three months of the vote the most outspoken people that wanted to join the union are gone for one reason or another. One of those people worked for the same facility for 19 years and was very vocal about joining the union and she is gone. There are all sorts of nit picking reasons that she is gone but the entire staff of nurses knows it is total BS as they should all be fired for the same exact reasons.

 

I don't know of many things that matter that have people vote out in the open.

See, I have another take on this. While I agree that there could be some threats from the company, I believe there are just as many that would come from the union as well. Picture the environment of someone that had to publicly announce that he was non-union. Do you think that he/she would not feel pressured to vote for union regardless of whether or not they wanted one? I mean these are the people they would have to work side-by-side with everyday. And do you think that if they were to actually become unionized that they wouldn't be mistreated just as badly by the pro-union people?

Edited October 14, 2008 by millerx

[Jimmy Neutron]

I just don't have the time to get into this and my views on this are pretty well known.

 

You guys that think unions should be done away with just don't have a clue how much the employer would take advantage of the worker if the union just went away.

 

There are good and bad things about unions but all you guys that moan about a union each have something about you working life that would be traced back to a fight that oranized labor went though. We all benefit one way or the other from a fight that a union went though. You may think that the time has come that no more fights are needed but I assure you that this is not the case for most people that work under a union.

To the contrary, I work in a non-union company and we've had union employees come to work for us because they are treated better. This may not be the rule, but to suggest that employees who do not belong to a union are abused is pure folly. Smart businesses know that good employees make all the difference.

 

and maybe some union workers are overpaid? just maybe.

 

 

For damn sure some executives are.

The answer here is and/both - not either or.

 

our teachers are severely underpaid. uaw workers tightening a bolt are severely overpaid.

Some teachers are underpaid, some are overpaid. Everything I've read about UAW workers suggests they are very overpaid.

 

Well that sort of depends. There is a large fear of people that are considering going union as the company gives off all sorts of threats to people that they think are voting union. This is very true and I have seen it with my own eyes with a group of nurses just recently. Their vote came up short and within three months of the vote the most outspoken people that wanted to join the union are gone for one reason or another. One of those people worked for the same facility for 19 years and was very vocal about joining the union and she is gone. There are all sorts of nit picking reasons that she is gone but the entire staff of nurses knows it is total BS as they should all be fired for the same exact reasons.

 

I don't know of many things that matter that have people vote out in the open.

The problem with the "employee freedom act" or whatever it's called is that it's not a vote at all. All that is required for a "shop" to become union under this law is for a simple majority to "sign a union card." That's very different from what exists today where the vote is scheduled and unions and company representatives all have a chance to make their cases.

[Skippy]

See, I have another take on this. While I agree that there could be some threats from the company, I believe there are just as many that would come from the union as well. Picture the environment of someone that had to publicly announce that he was non-union. Do you think that he/she would not feel pressured to vote for union regardless of whether or not they wanted one? I mean these are the people they would have to work side-by-side with everyday. And do you think that if they were to actually become unionized that they wouldn't be mistreated just as badly by the pro-union people?

I have never heard of a modern day shop that was considering going union come under any threats from the union. The union is normally invited to the shop by people that work there and they help those people try to organize.

 

Pressure is felt both ways I am sure. However, the only pressure that you should be concerned with is the pressure coming from the people that control your job. Not the pressure from a co-worker that feels strongly that the union would be a good move for the shop.

 

As far as feeling pressure from the pro-union vs the anti-union I can only speak from experience. I work is what is called a "fair share" shop. What that means is that we are union but if you don't want to be in the union then it is your right and you pay a reduced amount of union dues. Yes there are times when the incredible majority of union members do say something to the non-union members about not being in the union but they are treated no different. In fact there is no way that you, as a union member, would let them be treated any different as that would open the door for management to treat everyone the way they treated the "fair share" member. That just does not float with what the union is all about.

 

So in short they will not be mistreated by the pro-union member in my world at all.

 

To the contrary, I work in a non-union company and we've had union employees come to work for us because they are treated better. This may not be the rule, but to suggest that employees who do not belong to a union are abused is pure folly. Smart businesses know that good employees make all the difference.

 

I don't paint every company with the same paint brush. Some people, companies, are great to work for. Some are much better to work for then the same sort of company that is union. I have no problem accepting that people that work in a non union shop can be happy, well paid, have good benefits and a great work place in general.

 

I just know that the great people that you work for are not going to be the same from company to company. Some places need a union a lot more than other places. Some places have zero need for a union and I can respect that.

[rocknrobn26]

Sorry RR, but this is patently and demonstrably false. Unions, like politicians, have one concern - their membership and continuing power. What is the teacher's union's incentive to hold teachers accountable? The millwrights, IBEW, plumbers and pipefitters, sure. Those guys work for a union and if they're lousy then the union won't get calls for its members to work. UAW, teamsters, NEA - I ain't buying my friend.

 

A couple links I found with a Yahoo! search:

 

 

 

I don't know about the accuracy of the links, but I'm sure if these don't suit you some verifiable stuff can be found.

 

Like JN said, and you agreed, the vast majority are (at the very least) competent. But the NEA has one and only job - protection of its members.

 

Those links you posted are sooooo full of misinformation and total BS they deserve no reply!

 

 

I just don't have the time to get into this and my views on this are pretty well known.

 

You guys that think unions should be done away with just don't have a clue how much the employer would take advantage of the worker if the union just went away.

 

There are good and bad things about unions but all you guys that moan about a union each have something about you working life that would be traced back to a fight that oranized labor went though. We all benefit one way or the other from a fight that a union went though. You may think that the time has come that no more fights are needed but I assure you that this is not the case for most people that work under a union.

 

Haven't had a chance to read your last post, but this one is on point 100%! To those of you in disagreement.............Please point out a fault!

Bravo, my brother!

Edited October 15, 2008 by rocknrobn26