Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Union is what union does

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    There is no shortage of private schools in California. Any teacher who wants to go slog it out in the capitalist utopia of the private sector and individually negotiate their own salary can do so at any time. Turns out that most teachers don't want to do that, because they get a better deal working in the public school system. So anti-union activists found a few defendants whose name they could slap on a lawsuit to sue to retain all the benefits of collective bargaining without having to pay for it.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

      It is the best solution for the entire collective, not just the limited group of union members.

      Many people seem to ignore the reality that while unions try to put a lower bound on wages and benefits, they also put an upper limit on them. I have worked in several organizations that had both union and non-union facilities. In 100% of these cases, the non-union staff had higher pay and better benefits - and in most cases got regular bonuses that the union members were not eligible to receive.

      Just remember - "competitive compensation" is the same as saying "nobody gets anything above average".
      I wonder if that works the same for meat processors or migrant farmhands? Do you think it works for auto-workers? What type of jobs are you talking about specifically?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

        Centuries-old solutions aren't always effective for today's problems. Should we limit medicine to sulfa drugs and put the Model T back into production?
        That association is truly apples and oranges.

        Labor force norms have nothing to do with the product.
        http://www.harmonycentral.com/t5/Electric-Guitars/I-smeared-bacon-fat-on-my-strat-now-it-stinks/td-p/16697195

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Into Nation View Post

          That association is truly apples and oranges.

          Labor force norms have nothing to do with the product.
          No, but they have everything to do with the labor market, and the evolution thereof.
          Keep the company of those who seek the truth, and run from those who have found it.

          -- Vaclav Havel

          The Universe is unimaginably vast. For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.

          -- Carl Sagan


          Life - the way it really is - is a battle not between Bad and Good but between Bad and Worse.

          -- Joseph Brodsky

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by stratosaurus View Post

            What happened?
            My state passed 'right to work' laws in the late 70s or early 80s...which gutted the unions...overnight our wages were cut over 50% to compete with non-union labor.
            Guns Over People

            I pledge my allegiance to David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez!!!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Hoddy View Post

              My state passed 'right to work' laws in the late 70s or early 80s...which gutted the unions...overnight our wages were cut over 50% to compete with non-union labor.
              To which specific laws are you referring? Most of the Georgia right to work laws that I can find were enacted in 1947.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Red Ant View Post

                No, but they have everything to do with the labor market, and the evolution thereof.
                Disagree. There may be some sort of linearity or progression of product (always progressing), but the labor doing that can progress or regress depending on a lot of things.

                Consider the pyramids and that labor. Not so good for labor.
                Consider France or Spain or England at their power heights. Better, right?

                Consider the labor building Americas railroads. Which of the former examples is this closer to?

                Labor is situational, unrelated to the product and can get better or worse for the worker.

                Last edited by Into Nation; 05-06-2019, 09:03 PM.
                http://www.harmonycentral.com/t5/Electric-Guitars/I-smeared-bacon-fat-on-my-strat-now-it-stinks/td-p/16697195

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Idunno View Post
                  Organize

                  Dems just don't get it. This is not the stuff of contenders. It's the stuff of contentious. Legislating employers and employees for the good of the unions alone? Unions that bargain with strong arm tactics like striking to paralyze an employer need to open their eyes and take a look around the manufacturing landscape for a clue or two. Those days are over by virtue of an available global market of cheap labor. While I agree that their original purpose (ensuring work place safety) is still valid, OSHA, state and local guidelines have the reins now, not to mention the ever-prying eyes of the blood-thirsty personal injury attorneys creating victims as they need them. Point being, unions need to vanish and let the right-to-work aspect of a free market economy compete for workers. I despise unions and their pocketing of politicians.

                  https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/...nion-wish-list
                  What would you suggest as an alternative? I agree that in some cases unions do more harm that good but just like people there are good and there are bad.

                  If not for unions my chosen profession would not be paid what it is despite the fact that we were not only forced to continue our education until the day we retired but we were one of the most educated professions in the country. Despite our education, training and skills if left to the devices of the "Free Market" we would have been paid little more than minimum wage.

                  Why? Because businesses could not make a profit directly off of us and when they tried to profiteer from our industry they invariably failed to the extent that they had to shut their doors for lack of qualified personnel and lack of direction from those who wished to profit from us.

                  The ironworkers that I work with are some of the best trained, safest professionals I have ever had the pleasure to work with. If not for them many for-profit companies they do jobs for would place the lives of the ironworkers in unnecessary danger every day in the name of making a buck. I have seen it and fought against a national construction company for choosing profit over worker safety.

                  OSHA, state and local governments do not, indeed, have the reigns on safety. How do I know this? It is my job as the company risk management officer to know and I always see worker safety compromised in pursuit of profit. It happens in my company, where my owner tells me to do the minimum required of the law, and it happens in just about every construction company I have dealt with on job sites.

                  The reason why companies are forced to have safety departments is because of their historically poor safety record when only the government holds them responsible.

                  Your assertion is also false in that you seem to think that government agencies have their hand in every aspect of worker safety down to inspectors on every job site and in every workplace. You seem to think that government agencies frequently inspect jobsites to catch companies violating safety standards.

                  They do not. The only three times I have seen OSHA on my job is after injuries that were severe enough to require us to contact OSHA within a specified time period. Otherwise they have not shown up. At.All.

                  Perhaps you think that employees dropping the dime on employers is the equalizer. It is not. Despite federal and state whistleblower laws it is very difficult for an employee to report a violation without placing his/her job on the line. Sure, the feds and state prohibit firing a person for blowing the whistle but I know companies can get around that with paperwork and accountability: I guarantee you that if I want to get rid of you all I need is a few weeks of patience and proper documentation and I can terminate you for reasons other than your dropping the dime on me. That is what every whistleblower faces and to prove you were fired for whistleblowing is difficult unless the employer is stupid enough to admit, in writing or too an attorney, that your termination was due to your whistleblowing.

                  Your comment/OP is similar to those I see from conservatives who think that a socialist program such as Unions are a bane to a capitalist society. What you and every other anti-union advocate does not see is that organized labor is often the only check and balance for the worker. You also conveniently forget that your work climate is as it is solely due to union efforts when it comes to pay, safety and work environment. If you receive health benefits (a social program if we are honest) it is due to the efforts of organized labor. If you recieve(d) OT it is due to organized labor, not the good hearted decision of business.

                  I agree that there are unions out there that are either ineffective and even harmful to both employees and the labor cause, but, again: There are more than do good for the worker than harm workers.

                  And puhleeeeze! "Right To Work"? No one has a right to work. That phrase is a conservative/business whitewash that is so far from the truth it is ludicrous. The only people who want "Right To Work" are the business owners who do not like having to account for their actions by the closest body that can hold them accountable: Labor Unions.
                  Sprinkles are for winners...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by gp2112 View Post


                    And puhleeeeze! "Right To Work"? No one has a right to work. That phrase is a conservative/business whitewash that is so far from the truth it is ludicrous. The only people who want "Right To Work" are the business owners who do not like having to account for their actions by the closest body that can hold them accountable: Labor Unions.

                    I disagree.

                    "Right to work"simply means a person seeking employment may do so without being compelled by the state to do so as a union member.

                    It also means a business may hire an individual that is not a member of a union.

                    Pretty basic rights really.

                    I know plenty of tradesmen /skilled professionals who would rather set their own terms of compensation rather than have a union do it for them AND charge them a fee for it.

                    Nothing about RTW limits workers rights to organize and present collective bargaining terms to employers.


                    Last edited by nedezero1; 05-06-2019, 08:46 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by guido61 View Post

                      And when Ford needs to bring in 1,000 people to work on an assembly, how much is skills, qualification and experience going to help each wprker negotiate their salaries individually?
                      I guarantee you that Ford knows the individual productivity of every one of those employees. The good ones would be earning higher pay without the union.
                      Lease this space!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by roughtrade View Post
                        I wonder if that works the same for meat processors or migrant farmhands? Do you think it works for auto-workers? What type of jobs are you talking about specifically?
                        Manufacturing. We compete directy with automotive for labor - one of my plants used to be located 2 blocks from the largest Harley-Davidson factory. Less than 50 miles away and you're in the heart of dairy and feed crop land (including the farm I live on).
                        Lease this space!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Into Nation View Post

                          That association is truly apples and oranges.

                          Labor force norms have nothing to do with the product.
                          Sure they do. Those things were needed before labor laws and OSHA existed, but that need has been met and unions no longer provide benefits equal to their cost.
                          Lease this space!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

                            I guarantee you that Ford knows the individual productivity of every one of those employees. The good ones would be earning higher pay without the union.
                            Wrong. Supply and demand indicates more workers qualified for the assembly jobs than there are jobs for them. They don’t offer people various wages depending up productivity. The jobs don’t work that way. If it takes 20 people to assemble a car, what value is it to have one worker more productive than the rest?

                            The employees with the best skills can move up the ladder, or on to some other job or career, but that doesn’t change the need Ford has for x-number of workers in the factory.

                            if your theory was correct, then why aren’t we sworn this with non-union automakers?
                            Last edited by Vito Corleone; 05-06-2019, 08:57 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by guido61 View Post
                              Wrong. Supply and demand indicates more workers qualified for the assembly jobs than there are jobs for them.
                              BS. Try to hire qualified assemblers or machinists in today's market.

                              They don’t offer people various wages depending up productivity. The jobs don’t work that way. If it takes 20 people to assemble a car, what value is it to have one worker more productive than the rest?


                              You have clearly never managed manufacturing, or you would understand that production lines are absolutely balanced to level load and mminimize takt time. When one station becomes more efficient, the activities are adjusted to take advantage of it.

                              And yes, competent management absolutely compensates people more for higher performance....that is, unless it is a union shop, which will prohibit pay for performance.
                              Lease this space!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

                                BS. Try to hire qualified assemblers or machinists in today's market.





                                You have clearly never managed manufacturing, or you would understand that production lines are absolutely balanced to level load and mminimize takt time. When one station becomes more efficient, the activities are adjusted to take advantage of it.

                                And yes, competent management absolutely compensates people more for higher performance....that is, unless it is a union shop, which will prohibit pay for performance.
                                Then why is the average pay for union workers vs non-union workers more?

                                https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ga...eek-2014-01-24
                                Last edited by Vito Corleone; 05-06-2019, 10:33 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X