bravo unions!

[dmarc117]

how many union members in this country shop at walmart?

[Yukon Cornelius]

how many union members in this country shop at walmart?

not me. but i dont mind paying for walmarts employees heath care coverage through my taxes.

[dmarc117]

not me. but i dont mind paying for walmarts employees heath care coverage through my taxes.

 

 

i also dont mind paying for a gm bailout, which is probably alot more.

[bpwallace49]

Good points on both sides. My cousin is a union plumber, so I get to hear both sides of the story.

 

Facts are for every productive union that has (and continues to) look out for the well-being of its members and peacefully co-exists with the businesses that provide the union workers jobs, you have a more publicized example of potential corruption and the wrong directions a union could take. A perfect example is dmarc and the McPier authority (the organization that operates McCormick place and Navy Pier).

 

Unions are still needed to protect workers from abuses by management/owners whose priority is their profit over all other concerns. Unions also have to work with the business that continues to provide the workers with gainful employment without going bankrupt.

 

Like every other topic that gets debated ad nauseum, both sides need to compromise a little to make everyone happy . . .

[bushwacked]

not me. but i dont mind paying for walmarts employees heath care coverage through my taxes.

 

Have to agree here, you're a socialist.

[tonorator]

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.

 

i guess that's true in some cases but if it's a matter of me finding better work to support my family, that becomes my #1 family consideration and i would find a way to get the move done. certainly non-migrant workers cannot be a reason today to support massive union structures.

 

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.

 

i'm all for getting the legislation right to put in place safe work environments, minimum wages, fair practices, etc. the idea, however, that my employees would need to band together to dictate to me, the business owner, how i need to run my business is nuts. if they don't like it, don't work for me. maybe i'm forgetting or not aware, but i can't think of any situations in this country where workers were being put in unsafe positions or were not being paid a minimum wage that wasn't dealt with. can you credit that to the unions of the past? yes, i'm sure that's true in some cases. does that mean we still need them today? in a widespread fashion? i can't believe that. maybe there are a few unique situations where a formal union is truly needed to protect workers, but i can't think of an example where i couldn't point to a non-union example where things are fine.

 

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.

 

that's up to the company! they can set whatever strategy they want! if they want to burn out and fade away, so be it! if you want a longer term focused company, go work for one! What does a union have to do with this? you want the unions having infuence and say over a company's strategy? go read 'built to last' ... great book.

 

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?

 

can you name one company in the U.S. in the last 50 years that pushed workers to the very limits of their physical capabilities and was able to stay in business? can you name one in the last 50 years where this was true and a union fixed the problem, keeping the company afloat?

 

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.

 

short term success is not unethical. again, companies should be free to choose whatever strategy they want, working within the confines of the law. for those companies that focus only on short term, unethical practices, they usually go under in a blaze of glory. even with this, i'm not sure how a union forces a company to have a more long term strategy. again, as far as worker's well being goes, i can't think of any company that is out there abusing their people. if they were, there would be lawsuits so fast it would make your head swim.

 

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?

 

again, unions are being talked here ... not whether a business has a sound strategy or if it is engaging in unethical practices. unions exist to protect the worker's safety and to collectively negotiate better working conditions and benefits. hazardous waste dumping should be regulated, not dictated by a union. safe working conditions should be regulated, not crafted by a union. these things must be legislated for all, not individually developed or enforced by a union. that's why we have the epa and osha, etc. fully fund them and let them do their jobs. report any unsafe practices and deal with them. we don't need a union for this.

[Skippy]

again, unions are being talked here ... not whether a business has a sound strategy or if it is engaging in unethical practices. unions exist to protect the worker's safety and to collectively negotiate better working conditions and benefits. hazardous waste dumping should be regulated, not dictated by a union. safe working conditions should be regulated, not crafted by a union. these things must be legislated for all, not individually developed or enforced by a union. that's why we have the epa and osha, etc. fully fund them and let them do their jobs. report any unsafe practices and deal with them. we don't need a union for this.

I have still been way to busy with my union job to keep up with this thead but I did catch this and just want to quickly point out that not everyone is protected by OSHA. OSHA will not step foot on to any of my work sites as my workplace is OSHA exempt. I don't know if that is everywhere but in PA. and several other states I know for fact that school districts are OSHA exempt.

[Skippy]

how many union members in this country shop at walmart?

Not a chance you will see any of my dollars being spent there.

[dmarc117]

I have still been way to busy with my union job to keep up with this thead but I did catch this and just want to quickly point out that not everyone is protected by OSHA. OSHA will not step foot on to any of my work sites as my workplace is OSHA exempt. I don't know if that is everywhere but in PA. and several other states I know for fact that school districts are OSHA exempt.

 

 

you sure have alot of work breaks.......

[bpwallace49]

you sure have alot of work breaks.......

 

dmarc, what do you do for a living? Sounds like anti-worker management to me . . .

[Ursa Majoris]

dmarc, what do you do for a living? Sounds like anti-worker management to me . . .

Money market parasite, or something like that.

[Sugar Magnolia]

you sure have alot of work breaks.......

 

For how often you post during the day, it seems you get quite a few work breaks, so what's the point?

[dmarc117]

Money market parasite, or something like that.

 

 

i like to consider myself more of a barracuda

[Clubfoothead]

Money market parasite, or something like that.

 

We call them extortionists down here in Texas.

 

"We need the American taxpayer to recapitalize us because of our incompetence. Now, you don't have to recapitalize us but if you don't there will be a world-wide depression".

 

Fortunatley for the whole world, communist China had the cash necessary to keep capitalism alive and was willing to let us borrow it.

 

Until there is a public option, there will be a need for unions.

[Kid Cid]

i guess that's true in some cases but if it's a matter of me finding better work to support my family, that becomes my #1 family consideration and i would find a way to get the move done. certainly non-migrant workers cannot be a reason today to support massive union structures.

 

 

 

i'm all for getting the legislation right to put in place safe work environments, minimum wages, fair practices, etc. the idea, however, that my employees would need to band together to dictate to me, the business owner, how i need to run my business is nuts. if they don't like it, don't work for me. maybe i'm forgetting or not aware, but i can't think of any situations in this country where workers were being put in unsafe positions or were not being paid a minimum wage that wasn't dealt with. can you credit that to the unions of the past? yes, i'm sure that's true in some cases. does that mean we still need them today? in a widespread fashion? i can't believe that. maybe there are a few unique situations where a formal union is truly needed to protect workers, but i can't think of an example where i couldn't point to a non-union example where things are fine.

 

 

 

that's up to the company! they can set whatever strategy they want! if they want to burn out and fade away, so be it! if you want a longer term focused company, go work for one! What does a union have to do with this? you want the unions having infuence and say over a company's strategy? go read 'built to last' ... great book.

 

 

 

can you name one company in the U.S. in the last 50 years that pushed workers to the very limits of their physical capabilities and was able to stay in business? can you name one in the last 50 years where this was true and a union fixed the problem, keeping the company afloat?

 

 

 

short term success is not unethical. again, companies should be free to choose whatever strategy they want, working within the confines of the law. for those companies that focus only on short term, unethical practices, they usually go under in a blaze of glory. even with this, i'm not sure how a union forces a company to have a more long term strategy. again, as far as worker's well being goes, i can't think of any company that is out there abusing their people. if they were, there would be lawsuits so fast it would make your head swim.

 

 

 

again, unions are being talked here ... not whether a business has a sound strategy or if it is engaging in unethical practices. unions exist to protect the worker's safety and to collectively negotiate better working conditions and benefits. hazardous waste dumping should be regulated, not dictated by a union. safe working conditions should be regulated, not crafted by a union. these things must be legislated for all, not individually developed or enforced by a union. that's why we have the epa and osha, etc. fully fund them and let them do their jobs. report any unsafe practices and deal with them. we don't need a union for this.

Business strategy and unions are clearly intertwined. I can certainly understand as a business owner how you would not want anyone to tell you how to run your business. You are quick to point out the there are laws and government agencies that are there to protect the workers. You do realize that the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) would not exist were it not for the unions? That the whole concept of binding arbitration for settling disputes came about because unions had the clout to actually bring companies to the negotiating table? That the very concept of negotiating with employees and listening to their concerns and workplace problems comes from unions forcing companies to do it?

 

You like to think that ok, the unions did the dirty work in the past and that we now have these laws protecting the workers and everything will be ok. So five years ago a young man (he was 23 years old) got his arm ripped off by a piece of equipment that had the safety guard removed. This was at the shop where I used to be VP so I know the facts in this case. The reason that the safety was removed by the companies admission, because of a 6% increase in productivity for that particular job. This equates to around $21,000 for the year. And this is a company that has a union.

 

What is happening is that you are looking at things through your filters, based on decisions that you would make. You obvoiusly care about your employees and feel that by treating them well they will work harder for you and that they are justly compensated. However, that is just not the case out in the world at all. Like I stated earlier, the motive is profit because someone is under pressure to increase it. An abstract possibility of someone getting hurt is less real than a $21k increase in profits, hence the decision was made. Workers are abstract to many management types, nothing more than pieces to be moved around on a chess board. To some places, there is an "acceptable" amount of damage to their workers where they have run the numbers to find out that if they pay out X in worker's comp damages and hospital bills, their profits are increased by 2X.

 

This type of thinking will only get reinforced were there no unions at all. For the holy grail of profit, individual decision makers within companies will cast aside any thought of human decency when their personal job is on the line. Think of it this way, a small chance that someone might get hurt or a very large chance that I lose my job. Many people are not that altrustic as to choose to lose their job. And so, the company itself takes a small step closer to the dark side. Yet that person is acting in the company's best interests, after all, the bottom line is the bottom line.

 

Here's another situation, one that often arises in the white collar world. Let's say that some guy gets an idea for a product that fills a gap in Mocrosoft's suite of tools. He puts together a presentation for a group of venture capitalists and gets $20mil in funding. However, they put the restriction on this inventor that he has three years to do one of the following things: go public or get bought by another company. If he can do either of those two things he gets a personal $2mil bonus. There will be no extension of the deadline or additional cash infusions.

 

So to do the math, that's around $555,555 per month that can be spent. That's not a lot of money once you start talking about salaries and health benes. One CEO, one CFO, one CTO, legal, office assistants, office equipment, space lease and sundries eats up $400K of that. So you now have $150K which can get you a team of 5 developers. Or, you can go offshore and get a team of 10 developers for the same price but given the development delays and rework necessary when you do that, it doesn't make sense in this instance. Do you not think that this team is going to be whipped to the very brink of exhaustion to bring this project to fruition in the time allowed? Becasue they will have to try and finish up this project in about a year and a half (figuring about six months in startup time and other incidentals) so that they have time to try and sell the company. You see, going public really isn't a realistic goal for this type of project.

 

This development team doesn't have the physical hazards of working in maufacturing but they do have to worry about physical ailments brought on by poor workplace ergonomics and exhaustion. 80 hour work weeks are not uncommon and it may be more as crunch time approaches. Commuting is hazardous for these folks because of exhaustion. Family life, what little there is of it, suffers. Management are still 9 to 5ers but the developers certainly aren't. Yet they have zero recourse. They can complain but they can't stop work. A stake has been put in the ground and come hell or high water that goal is going to be met.

 

This is the situation where a company is only designed to exist for three to five years. They can and will treat the workers like manure becasue there is no tomorrow for them, there are no negative repurcussions if someone has a heart attack or a nervous breakdown. All they care about is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. These are the type of people today that need the protection of a union but most certainly won't get it. And you can't even blame the unions for forcing these jobs out of the country, the businesses are doing that all by themselves.

 

Nah, the workers don't need the protections offered by unions. The businesses will alawys make the decisions that best take care of their employees. Employers would never exploit their workers for cash and profit. That's all a thing of the past.

[tonorator]

You like to think that ok, the unions did the dirty work in the past and that we now have these laws protecting the workers and everything will be ok. So five years ago a young man (he was 23 years old) got his arm ripped off by a piece of equipment that had the safety guard removed. This was at the shop where I used to be VP so I know the facts in this case. The reason that the safety was removed by the companies admission, because of a 6% increase in productivity for that particular job. This equates to around $21,000 for the year. And this is a company that has a union.

 

stuff like this is always going to happen and there is always going to be a line where a company has to draw in order to operate and protect the safety of their employees at the same time. i happen to believe that the overwhelming majority of companies do indeed put the safety of their folks first and do all they can to protect them from injury. they do that because it's the right thing to do and also because either the government or resulting lawsuit can both potentially put the company out of business. there's never going to be a completely safe workplace just like there is never going to be a completely safe world. unions, as was with this example, cannot prevent this kind of thing from happening.

 

This type of thinking will only get reinforced were there no unions at all. For the holy grail of profit, individual decision makers within companies will cast aside any thought of human decency when their personal job is on the line.

 

c'mon man, you are talking like america is some third world country. "cast aside any thought of human decency"? what the hell are you talking about?

 

So to do the math, that's around $555,555 per month that can be spent. That's not a lot of money once you start talking about salaries and health benes. One CEO, one CFO, one CTO, legal, office assistants, office equipment, space lease and sundries eats up $400K of that. So you now have $150K which can get you a team of 5 developers. Or, you can go offshore and get a team of 10 developers for the same price but given the development delays and rework necessary when you do that, it doesn't make sense in this instance. Do you not think that this team is going to be whipped to the very brink of exhaustion to bring this project to fruition in the time allowed? Becasue they will have to try and finish up this project in about a year and a half (figuring about six months in startup time and other incidentals) so that they have time to try and sell the company. You see, going public really isn't a realistic goal for this type of project.

 

This development team doesn't have the physical hazards of working in maufacturing but they do have to worry about physical ailments brought on by poor workplace ergonomics and exhaustion. 80 hour work weeks are not uncommon and it may be more as crunch time approaches. Commuting is hazardous for these folks because of exhaustion. Family life, what little there is of it, suffers. Management are still 9 to 5ers but the developers certainly aren't. Yet they have zero recourse. They can complain but they can't stop work. A stake has been put in the ground and come hell or high water that goal is going to be met.

 

This is the situation where a company is only designed to exist for three to five years. They can and will treat the workers like manure becasue there is no tomorrow for them, there are no negative repurcussions if someone has a heart attack or a nervous breakdown. All they care about is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. These are the type of people today that need the protection of a union but most certainly won't get it. And you can't even blame the unions for forcing these jobs out of the country, the businesses are doing that all by themselves.

 

uh, they don't have to do this. the developers can quit. or they can sit down with management and work out an arrangement without the need for a union to be formed. the management of the company needs these folks to be sharp and energized to be successful. many, many people would welcome this kind of a challenge for that pot at the end of the rainbow and if they willingly want to go for it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. welcome to the american spirit of success that many had when they first came to this country to seek prosperity.

 

Nah, the workers don't need the protections offered by unions. The businesses will alawys make the decisions that best take care of their employees. Employers would never exploit their workers for cash and profit. That's all a thing of the past.

 

they may still try, but in today's world, the worker has more power and options than ever before. if we want america to compete in this global economy, we cannot have institutions forming inside of our companies focused on maximizing the rewards of the employees and impacting corporate strategies. companies have to be free to compete and individuals have to own the decisions that are right for them, choosing between the employment options that are out there. and the idea that company leadership are all-consumed with profits without regard for the health and safety of their employees is bunk. these aren't evil people and they do indeed care about people. are there exceptions? sure, but you don't institutionalize structures based on this assumption. that does nothing but hinder our good companies from winning in the marketplace.

 

we can just agree to disagree man. again, i'm sure there are some limited situations where unions can still do some good and may be needed to wake up some company management ... and i'm sure it's possible for unions to be formed and be friendly with management and everything turns out to be a nice win-win arrangement ... imo, these are rare and in no way should be the norm of how our companies are structured to compete.

[WaterMan]

We call them extortionists down here in Texas.

 

"We need the American taxpayer to recapitalize us because of our incompetence. Now, you don't have to recapitalize us but if you don't there will be a world-wide depression".

 

Fortunatley for the whole world, communist China had the cash necessary to keep capitalism alive and was willing to let us borrow it.

 

Until there is a public option, there will be a need for unions.

 

Communism is keeping Capitalism alive.

[tosberg34]

idiot

 

yes that is an easier way to live

 

Insulting people is NEVER the right way to get your point across, YC. In fact, in most debates the second you insult someone is the second you lose the argument. The fact that I don't believe what you do doesn't make me an idiot, it only makes me somebody who doesn't subscribe to your views.

 

Now you can have debate or you can behave like a 5 year old. The choice is yours - you can take the blue pill and your story ends, you can continue insulting people and think that it's making your case stronger. You take the red pill and the story continues and I show you how far the union rabbit hole goes.

[WaterMan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unioniza...n_the_world.svg

 

France has less unions. Discuss.

[Big John]

Insulting people is NEVER the right way to get your point across, YC. In fact, in most debates the second you insult someone is the second you lose the argument. The fact that I don't believe what you do doesn't make me an idiot, it only makes me somebody who doesn't subscribe to your views.

 

Now you can have debate or you can behave like a 5 year old. The choice is yours - you can take the blue pill and your story ends, you can continue insulting people and think that it's making your case stronger. You take the red pill and the story continues and I show you how far the union rabbit hole goes.

hmmmmmmmm

[The Mucca]

Union/Non Union Dem/Rep

 

A little bit of both, a good thing. A lot a bit of one, not so much a good thing.

[tosberg34]

hmmmmmmmm

 

A moment of weakness. I'm trying to be a better Huddler.

[Ursa Majoris]

stuff like this is always going to happen and there is always going to be a line where a company has to draw in order to operate and protect the safety of their employees at the same time. i happen to believe that the overwhelming majority of companies do indeed put the safety of their folks first and do all they can to protect them from injury. they do that because it's the right thing to do and also because either the government or resulting lawsuit can both potentially put the company out of business. there's never going to be a completely safe workplace just like there is never going to be a completely safe world. unions, as was with this example, cannot prevent this kind of thing from happening.

Removing safety equipment to increase profit? You don't think that happens?

c'mon man, you are talking like america is some third world country. "cast aside any thought of human decency"? what the hell are you talking about?

You're being naive here.

[tonorator]

Removing safety equipment to increase profit? You don't think that happens?

 

You're being naive here.

 

no, i'm saying these issues don't need unions to fix them.

 

and i'm not being naive on the "human decency" point. that's way over-dramatic, imo.

Edited November 22, 2009 by tonorator

[WaterMan]

no, i'm saying these issues don't need unions to fix them.

 

and i'm not being naive on the "human decency" point. that's way over-dramatic, imo.

 

Of course we won't need unions to fix that. The machines will Josh Gordon out the dumb ones and the bosses will fire the ones that are smart enough to sue.