Workers form Unions for the same reason just about everybody does anything; they are self-interested.
As a conservative, I can see that some unions actually function as intended...an effective collective bargaining partnership. Those, however, seem to be few and far between.
Stories emerged that outraged the citizenry enough that unions were able to form and hold. But, I don't see the reciprocity when a union is responsible for equally outrageous behavior. Stories like http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all seem almost surreal.
A lot of unions are relics of 80 years ago. They exist because some workers in the 1920's were upset about work conditions and banded together. However, they have long since degenerated into pointless bureaucracies.
The threat of a union still motivates certain companies that don't have them, but easily could if they started screwing over their labor force.
Does anyone NOT associate unions with corruption?
We know darrin conservatives think unions are bad.. by the way I don't automatically associate unions with corruption. I tend to not make blanket statements..
See, I don't agree with having to join the union to get the job mandated by law. Now, if the employer signed a contract stating that they will exclusively hire union members, that's different. But having it enshrined to law outside of a contract seems dumb.
Sometimes, if a union is tame enough, it's actually easier to deal with union vs. non-union. It allows the company to negotiate large, blanket contracts and not deal with individuals. It allows them to let the union do the micromanaging for them. The problem is that a tame union is rarely the case.
That's what bothers me the most about union law. I see no reason why an employer shouldn't be able to hire scabs. Now, if you want to put in a law saying that the employer would have to pay for two weeks severance for strikers or something, or they'd have a limited amount of time to strike, then ok. But otherwise is folly.
So... what laws should be repealed/put in place?
From my extremely limited knowledge of the situation, I don't think any company should force someone into joining a union; however, that would seem to be the company's right to make that decision. I'm squeamish about ins uting a law that mandates companies have to hire non-union workers. Then again, there are laws preventing firing workers for certain reasons (discrimination, for instance.) So perhaps a law stating that an employee couldn't ins ute a union-only hiring process would be legal. Those with the union would get whatever concessions the union applied for; those who weren't with the union would get what they could take.
I definitely think employers should be able to hire scabs during times of strikes, also.
Modern day Unions are redundant at this point in time. The first Unions (freight, docks, auto) were/are responsible for every federal law that protects workers, workman's comp and basically every facet of "fair"-ish employment standards practiced across the country.
For that, they should be thanked for their service and shelved for future use.
It appears clamebaked is under the illusion they are not. But so help me God Darrin, don't you dare let the cat out of the bag about the easter bunny to him.
I believe, "he" is a "she".
Um. Do you seriously not understand how unions hurt a free market?
Oh, they sometimes do. The problem is union goons going out breaking a scabs head or say trashing his car while he's at the jobsite working and they're picketing outside.
Unions once were needed in this nation. They have become forces that serve their own best interest, not even the employees. Yes, they appear to protect the worker, but they are like politicians who give to be liked.
Structured pay scales, agreed upon rules... it takes away from individual agreements between the employee and employer. It makes everyone the same, and worse yet... as "The Lowest Common Denominator."
Yes, there are good things about unions, but in the long run, we trade individualism for collectivism.
If it's a union job, you better join if it's optional. Otherwise, the union will find reason to get you fired. Strong union supporting coworkers will do ent things you do wrong, and give them to your boss. Then when they want to let you go, the union does not back you.
There is no merit pay, or promotions based on merit. You work a "cookie cutter" job and get the same pay scale as others, but based on seniority rather than merit.
I hate unions. I am a better worker than most my coworkers, but get paid less than those who know how to work the system to stay lazy.
show where i said this, micca.........then....tell us all about paris.
Let us consider what the role of a union is. A union’s job is to get as much for its workers as possible, regardless of good work, regardless of the needs of business or the market place. Unions are not concerned with work, they are concerned with what they can force employers to give away.
Often unions don't re-address issues that come up between periods of negotiation. I don't know if most know this but...Union Auto Workers can make up to $74 per hour. That's to stand around and place bolts in a specific part of a car. Oh...I'm sure that job is so hard...so demanding...so precise that it requires a person to make $74 per hour. There are no caps within unions.
Also labor cost disparity comes from legacy pension and healthcare benefits to retired members... as well as ...unions have been accused of benefiting insider workers, those having secure jobs, at the cost of outsider workers, consumers of the goods or services produced, and the shareholders of the unionized business. Those who are likely to be disadvantaged most from unionization are the unemployed, those at risk of unemployment, or workers who are unable to get the job they want in a particular line of work.
You see...it's not just Republicans involved in these actions but many, many, many Democrats as well.
The way I've become accustomed to the many years of being able to vote is that it's not a Liberal or Conservative issue (and I've voted for on both sides of that aisle)...it's who's pockets are getting filled the most. Government is the biggest business in this nation far exceeding that of any private capital endeavor.
In fact...government has the largest amount of union members of all the unions in this country. Why should government have unions to begin with?
That's what get's me the most. Governments tend not to care what they spend like business does. There is nobody to counter union demands that really gives a damn.
Obviously I can understand. Heck, it'd be best for the markets is individuals were chained and forced to work 20 hours a day to crank out product.
My question is how we can FIX labor laws to be better for the market, while still maintaining the right to assemble for people to hammer out better conditions for themselves.
See, I don't get this example. The company agreed to pay the people installing these bolts 74$ an hour right? So why should we feel the corporation is being taken advantage of? If they made a stupid promise and put it into a contract, that would seem to be their fault.
Now, if for some reason the business starts doing horrible and can't honor their agreement, there should be some sort of third party arbitrator to determine a solution.
Just out of curiousity, what labor laws do we have today that need to be fixed? Back when unions first cropped up and were interested in working conditions I agree the lack of labor laws had to be addressed. But between OSHA and all the other agencies/laws/regulations I think we've taken care of that. Union-company disputes these days are pretty much entirely over compensation.
Agree with you here. A contract is a contract and if you make a bad deal, that's on you.
On a side note that $74/hr figure is misunderstood by a lot of people. No one is getting paid $74/hr to install bolts. The $74/hr is a derived value taking the total cost of all labor and labor related benefits and dividing that number by manhours actually worked. Retiree benefits get added into the labor cost, yet the retirees are not working any hours. So cost per hour figure ends up being a lot higher than what the people actually working are actually getting paid.
That's what bankruptcy courts are for.Now, if for some reason the business starts doing horrible and can't honor their agreement, there should be some sort of third party arbitrator to determine a solution.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
