Yukon Cornelius Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Maybe I shouldn't be speaking for some of the others that have posted irritating comments in this thread, but it's not the individual members of the union that some people have a problem with... rather it's the corruption and coercion that of the unions as a whole. kinda like there are some business that look out for the workers and there are some that don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 you don't have to join a teachers union. That's an interesting tidbit. I have no experience with any of the teachers' unions in Montana. However, I know one cannot work at the coal mines, refineries, for the railroad, for several major construction firms, or as a nurse at the largest hospital in the region without joining the union. These are many of the best jobs in the area and do not offer a choice on joining the union if one wants the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 That's an interesting tidbit. I have no experience with any of the teachers' unions in Montana. However, I know one cannot work at the coal mines, refineries, for the railroad, for several major construction firms, or as a nurse at the largest hospital in the region without joining the union. These are many of the best jobs in the area and do not offer a choice on joining the union if one wants the job. Nurses don't have to be in a union here either, for some hospitals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Unions are very beneficial in many ways. The problems occur when the unions cant see the big picture and only care about themselves versus the symbiotic relationship they have with their employer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Unions are very beneficial in many ways. The problems occur when the unions cant see the big picture and only care about themselves versus the symbiotic relationship they have with their employer. Agreed. But that's true of any significant player in any significant relationship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Agreed. But that's true of any significant player in any significant relationship. I completely agree. It is the "bad" unions that get plastered as being representative of all unions. The Chicago unions are pretty damn bad, from dealing with several of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I completely agree. It is the "bad" unions that get plastered as being representative of all unions. The Chicago unions are pretty damn bad, from dealing with several of them. I've always be a proponent of the collective bargaining process, but many unions have become more about protecting the union itself than helping workers or building better widgets. I'm just not sure how you address the issue without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I've always be a proponent of the collective bargaining process, but many unions have become more about protecting the union itself than helping workers or building better widgets. I'm just not sure how you address the issue without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. After seeing GM managment shoot itself in the foot for 20 years, I don't see how you can't say the same thing about executives. Do you think those guys are looking out for the good of the company? Who is your dog in the unions vs. executives battle? The idiot jerks or the other idiot jerks? If it weren't for lousy management you wouldn't need unions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 After seeing GM managment shoot itself in the foot for 20 years, I don't see how you can't say the same thing about executives. Do you think those guys are looking out for the good of the company? Who is your dog in the unions vs. executives battle? The idiot jerks or the other idiot jerks? If it weren't for lousy management you wouldn't need unions. That argument may have worked 70 years ago, but it is not relavent for today's workforce. Lousy management or not, there really is no place for unions anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 (edited) That argument may have worked 70 years ago, but it is not relavent for today's workforce. Lousy management or not, there really is no place for unions anymore. Ah, but the reason you don't need unions anymore is specifically because we have unions. Its like nuclear weapons. You only need them if you don't have them, but once you've got them you'd rather not use them. In other words, if you eliminated all unions how long do you think it would be before workers needed them again? The mere existence of unions keeps management from doing things that haven't happened during most of our lifetimes. Except RR's, perhaps, and notice what side of the issue he stands on. Food for thought. Edited November 20, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Ah, but the reason you don't need unions anymore is specifically because we have unions. Its like nuclear weapons. You only need them if you don't have them, but once you've got them you'd rather not use them. In other words, if you eliminated all unions how long do you think it would be before workers needed them again? The mere existence of unions keeps management from doing things that haven't happened during most of our lifetimes. Except RR's, perhaps, and notice what side of the issue he stands on. Food for thought. werd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Ah, but the reason you don't need unions anymore is specifically because we have unions. Its like nuclear weapons. You only need them if you don't have them, but once you've got them you'd rather not use them. In other words, if you eliminated all unions how long do you think it would be before workers needed them again? The mere existence of unions keeps management from doing things that haven't happened during most of our lifetimes. Except RR's, perhaps, and notice what side of the issue he stands on. Food for thought. As someone who is at best lukewarm on the role unions play these days, you have put forth a very valid point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 That argument may have worked 70 years ago, but it is not relavent for today's workforce. Lousy management or not, there really is no place for unions anymore. You're kidding. I'd say there's no place for lousy management. Yo Mama right after you said it best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Ah, but the reason you don't need unions anymore is specifically because we have unions. Its like nuclear weapons. You only need them if you don't have them, but once you've got them you'd rather not use them. In other words, if you eliminated all unions how long do you think it would be before workers needed them again? The mere existence of unions keeps management from doing things that haven't happened during most of our lifetimes. Except RR's, perhaps, and notice what side of the issue he stands on. Food for thought. I am so happy that I have been to busy doing my union job to catch this thread until right now. This post that I have quoted is all that needs to be said. Great job seeing the big picture, yo mama! Your post has been my position for years here at the Huddle and will always remain my position. Just like RR, I have been over this battle here a billion times and it is my opinion that you either see the big picture or your do not. I have no real time to get into it all but I know that all sorts of non-union people around my area thank my union brothers all the time for fighting the fight that even they reap the benefits of. Now you will get no more on this from me as I am to damn depressed right now having just found out about the six month old baby of one of my favorite waitresses that is fighting for her life while the mother and father have no insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I am so happy that I have been to busy doing my union job to catch this thread until right now. This post that I have quoted is all that needs to be said. Great job seeing the big picture, yo mama! Your post has been my position for years here at the Huddle and will always remain my position. Just like RR, I have been over this battle here a billion times and it is my opinion that you either see the big picture or your do not. I have no real time to get into it all but I know that all sorts of non-union people around my area thank my union brothers all the time for fighting the fight that even they reap the benefits of. Now you will get no more on this from me as I am to damn depressed right now having just found out about the six month old baby of one of my favorite waitresses that is fighting for her life while the mother and father have no insurance. My guess is that your union job is to expedite the move of your company to Mexico and/or overseas? The big picture is that you're fighting a fight you already won 70 years ago. The world has changed since then but I see that the union mentality hasn't. Keep up the good fight (I guess), whatever that may be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 My guess is that your union job is to expedite the move of your company to Mexico and/or overseas? The big picture is that you're fighting a fight you already won 70 years ago. The world has changed since then but I see that the union mentality hasn't. Keep up the good fight (I guess), whatever that may be. Not in my case tosberg. My job can't be moved. We could all be replaced but the need for trades will always be there and trained/skilled trades rule the workplace in my setting. I am currently involved in cleaning up three different major projects from the summer where three different non union companies could not seem to follow a spec sheet. Problem is this happens every single job and isn't going to stop. As for the 70 year old fight, those guys really did fight a fight that all of us need to be thankful for but don't think for a minute that it is over. I see young kids that work for plumbers down in holes digging away without any sort of bracing all the time. I mean I can go on and on with what I see and most of the time these young kids do not even understand the danger they are in but you can rest assured the guy that runs the company knows and just loves to save some money by cutting all those corners. I can’t get dragged into this fight this morning as I do have a pretty busy schedule ahead of me today taking care of a punch list of botched work done by a contractor that fails to meet specs that were all spelled out months ago. Gotta love the time and money that my school district will spend in court battling with these hacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Ah, but the reason you don't need unions anymore is specifically because we have unions. Its like nuclear weapons. You only need them if you don't have them, but once you've got them you'd rather not use them. In other words, if you eliminated all unions how long do you think it would be before workers needed them again? The mere existence of unions keeps management from doing things that haven't happened during most of our lifetimes. Except RR's, perhaps, and notice what side of the issue he stands on. Food for thought. hey, i'm thankful for the good fight back in the day, but back in the day we were not operating in a global economy with a highly migrant work force. workers don't need unions if they quit and get a different job that makes them happier. the existence of unions in today's world simply creates a competitive disadvantage for any company that has them. no management can do what was done in the past to their employees with the media and communications systems we have today. between the press and the threat of lawsuits, workers have more power than they ever have had before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 hey, i'm thankful for the good fight back in the day, but back in the day we were not operating in a global economy with a highly migrant work force. workers don't need unions if they quit and get a different job that makes them happier. the existence of unions in today's world simply creates a competitive disadvantage for any company that has them. no management can do what was done in the past to their employees with the media and communications systems we have today. between the press and the threat of lawsuits, workers have more power than they ever have had before. I see. So a worker's mom is infirm and living with them, they're in a town with only one major employer and McDonalds is not hiring at this time. Are you suggesting that this person should move his or her family to S Korea or Bangledash or India to find a job? Hell, the airfare alone is probably more than their entire life savings. You paint a very simplistic picture of what is a very complex equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I see. So a worker's mom is infirm and living with them, they're in a town with only one major employer and McDonalds is not hiring at this time. Are you suggesting that this person should move his or her family to S Korea or Bangledash or India to find a job? Hell, the airfare alone is probably more than their entire life savings. no, not s. korea ... maybe just the next town over? we have many major cities in every state with all kinds of things going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 no, not s. korea ... maybe just the next town over? we have many major cities in every state with all kinds of things going on. yea...its just that easy. Get out if you don't like it. There are jobs all over the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 That argument may have worked 70 years ago, but it is not relavent for today's workforce. Lousy management or not, there really is no place for unions anymore. idiot You paint a very simplistic picture of what is a very complex equation. yes that is an easier way to live Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 yea...its just that easy. Get out if you don't like it. There are jobs all over the place. well, now that's back to the good old profit motive. if we can do everything we can to promote healthy, happy businesses, then those jobs do show up all over the place. if we continue to treat our companies like downtrodden workhorses that only exist to fund a government that is masively in debt and doing everything it can to quelch the profit motive, well, then those jobs have a hard time popping up. it's all interconnected. why we all don't have a concerted effort to grow our businesses and our prosperity by cutting the tax burden and restrictions on our businesses is beyond me. again, this doesn't mean we go to sweat shop labor and unsafe conditions. we act and fast and decisively on any company that doesn't provide safe conditions and humane treatment and we put those companies out of business if they do not change. unions and higher taxes and more regulations and stifling legislation is the real enemy here, not business leaders looking for profits. they are the heroes of our economy who have been painted to look like villians. put the bad ones in jail but let's do all we can to help the good ones compete and win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I see. So a worker's mom is infirm and living with them, they're in a town with only one major employer and McDonalds is not hiring at this time. Are you suggesting that this person should move his or her family to S Korea or Bangledash or India to find a job? Hell, the airfare alone is probably more than their entire life savings. You paint a very simplistic picture of what is a very complex equation. is there something more complex vs. the example you've given? i would welcome another angle that would help me shape my opinion on this. honestly, i really don't see it as all that complex ... seriously looking to grow my knowledge here, not being a smartass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 is there something more complex vs. the example you've given? i would welcome another angle that would help me shape my opinion on this. honestly, i really don't see it as all that complex ... seriously looking to grow my knowledge here, not being a smartass. Moving to where the jobs are is not always a decision that is readily available. Family considerations, monetary restrictions, criminal record (did you know that hitting mailboxes with a baseball bat is a felony?) and other reasons can place a person in a bind where they just aren't in a position to move. You say that gov't legilation is crippling business but business has proven time and again that they will move in a direction to maximize profit regardless of the collateral damage. Without the little legislation there is business would run rampant over everything in this country, including the gov't. I'm a Libertarian at heart and even I realize that unfettered business is bad for the country. The core problem is exactly what you point out, the profit motive. A business that turns a profit and provides for it's workers and the surrounding community is benefit to all in the long run. A business that is profitable at the expense of the workers and community is profitable in the short run. Yet, the prevailing system would rather see business that turn a maximum profit over a short period of time than a smaller sustained profit over a longer period of time. I'm certain the are even models supporting why the short term view is perferred. As a society, we give businesses the rights of individuals yet they don't have the responsibilities of individuals. Therefore, the consequences of acting in the business best interestes but not in societies best interests are negligable. Very often the business best interests are societies best interests, but just as often it seems, they are not. There are no incentives for a company to do anything other than to maximize profits. Because of this, while a case can be made that healthy, happy workers are more productive workers. there is also a case that can be made that pushing workers to the very limits of their physical capabilities also results in increased profits. Morally and ethically the answer as which is the right path seems simple. Yet why do businesses continue to choose the other path time and again? Simply because short term gain is valued more highly than long term success. Since businesses in the country can't seem to find a way out of that particular quagmire, the gov't must legislate them to try and keep them out of it. Our legal system must be burdened with litigation against unscrupulous businesses. This in turn causes companies that would make the correct moral and ethical choice to live under the burden of that legislation. The bottom line is that while the free market should regulate that descision making, it clearly doesn't. It only regulates profitable v non-profitable businesses. There is no accountability for the cost of the actions taken to achieve profitability. That is the role that of the gov't has been forced to play, that of enforcer. Oh and cleaning up the mess left behind by those unwilling to make the morally and ethically correct decisions. Anyone remember the Superfund sites? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Moving to where the jobs are is not always a decision that is readily available. Family considerations, monetary restrictions, criminal record (did you know that hitting mailboxes with a baseball bat is a felony?) and other reasons can place a person in a bind where they just aren't in a position to move. You say that gov't legilation is crippling business but business has proven time and again that they will move in a direction to maximize profit regardless of the collateral damage. Without the little legislation there is business would run rampant over everything in this country, including the gov't. I'm a Libertarian at heart and even I realize that unfettered business is bad for the country. The core problem is exactly what you point out, the profit motive. A business that turns a profit and provides for it's workers and the surrounding community is benefit to all in the long run. A business that is profitable at the expense of the workers and community is profitable in the short run. Yet, the prevailing system would rather see business that turn a maximum profit over a short period of time than a smaller sustained profit over a longer period of time. I'm certain the are even models supporting why the short term view is perferred. As a society, we give businesses the rights of individuals yet they don't have the responsibilities of individuals. Therefore, the consequences of acting in the business best interestes but not in societies best interests are negligable. Very often the business best interests are societies best interests, but just as often it seems, they are not. There are no incentives for a company to do anything other than to maximize profits. Because of this, while a case can be made that healthy, happy workers are more productive workers. there is also a case that can be made that pushing workers to the very limits of their physical capabilities also results in increased profits. Morally and ethically the answer as which is the right path seems simple. Yet why do businesses continue to choose the other path time and again? Simply because short term gain is valued more highly than long term success. Since businesses in the country can't seem to find a way out of that particular quagmire, the gov't must legislate them to try and keep them out of it. Our legal system must be burdened with litigation against unscrupulous businesses. This in turn causes companies that would make the correct moral and ethical choice to live under the burden of that legislation. The bottom line is that while the free market should regulate that descision making, it clearly doesn't. It only regulates profitable v non-profitable businesses. There is no accountability for the cost of the actions taken to achieve profitability. That is the role that of the gov't has been forced to play, that of enforcer. Oh and cleaning up the mess left behind by those unwilling to make the morally and ethically correct decisions. Anyone remember the Superfund sites? Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.