Lets say that there are a group of people who are working but have no union representation because one does'nt exist for their line of work, how would someone go about setting one up? Would it be difficult to setup health and life insurance, pension plan, 401k, etc.?
How does one start a union?
- Thread starter Arkitech
- Start date
Unions are run like corporations, you are going to need someone who knows big business and someone has has very good people skills to recruit new members.
The unbion tipically does not provide the benifits the employer does. What is it you hope to gain by creating a union?
I'm serious.
They're nice people.
They stayed at the hotel I wok at for a month while setting up a union at some company.
They'll give you pointers of where to start even if they dont represent you
I don't agree and I will give you stats out of labor relations literature later. If nothing else benefits gained by collective bargaining are much harder to rescind than ones your employer "gives" you.
Arkitech-- it may help if you contact the National Labor Relations Board. I know one of the first steps that is required is that you have to identify "work groups" which are people with similar skills. Then you have to obtain signature cards which state that the people signing them want union representation. You have to get a percentage (I think 50%). Call or go to the NLRB web site.
Can't speak for Arkitech, but most unions want to exist for 3 reasons.
1. More pay.
2. Same work.
3. Half as efficient.
You start by paying people a portion of your pay to manage the union and buy big homes. Then you start to complain that you don't make enough and that you should be paid more than you deserve (we all know that lvl 1 helpdesk employees really should be making 80K a year) and hell, go ahead and complain that you need more paid time off while you are at it. You then go to your union rep at the company and tell him you need more $$. The union rep will then go to the owner of the company and file his grievance against this guy who has invested his own money to build a company that you were able to be employed at and provide food and shelter for you and your family.
At this point, Whatever local union you have signed up with will start throwing around their weight and threaten the owner with boycotts etc... This will drive the owner to either cave in to your demands, say F@ck you or he will just close shop and you and your "brothers" will be looking for work elsewhere.
Good luck....
kranky
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 21,019
- 156
- 106
I've seen both sides.
I worked in a place with a union. Their contract provided fixed pay raises each year. If I put out twice the work of anyone else, it didn't matter. Therefore most people did as little as they could get away with. I worked my ass off so I could get promoted out of the union and it finally happened. That union did nothing except keep the company from making any improvements and collect fees from the membership.
On the other hand, I also worked in a place that was in need of a union. People were working in unsafe environments and not being told how to protect themselves. Forced overtime with no notice, people fired for no reason, it was just a terrible place to work. Sometime after I left there a few people tried to organize a union (with help from a large national union but not the Teamsters) but it got voted down because the company gave out raises, bonuses, lied about things, in order to get the gullible people to vote no. After the vote, no more bonuses, five of the eight people behind organizing got fired, and within six months most of the people apologized to the organizers for voting no. They knew they were had. Eventually the company closed.
I know how much work went into the organizing effort. It took months of effort and it cost people friendships. Both sides play dirty. So even though a large national union might help you, 90% of the work is done by people on the inside. You need a team of people totally committed even though it might fail.
I worked in a place with a union. Their contract provided fixed pay raises each year. If I put out twice the work of anyone else, it didn't matter. Therefore most people did as little as they could get away with. I worked my ass off so I could get promoted out of the union and it finally happened. That union did nothing except keep the company from making any improvements and collect fees from the membership.
On the other hand, I also worked in a place that was in need of a union. People were working in unsafe environments and not being told how to protect themselves. Forced overtime with no notice, people fired for no reason, it was just a terrible place to work. Sometime after I left there a few people tried to organize a union (with help from a large national union but not the Teamsters) but it got voted down because the company gave out raises, bonuses, lied about things, in order to get the gullible people to vote no. After the vote, no more bonuses, five of the eight people behind organizing got fired, and within six months most of the people apologized to the organizers for voting no. They knew they were had. Eventually the company closed.
I know how much work went into the organizing effort. It took months of effort and it cost people friendships. Both sides play dirty. So even though a large national union might help you, 90% of the work is done by people on the inside. You need a team of people totally committed even though it might fail.
Thats a pretty narrow view. Oh the poor president of the company, here's a news flash the owner of the company is'nt employing people out of the goodness of his heart. He needs those employees to earn his big bucks for him. We all know that these companies would pay their employees minimum wage or less if they could get away with it
Throughout history unions have only served to lower production, increase cost and generally throw bumps in the road of corporate efficiency. Minimum wage? Benefits? 40 hour works weeks? Child labour laws?
Wow, what a twisted world we live in.
Wow, what a twisted world we live in.
If there were no unions, they would be able to keep employees at subsistence wage levels. I guess it's difficult for some people to learn from the past
.Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
If there were no unions, they would be able to keep employees at subsistence wage levels. I guess it's difficult for some people to learn from the past
In the past, there were needs for Unions. I don't dispute that.
In todays world. No need. If an employee doesn't like their pay then they need to find another place to work. You agreed to work at a company for a set amount of $ and there are NO gaurantees of pay increases anywhere that I have ever heard of. If it is an issue with safety conditions, it is up to the employee to notify OSHA of the problems and OSHA will resolve. There is not one single situation that a Democrat hasn't created a government entity to fix.
That being said... If an employer wants good employees, they will pay for them. Wages are based on supply and demand. At one point the IT industry and it's employees were gluttoned with pay because of supply and demand. Now there is a flood of IT employees on the streets looking for work. They don't pay what they used to for those positions. Unions shouldn't have any say in that. Any business will pay the least amount for supplies and resources. Same goes for pay.... If you have people willing to work for minimum wage (and they are competent in that position) why not pay that? It's common sense.
For those that find it difficult to learn from school... It's called Economics (supply side if I am not mistaken).
Unions are usually a good idea.
People actually have a voice and some influence within a corporation when they act collectively......which is why Corporations hate them.
And wages are often based on a fair value negotiated between the workers and the corporation. Rather than the absolute lowest wage possible always arrived at in the so-called pure free market economy.....which is nothing more than corporations having total say in the matter (clever jargon).
I could go on and on for hours here.....
But the best way would be to talk to contact an actual organizer. There are enough different unions....that you should probably seriously consider one of them.....and not form an original one.
People actually have a voice and some influence within a corporation when they act collectively......which is why Corporations hate them.
And wages are often based on a fair value negotiated between the workers and the corporation. Rather than the absolute lowest wage possible always arrived at in the so-called pure free market economy.....which is nothing more than corporations having total say in the matter (clever jargon).
I could go on and on for hours here.....
But the best way would be to talk to contact an actual organizer. There are enough different unions....that you should probably seriously consider one of them.....and not form an original one.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,395
- 8,558
- 126
minimum wage increases hurt minimum-wage earners, and usually help higher paid workers (read: unionized) because they are then relatively cheaper. the 40 hour work week was implemented to spread around pay checks during the great depression... if the company needed 60 hours of labor it didn't matter if it was 1 guy doing all 60 hours or 2 guys doing 30 hours, and a lot of people would work 60 hours because they had to to feed themselves, but then the 40 hour work week was implemented so the company then did care, and would pick the second option. so they increased employment without increasing output doing that. benefits are merely another form of payment.
don't get me wrong, unions are needed in a lot of situations to keep the labor supply in control (which is what the unions do, btw, lock out people who could possibly do the job so that the labor supply curve is kept lower than it would be under free-market conditions) and keep companies honest but they're given far too much credit for some things.
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
If there were no unions, they would be able to keep employees at subsistence wage levels. I guess it's difficult for some people to learn from the past
In the past, there were needs for Unions. I don't dispute that.
In todays world. No need. If an employee doesn't like their pay then they need to find another place to work. You agreed to work at a company for a set amount of $ and there are NO gaurantees of pay increases anywhere that I have ever heard of. If it is an issue with safety conditions, it is up to the employee to notify OSHA of the problems and OSHA will resolve. There is not one single situation that a Democrat hasn't created a government entity to fix.
That being said... If an employer wants good employees, they will pay for them. Wages are based on supply and demand. At one point the IT industry and it's employees were gluttoned with pay because of supply and demand. Now there is a flood of IT employees on the streets looking for work. They don't pay what they used to for those positions. Unions shouldn't have any say in that. Any business will pay the least amount for supplies and resources. Same goes for pay.... If you have people willing to work for minimum wage (and they are competent in that position) why not pay that? It's common sense.
For those that find it difficult to learn from school... It's called Economics (supply side if I am not mistaken).
Many people are forced to take lower paying jobs because there simply is'nt anything else available and many employers know this. Then you have some individuals who never had the privilige of obtaining higher education and they pretty much are stuck with jobs at the bottom of the bucket. Especially now that jobs are scarce its easier for these companies to get away with paying the absolute minimum. There's nothing wrong with people running companies with profits in mind, but these profits should'nt be made at the expense of their employees being paid well below what they should be earning. There's a difference between making profits and cut throat greed.
Edited: first reply was a bit harsh
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter