Unions? Is there a place for them?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I bring this one up, because I was in a discussion with friends on a forum dedicated to my previous employment (trucking).

I was a Teamster for 3 years, and was a union Steward. I know some of you might find that hilarious (it is funny I suppose considering my politics), but I found that the concept of a contract being policed between employer and employee to be in itself an apolitical process. IN short, I don't like Unions in political lobbies, and I don't advocate everyone should join one at all, but I do think employers not smart enough to protect and look after their own employees deserve to have unions to deal with. I do know that they are a controversal subject for many...so I put this out there...I can guess what a few of you might think of them. I have my own thoughts based on some of what I read in the news about some unions, since the transit commission in Toronto is at war with it's union. The floor is yours....

[Rollo]

Sure.

There are plenty of lower paid workers who wouldn't by themselves be able to negotiate fair working conditions and pay.

As a businessman, you want to lower costs in order to increase profit, usually the biggest expenses to any firm are rent and wages; wages are the easier of the two to negotiate.

Unions in principle are a good idea, as it helps to balance the power difference between businesses and people whose only negotiating chip at the table is their labour input.

Unfair imbalance on either side is bad.

[BDunnell]

Answer is yes. However, they need — at least some of them in the UK — to cease spending money and resources on left-wing 'solidarity' campaigns and concentrate on the welfare and direct interests of their members. They should be forces for good, as they often are, and as such apolitical bodies. In addition, a spot of modernisation is needed. I'm not suggesting the imposition of inoffensively bland leaders at all, but when one sees the likes of our RMT leader Bob Crow in action one can understand why agreement is sometimes so difficult to reach.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Answer is yes. However, they need — at least some of them in the UK — to cease spending money and resources on left-wing 'solidarity' campaigns and concentrate on the welfare and direct interests of their members. They should be forces for good, as they often are, and as such apolitical bodies. In addition, a spot of modernisation is needed. I'm not suggesting the imposition of inoffensively bland leaders at all, but when one sees the likes of our RMT leader Bob Crow in action one can understand why agreement is sometimes so difficult to reach.

I knew If I stood around long enough...lol..you and I would agree on something. I am pretty much on the side of unions having a role, but the one codicil be that getting a vote on one be a secret ballot. There is talk of killing that provision in the US when Obama got elected and I think it would be dreadfully stupid....

[dunes]

Wow
I have a brother thats 11 months older than me and our whole life we've always been on oppisite sides of the fence on practically everything. This topic is one we acualy find simular ground on. He is a steward for some union dealing with welding gases and such, However the point I'm triing to get to is unions have a purpose if they are conducted and controlled correctly.But in the wrong hands they can be very damaging to the employees.

[wedge]

Being a liberal sorta guy I guess I'm for unions but unfortunately I've come across unscrupulousness union reps who advise employees how to cheat their employer ie. how to be lazy as possible and still get paid for it.

[Hondo]

Unions! Big Business! Immigrants! Free Masons! Government! No Government!

Everybody wants all problems to have a single cause and all problems to have a single cure. Which is exactly why nothing gets done.

It's as simple as it is unfixable. The root cause of the problems is us and our human nature and the cure is balance, not necessarily equaility, which generally runs against our human nature.

As a quick aside, Mark, oddly enough, I worked on the management side of a company that had a contract with the Teamsters for 3 years. The second year, work started on a new contract. 3 weeks later it was a done deal. No hollering, screaming, picket lines, or violence. I also know that with good, dedicated shop stewards that don't automatically turn into a defensive stone wall, working with a union can be a real joy. I saw quite a few marginal employees turned around after "informal chats" with the stewards and the stewards were aware of justified, official disciplinary documents disappearing from an otherwise good employee's file once extremely unusual circumstances in the man's personal life were "mentioned" by the steward over coffee. It was a Jewish owned company (closed corporation) and every year they shared a sizable (about a months pay) bonus with their employees, bargaining unit and management, although they were under no requirement to do so. The owners were into balance.

I see people hyping "free markets" like they are the cure all. When you had free markets, you had monopolies, worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week for $0.05 per hour and stayed in debt to the company store or company landlord. That's your free market. So we free market folks got the government in on it. They did away with the monopolies and trusts, established a minimum wage, 40 hour work week, etc. After awhile that wasn't enough and Tah-Dah, unions.

The rest of it is outlook. Do you think the employees are entitled to the same rewards as the owners? Do you think all employees should be paid the same although we all know that the quaility and output amongst the employees are different? The greed and lack of empathy of management gave birth to the unions and greed and lack of empathy for the company has put many a company in dire straits, and the workforce that put it into that position.

Personally, I think those that start and run a company do deserve a greater share. They took the risks, often personal financial risk, to build a business. They created the job you were damned happy to get when you got it. At some point they will most likely want to expand the business and that takes capital, they need to keep capital on hand or available to see them through market slumps without laying people off, keep sales up, improve the product and arrange for materials. These people don't walk out after 40 hours and go play softball. On the other hand, should they also reward those at the other end that actually make the product? Yeah, I think they should and profit sharing is one method but you still need a balance. If you are at the top, how much is enough? If you are at the other end, how much do you really think you deserve?

It's simple, find the balance point.

[harvick#1]

I'm against them, as the jobs I've worked for, and right now, will be forced to join a union under my own will, or I'm not allowed to continue working.

my union did jack crap to try and save me from getting laid off, (I'd take less hours in order to be able to continue working for my-ex company).

one main reason I'm against unions is "Seniority". which is the biggest crock of crap in todays day in age. all the good workers who know how to do the work right and correctly the first time will always be behind a moron whos started 2 weeks earlier. I was laid off while others whos had grudges with supervisors and have been written up repeatedly got to stay because they had higher seniority, even though they never knew what they were doing at work.

I'd be certain that if the company I didn't work for was not a union shop, I'd still would be working at my company while they got rid of the garbage.

we are not in the 1940's anymore, the Government has been upping minimum wage and while its still at under 8 an hour, its still a good start.

[Alexamateo]

Excellent Post Fiero! :up:

[555-04Q2]

I bring this one up, because I was in a discussion with friends on a forum dedicated to my previous employment (trucking).

I was a Teamster for 3 years, and was a union Steward. I know some of you might find that hilarious (it is funny I suppose considering my politics), but I found that the concept of a contract being policed between employer and employee to be in itself an apolitical process. IN short, I don't like Unions in political lobbies, and I don't advocate everyone should join one at all, but I do think employers not smart enough to protect and look after their own employees deserve to have unions to deal with. I do know that they are a controversal subject for many...so I put this out there...I can guess what a few of you might think of them. I have my own thoughts based on some of what I read in the news about some unions, since the transit commission in Toronto is at war with it's union. The floor is yours....

No. Look at how many industries worldwide have been decimated by unions and their strike actions. The British car industry is a famous case in point.

If you dont need someone to help you wipe your backside when you go to the toilet, why do you need some fat union bloke in a cheap suit to help you negotiate work hours, salaries etc?

[Rollo]

why do you need some fat union bloke in a cheap suit to help you negotiate work hours, salaries etc?

Supposing you were something like a factory worker without a clue at how legalese works? Negotiating salaries might be a daunting thing for you, and who is going to make sure you don't get ripped off by your potential employer? Your employer sure as heck isn't.

People who are on the bottom rung of society have the least to be able to negotiate with.

[DexDexter]

Hmm....it sounds to me like everybody here thinks that the unions are just for factory or other low level workers. Well, I've got an M.A. and I work in a field where all my colleagues have Master's degrees and I think every single one is a member of our union. It gives us security, they've got lawyers etc. who help you in case of trouble etc. and deal with the employer in other matters. I'm all for it.

On the other hand a Finnish company had a paper mill in the Chicago area and they sold it last year, why? Because they had so much trouble with the union over there, and the real problem was it was controlled by the Outfit. Teamsters, the union mentioned here, has been under control of the American offshoot of Cosa Nostra for years, not so much anymore I hear.

[555-04Q2]

Supposing you were something like a factory worker without a clue at how legalese works? Negotiating salaries might be a daunting thing for you, and who is going to make sure you don't get ripped off by your potential employer? Your employer sure as heck isn't.

People who are on the bottom rung of society have the least to be able to negotiate with.

I feel squat for people who dont stand up for themselves or know their rights. Before I became my own boss I have never needed a union(ist) to think for me while skimming off the top of my salary.

[Hondo]

Something 555 sort of alludes to, becoming your own boss. You are not likely to get rich working for somebody else and you're a fool if you expect to. There is alot you can do with your wages to build wealth yourself or to keep the bills paid while you work on your new invention. You can even buy shares in the company you work for.

[DexDexter]

I feel squat for people who dont stand up for themselves or know their rights. Before I became my own boss I have never needed a union(ist) to think for me while skimming off the top of my salary.

Let's imagine a very possible situation where you're a worker/or whatever who is negotiating with your employer and the employer wants to let's say pay you less and work more than your colleague for whatever reason. What do you do if you're not part of a union? Go work somewhere else, what if jobs are hard to find? Sue the employer and risk losing a lot of money and all possibilities to work in that particular field (nobody wants to hire a person like that)? If you get into trouble with an employer, a union is a good thing to have on your side. Obviously if you have your own company, you're never going to see the unions from that perspective.

Having said that, in some countries the unions have too much power and that hinders the actual work itself.

[GridGirl]

Last January my employer put us all through a redundancy consultation. The result was them making 2 people redundant and 1 person walking out in disgust that she was being considered for redundancy. Of the two people that were made redundant one was lazy and the other was not liked by the partners and transfered into the company via aquisition.

As year goes by and the first Friday in January the audit department gets called into a meeting and the personal partner, manageing partner and HR manager inform us that they are going though another redundancy consultation. About an hour prior to this a pregnant girl I work who has sinse gone on maternity leave was called up inp the staff partners office. A little while later so was I. I was told about the redundancy consultation on my own and was told that I was safe. I was told that we would later get called into a meeting so that we could all be told and that I want to tell anyone that I already knew and that I had been granted immunity. It's basically been dragging on sinse then and tomorrow I fully expect (and I can predict who) that come 5.30 a number of people that the partners want to get rid of will be made redundant because basically my employer has no valid reason to sack them. I don't think any of this would be happening if we had a union.

Annoyingly this whole process has forced my hand in me telling the partners that I plan to leave anyway. My owning up to the fact that I am going to leave may save someones job but I doubt it. On the other hand if they choose to go back on their word that Im safe I could also be made redundant tomorrow but again I doubt it. They are not exactly going to pay me off when I will leave for free soon anyway but I can live in hope.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Hmm....it sounds to me like everybody here thinks that the unions are just for factory or other low level workers. Well, I've got an M.A. and I work in a field where all my colleagues have Master's degrees and I think every single one is a member of our union. It gives us security, they've got lawyers etc. who help you in case of trouble etc. and deal with the employer in other matters. I'm all for it.

On the other hand a Finnish company had a paper mill in the Chicago area and they sold it last year, why? Because they had so much trouble with the union over there, and the real problem was it was controlled by the Outfit. Teamsters, the union mentioned here, has been under control of the American offshoot of Cosa Nostra for years, not so much anymore I hear.

The Teamsters have NO connection with the Mafia. Jimmy Hoffa borrowed money from the Mafia to shore up the Teamster's back in teh 60's, and if the Mob didn't kill him, the law would have. His son is leading them now but the only mob he is connected to is the Democratic Party in the US, and I suspect at some point he is doubting why he bothered.

Unions always come back to the guys on the shop floor...or office or whatever. What Fiero described about being management and dealing with the Teamsters is the experience I had. We as stewards had to educate our guys that having a union didn't you could tell management to fark off for the fun of it.

As for you Harvick, the hourly rate you got at your job was WAY above what the market was paying was due to the fact that when times were good, the Union got their cut of the action. You had no problem signing on then, so it is a bit silly to then say the union did nothing for you. As for your dislike at seniority, why should some guy off the street get privledges or pay that someone who dedicated 10 or 20 years worth of sweat and toil to a company wouldn't get? Listen, seniority rules suck if you have little, but being the new guy in any company means you are the first one to go, often without a union. THAT's life. Having bosses play favourites is far more galling and less logical.

As to the post about how the unions destroyed the British auto industry, yes they did, and I find most autoworkers, whether in North America or in the UK to be WAY more full of their own importance than any other union. That said, don't blame the union for ridiculous engineering and design features that made Britsh cars a joke. Everyone involved had a hand in the destruction of the British owned car industry. I would suggest nationalizing the auto industry under the British Leyland lable was the undoing of the British industry, not the mere fact the guys building the cars were in a union.

[DexDexter]

The Teamsters have NO connection with the Mafia. Jimmy Hoffa borrowed money from the Mafia to shore up the Teamster's back in teh 60's, and if the Mob didn't kill him, the law would have. His son is leading them now but the only mob he is connected to is the Democratic Party in the US, and I suspect at some point he is doubting why he bothered.

Unions always come back to the guys on the shop floor...or office or whatever. What Fiero described about being management and dealing with the Teamsters is the experience I had. We as stewards had to educate our guys that having a union didn't you could tell management to fark off for the fun of it.

As for you Harvick, the hourly rate you got at your job was WAY above what the market was paying was due to the fact that when times were good, the Union got their cut of the action. You had no problem signing on then, so it is a bit silly to then say the union did nothing for you. As for your dislike at seniority, why should some guy off the street get privledges or pay that someone who dedicated 10 or 20 years worth of sweat and toil to a company wouldn't get? Listen, seniority rules suck if you have little, but being the new guy in any company means you are the first one to go, often without a union. THAT's life. Having bosses play favourites is far more galling and less logical.

As to the post about how the unions destroyed the British auto industry, yes they did, and I find most autoworkers, whether in North America or in the UK to be WAY more full of their own importance than any other union. That said, don't blame the union for ridiculous engineering and design features that made Britsh cars a joke. Everyone involved had a hand in the destruction of the British owned car industry. I would suggest nationalizing the auto industry under the British Leyland lable was the undoing of the British industry, not the mere fact the guys building the cars were in a union.

Cosa Nostra has infiltrated some Teamster sections or local organisations (whatever you call them) after Hoffa, believe me.

# In 1986, the President’s Council on Organized Crime reported that five major unions—including the Teamsters and the Laborers International Union of North America—were dominated by organized crime.
# In the early 1980s, former Gambino Family Boss Paul Castellano was overheard saying, “Our job is to run the unions.”

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/orgcrime/lcnindex.htm

[Hondo]

When I went back to I\E work, I was hired into a crew of 5 journeymen and 2 helpers. This may sound dumb in this day and age, but the work ethics I was raised on were simple, "Nobody owes you a job so you need to earn your job every day" and "You took the job knowing what it paid and what your responsibilities would be. If you don't like it, drag up and keep everybody happy." Those ethics were passed on to me by working hands, not management, and I've always tried to abide by them. Anyway, the lay-off rumors started and imagine my surprise when a couple of weeks later, the crew was me and the 2 helpers. As told by the foreman, I came to work when I was supposed to, I came to work on time, I didn't "quit" for the rest of the day after dinner and most of all, I still got the job done even if the specified material wasn't available. The I\E field is extremely creative and there are lots of ways to do a job differently but proper and legal. Of course this was a non-union job. Texas was a right-to-work state.

Nobody disses sports agents for getting their clients the best deal they can, why diss the unions? Companies are notorious for not bargaining in good faith until they have a gun to their head and then get to the point they'll agree to anything to keep profits rolling in. Back at the start of the SUV craze the Jeep Cherokee was the darling. I remember reading an article that Chrysler's after taxes, after expenses profit on each vehicle was $9000.00. That article was in a reputable automotive magazine. After that, I have always scoffed at the notion that the cost of labor is what makes car prices so high. Here again part of it is a case of being "too big". The price of any given unit has to include a lot of things not necessarily directly invovled with it, like the expenses of other models that aren't selling so well and the salaries of the dumbasses that negotiated a bad labor contract for the company.

Unions didn't kill the British auto industry, the Japanese, poor quality, and the loss of the American market share killed them. What the US bought from Britain was mainly sports cars. Back then virtually all sports cars were English or European. They were very spartan cars with few comforts. You could count on anyone with a sports car being out in the driveway "tinkering" with it at least twice a month. These were high maintainence cars and parts took forever to come in. Didn't matter if it was an Alfa or a Triumph. I once heard a joke that the rear bumper on a Jaguar was especially designed to be comfortable to sit on while you pushed the car. By God, it was comfortable!

Enter the Datsun 240Z. Thats what killed or hurt the manufacturers. Here was a sports car, a true sports car, that handled, went fast, had carpet, an air conditioner, was very stylish, and required nothing from the owner but gas and oil if thats all the owner wanted to do. The American market demanded ever more power, more economy, more comfort and luxury like air conditioning and power windows, and the government demanding ever tighter emmission controls. The Brits couldn't keep up. The last gasp, the TR-7 was a nightmare. Maybe the guys on the lines would've taken less money, but they are still going to build what they are told to build and if that product is an out of date, underpowered, relic with poor quality components (Lucas Electrics-The Prince of Darkness) it's not going to sell. I miss them anyway.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Who doesn't miss the MG or the Triumph's? Heck...Jags survived despite Lucas and other suppliers of shoddy bits but it took Ford to make the marque semi-reliable.

You are dead on with the 240Z, and its counterparts the Rx7 and Supra.....

[555-04Q2]

Let's imagine a very possible situation where you're a worker/or whatever who is negotiating with your employer and the employer wants to let's say pay you less and work more than your colleague for whatever reason. What do you do if you're not part of a union? Go work somewhere else, what if jobs are hard to find?

I left my first job for similar reasons to the ones you mentioned in your post and it was the best thing that ever happened to me career wise. It drove my path to success, made me see that no one but you can make decisions for your own fate, no matter how poor, rich, stupid or smart you are.

Not one of my workers are part of a union, they get treated well if they perform, get bonuses for reaching targets etc. In fact, it's quite funny to watch my staff chase the union fat cats away whenever they come in to my factory to try and sign them up. I p!ss myself everytime.

[DexDexter]

I left my first job for similar reasons to the ones you mentioned in your post and it was the best thing that ever happened to me career wise. It drove my path to success, made me see that no one but you can make decisions for your own fate, no matter how poor, rich, stupid or smart you are.

Not one of my workers are part of a union, they get treated well if they perform, get bonuses for reaching targets etc. In fact, it's quite funny to watch my staff chase the union fat cats away whenever they come in to my factory to try and sign them up. I p!ss myself everytime.

So I remembered it correctly, you're an employer and for you the unions do nothing good. I understand, I'd probably feel the same if I had a company.