Do Unions stifle innovation???

[shilala]

I work in a trade union.
On a daily basis, I literally have to double or triple the production of our non-union competitors.
We achieve this through a five year apprenticeship program that involves roughly 1500 hours of classroom traing, 10,00 hours of on the job training, and constant classroom continuing education after graduation.

Another way we do this is to stay on the cutting edge of technology.
If a new tool, process, product or design comes down the road, we employ it to our advantage.
We create, invent and adapt on a daily basis.

The reason we do this is simple...
If an employer can hire a monkey to do the job, they will.
If they can buy a machine to do a job better, we embrace it because we have to, or we sit on the couch while our non-union competitors take the work.

For this, we are paid well and have excellent benefits.
In the past number of years most if not all of our raises have gone to health and welfare to cover the ever rising costs.
I've seen a grand total of zero cost of living increases in the last 10 years, unless you consider $.55 in ten years a cost of living increase.
I've also watched our health and welfare plan roll back, drop benefits, increase copays, and drop specific coverages.

During that time I've also seen my workload and what's expected of me rise twofold.
I've also seen manpower go from adequate to consistantly short.
We always arrive on a job far later than we should and desperately behind. It's an employer's tool to increase immediate production. It works, even if it increases accidents and causes injuries. Fortunately, we heal.

It's a balanced game that's gone on for decades.

It's fortunate for me that graft and corruption is generally limited to our high-ranking union officials and contractors.
Our union recently lost millions in self-funded pension holdings because of misappropriation of the money and "cost overruns" on a hotel project that our officials invested in without member consent (some parts were consentual, most were not).
This has left my retirement in shambles with no recourse available and no way to replace what's lost.

My reward for that fvcking? Go work harder and smarter tomorrow.

How does this tie in with the UAW battle that's been raging here forever?

The strength of trade unions is it's members. The strength of the UAW is it's members.
The major single difference in the two???
My union creates, innovates, employs and develops strategies that make the whole thing go 'round.
Automakers have management who handle that.

Who's better suited to figuring out how to turn the wrench? The guy who turns it, or the guy who read about how it's turned and has looked at pictures.

Who's to blame for a union's plight that has no say in the day to day operations of the plant in which they work?
Who has set the standard for the day to day stupidity that goes on? Who dictates it?

I know most folks here have at some time or other experienced the frustration of working for idiots. Can you imagine the frustration of the UAW workers who have watched their livelihood going down the toilet because things are being done the way they are done?

Who is in charge of innovation at GM? Delphi?

 

[natto fire]

Not nescessarily, but I have seen unions be counter-productive. I was a member of UFCW for over 4 years. I hated seeing a worker be praised because he/she had been employed longer, their actual job performance didn't mean squat. So I imagine other unions are just as bad.

 

[Kelvrick]

Ok, this seems to be a rant, and yet kind of a question. Whats the point?

 

[dartworth]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Ok, this seems to be a rant, and yet kind of a question. Whats the point?

he is giving a view from the other side...

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Ok, this seems to be a rant, and yet kind of a question. Whats the point?

Just trying to inject some education on the subject matter that's sorely lacking around here.

 

[TStep]

The major difference is that the company/companies affiliated with your trade union are still in business. Thus they have balanced the burdens that come with a union affiliation vs. the burdens that come with non-union employees, made a choice on the appropriate labor avenue to pursue, bid the work accordingly, and apparently still turn a profit to continue their existence.

I have been a member (laborers union) when I was very young, and later got booted off a job (surveying) in my early 20s after 3/4 year of service and replaced by a carpenter surveyor, when Atlantic City construction slowed, and they had a few old timers that needed some time before retirement (no union fights for surveyors labor rights, they are generally bargaining chips and fall victim to negotiation concessions be it operators or carpenters). Since, I have been on the management end of things since working for both union affiliated and non-union companies.

Union / non union comparisons that I've noticed over the years in highway construction:

-Unions generally provide pre-trained skilled personnel via a phone call to the BA. They have apprenticeship programs which are generally successful. In most non-union scenarios, the work force has to be built up, some training is involved, people need to be sifted through (alot of hiring interviews / firing). Lost production in this phase of startup is a hidden cost when building a non-union workforce.

-Unions have costly work rules. It varies by region and contract, but operators have the most. If an operator turns the key and starts a machine on a rain day, he generally gets paid 4 hrs, worked or not. Also, and operator cannot operate more than two pieces of equipment during the day. He can operate A, the operate B, then go back to operating A, and that is it. No more switches. This is workable in high scale production, but in a low production environment that needs say 4 pieces of equipment, never operating simultaneously, but switches are often, one or two operators may be adequate. However, the rules would make you need 4. However you accept this if the individual workers are more productive, thus offsetting this cost. Things get testy when they are not.

-Firing a non union employee is easier, just do it legally. But as stated before, in the building of the team, there is more non-union employee turnover. Firing a union employee requires steps and time. Almost always the employees winds up getting a first and second warning prior to termination.

-Union employees will play slow-down games on projects to make a point, costing $$. I don't see this too often with non-union employees.

-Union employees have less absenteeism, less disruption to production. When they will not be at work on a particular day, they will make arrangements for a replacement from the hall. Non-union employees have no system for this.

These are just a few comments on what I see in my day-to-day work, that most board members don't experience.

I don't know the details of the Delphi-UAW agreement, but management failed to manage costs, period. That is the bottom line. If the excessive UAW costs ultimately caused the collapse, the onus is still on management. They should have locked out prior to the last negotiation. The UAW on the other hand failed its membership. They irresponsibly priced themselves out of the market. No company means no paycheck. Greed has its bounds, and both sides crossed the limit.

 

[aidanjm]

I have been in workplaces where there are no unions, and the emploer "negotiates" an individual contract with each employee, and those places of work were NOT pleasant. I do believe that unions play a vital role to counterbalance the economic power of businesses or corporations.

 

[TStep]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I have been in workplaces where there are no unions, and the emploer "negotiates" an individual contract with each employee, and those places of work were NOT pleasant. I do believe that unions play a vital role to counterbalance the economic power of businesses or corporations.

Your exactly correct. Hence the driving force behind the formations of unions in the first place. Too many ATers somehow believe this to be a black and white issue. It is not. There is nothing evil about big business or unions in general, it is the extreme cases such as this that bring all of the bad aspects of both to the forefront when the finger pointing starts.

 

[da loser]

so if a union is capable of doing all these great things, why don't does thing save the company? because you need good management to keep a company going. hence why they get paid more than unions.

now if a company has bad management, defined for the union as capable of paying what they desire, then it must go out of business. however, the US government doesn't allow this, thus bad management survives so therefore union pay must suffer, but they won't go for it. so what happens? the rest of america gets screwed.... bad management can get replaced, union members can't. do you understand why i hate unions?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: shilala
Do Unions stifle innovation???

They certainly stifle capitalism, so I would think innovation would be kicked in the ass too.

 

[Kelemvor]

Your union is different than the UAW union. Main thing is you point out that your employer can hire non-union people if they want to. Auto Makers can't (I don't think). So when UAW decides they want a huge pay increase, there's nothing the car makers can do about it except get into a big fight. Because UAW demands higher wages for their employees than they should get, they are stifling innovation because there's that much more money that car makers can't spend on innovation because they're spending it on union litigation and other crap like that.

 

[imported_Pablo]

The best damn wrench turner in the country isn't worth $60/hr. of wages and benefits, unless its an extreme situation.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: da loser
so if a union is capable of doing all these great things, why don't does thing save the company? because you need good management to keep a company going. hence why they get paid more than unions.

now if a company has bad management, defined for the union as capable of paying what they desire, then it must go out of business. however, the US government doesn't allow this, thus bad management survives so therefore union pay must suffer, but they won't go for it. so what happens? the rest of america gets screwed.... bad management can get replaced, union members can't. do you understand why i hate unions?

The solution is for the government to stop bailing out corporations every time they mismanage themselves.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

My union stifles initiative. People like my boss are lazy bastards that would be fired if they acted like they do at a real job. No reason to put in the effort to be better than your co-workers as promotions are seniority based.

 

[zebano]

First off, I work in a job where everyone negotiates their own salary. It is perfectly pleasant. The biggest problem is that management thinks they ought to be the ones to get training and recommend what tools we use. When they do this, they then fail to provide us with training, so it's up to you to spend time outside of work to learn to use managements choice of tools. I recently renegotiated my pay based on this and received a substantial raise (it helps that I am a productive employee; I only nef part time =).