POLL: Are unions the downfall of american companies?

[Atlantean]

I think unions are not the greatest thing ever... I am in one at the supermarket I work at and I basically can't get fired no matter how bad I fsck up (Obviously there are some things that you can't do, but I can be lazy and not work and still get paid for it if I wanted to).

 

[BunLengthHotDog]

I myself just became "represented" and find them rather useless. Its my (very limited) experience that unions are there to keep slackers employed, simply making it damn near impossible to fire someone. My work conditions were fine, management was not bad (actually the union made them worse..by limiting their scope of influence, management has now tightened their grip on what little they have control over.), and my pay was excellent. In my case the union I work for (CWA) is useless.

 

[Moonbeam]

If it weren't for unions, businesses from all over the world would be coming here to set up factories. The skies would be redolent with the sent of industry. Even children could find jobs. But all is not lost. It can still happen. All we need is for you, and you, and you to work for nothing.

The stupidity and amnesia displayed in this thread was purchased by corporate America at tremendous cost. Corporate elites are a parasitic entity. They go where the money is leaving behind a trail of rot. You don't know it yet but you are obsolete.

 

[her209]

Corporations control the government 😉

 

[LeeTJ]

i've posted it before, i'll post it again.

There should be more than 1 union per industry. they should NOT be allowed to MONOPOLIZE, the behavior of many unions = that of monopolies.

monopolies in GENERAL hurt the american economy.

IF unions were forced to divest and NOT monopolize than it would be a reasonable force.

 

[Kevin]

Originally posted by: Atlantean
I think unions are not the greatest thing ever... I am in one at the supermarket I work at and I basically can't get fired no matter how bad I fsck up (Obviously there are some things that you can't do, but I can be lazy and not work and still get paid for it if I wanted to).

You're right. My friend works in a supermarket, and this kid who works with him is always sucking helium...

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I voted for the "blah" option, since the others were far too extreme. Unions are both necessary and evil. Without them, workers rights would be trampled. When they are too powerful, companies can't compete, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated. How would you like to work a 100 hour work week again? How about not having health care or dental insurance? That would really suck...

that is why i put the blah option in there.

I personally dont agree with them, but i have never worked, for a union company.

MIKE

 

[TallBill]

Another vote for blah.. they were origionally and usually are a good thing.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I voted for the "blah" option, since the others were far too extreme. Unions are both necessary and evil. Without them, workers rights would be trampled. When they are too powerful, companies can't compete, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated. How would you like to work a 100 hour work week again? How about not having health care or dental insurance? That would really suck...

the length of the work week had nothing to do with making the person who had a job more comfortable and more to do with the gov't wanting more people to be employed. you see, before overtime rules, a company didn't care if one person worked 80 hours or if 2 people worked 40. didn't really matter to them, cost them the same either way. after the overtime regulations went into effect the company had an interest in having 2 people work the 80 total hours instead of 1.

as for insurance, part of that comes out of your paycheck. its just another pricing scheme, and would probably be around without unions just like friends and family long distance.

 

[tcsenter]

many american companies are loosing money to foreign companies, who do not have to pay for unionized workers, steel industry, car industry, etc.

is this because of unionization or because america is stupid?

America has lost more industrial or manufacturing jobs to technology than to foreign labor. Japanese autoworkers make good booty, as do European autoworkers. Autoworkers for Japanese manufacturers with operations in America make just as much if not more so than their Big Three counterparts.

When the UAW was lying to its members and the public in Flint, Michigan, accusing GM of closing plants in order to move their jobs 'overseas' out of 'corporate greed', what in fact was happening was that GM moved the bulk of those jobs not lost to technology to other UAW plants within the United States and Canada where the bargaining units were not so intractibly corrupt and extremely militant.

Buick was arguably the largest auto employer in Flint, where are the Buicks Flint lost made today? Malaysia or Mexico? Nope, Lake Orion near Detroit. Many jobs Flint lost went no more than 60 miles away to Pontiac, Lansing, or Lake Orion, where the unions were willing to cooperate with the company to improve productivity and quality, not sabotage it at every possible opportunity as Flint's militant bargaining units were notorious for.

The same thing happened to the auto industry that happened to the steel industry. Foreign competitors were building state of the art plants - funded to no small degree by Americans taxpayers during the reconstruction of Europe and Japan - while domestic factories were all for the most built near the turn-of-the-century, give or take.

It might be reasonably argued that domestic corporations failed to keep up with the modernization trends and were caught with their pants down, in a manner of speaking.

However, this realization hit them rather fast and companies desperately TRIED to modernize, the unions wanted no part of it nor would they permit it happen without bitter tooth and nail resistance to every nut and bolt of modernization which might result in the loss of a manual job. This was an impossible expectation.

The center of the recent Longshoreman's strike is particularly instructive in this regard. The dispute was over technology. The union bitterly refused to accept any modernization which might result in the loss of any union dues. Nobody currently employed would have lost their job because the company had put in writing a guarantee that they would rely upon natural retirement attrition to phase out any jobs made obsolete or unnecessary by the modern improvements. This was still unacceptable to the union, because they would stand to lose union dues when those positions were phased-out upon retirement.

The union's expectations that the company only find ways to modernize without the loss of a single job were fantastically unreasonable if not impossible. They are mutually exclusive expectations. When your foreign competitors are using automation and computers, you can't continue to make cars or steel the exact same way you did in 1920, but try explaining that to the UAW or USW during the 1960s or 1970s, they would have labeled you either a union buster or company man, then threatened your family.

Have unions harmed American industry? One would have to be patently dishonest or blind or just plain foolish to not see that they in fact have.

 

[LethalWolfe]

tcsenter, so are you saying all unions are bad or only bad unions are bad?


Lethal

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
Speaking in generalities here... If employers didn't f*ck over empolyee's then there wouldn't be a need for unions. But they do so there is.


Lethal

What exactly do employers do to fvck over employees these days that the union counters?

Please don't tell me you think most companies actually look out for, care about, and go the extra mile for their employees. Employees, especially corporate ones, are numbers on a page and if accounting thinks your salary could be spent better on something else you gone w/out anyone blinking an eye.

From my retial experice: I rarely, rarely ever got to take all of my dairly break/lunch time mandated by OSHA because corporate never let us hire enough people to properly cover the shifts (even though people came in almost every day looking for a job). I wouldn't have kept my job very long if I locked the store and left so I could take my lunch break now would I?

Now lets look at union vs non-union freelance production experience I've had.

Union gig: I got 60min for lunch/dinner (15min travel time on each end) and 2 15minute breaks per day (TV standard is a 10hr work day).

Non-union gig: The only thing I knew I would get is a paycheck. Shooting outdoors from 11am until midnight or 1am w/*maybe* a 20minute break around 7pm isn't very fun. Nothing like sprinting to go take a leak 'cause you only have 60seconds to get there and back before the commercial break is up and you are back on the air. The *only* saving grace is that I usually got at paid at least 2x as much on non-union gigs than I did on union gigs.

Can, and have, many unions gone too far? Yes. But saying we should get rid of them entirely is throwing the baby out w/the bathwater.

Most of the people I've met who say we don't need unions are people who've never had a job where they need a union. All it takes is one job where you get worked to the bone and/or screwed over and you'll be looking for a way (either thru a union or a contract) to make sure that you at least get food, water and a bathroom break at least once during the day.


Lethal

Why not let the market dictate how the employers should act? If they're bastards, then people won't work for them... and they'll eventually learn to ease up. Why didn't you quit that job that didn't give you a long enough break? Not all employers are out to screw the employees... and infact, i'll say most aren't.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
tcsenter, so are you saying all unions are bad or only bad unions are bad?


Lethal

I think his very last sentence should speak for itself:

Have unions harmed American industry? One would have to be patently dishonest or blind or just plain foolish to not see that they in fact have.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
Speaking in generalities here... If employers didn't f*ck over empolyee's then there wouldn't be a need for unions. But they do so there is.


Lethal

What exactly do employers do to fvck over employees these days that the union counters?

Please don't tell me you think most companies actually look out for, care about, and go the extra mile for their employees. Employees, especially corporate ones, are numbers on a page and if accounting thinks your salary could be spent better on something else you gone w/out anyone blinking an eye.

From my retial experice: I rarely, rarely ever got to take all of my dairly break/lunch time mandated by OSHA because corporate never let us hire enough people to properly cover the shifts (even though people came in almost every day looking for a job). I wouldn't have kept my job very long if I locked the store and left so I could take my lunch break now would I?

Now lets look at union vs non-union freelance production experience I've had.

Union gig: I got 60min for lunch/dinner (15min travel time on each end) and 2 15minute breaks per day (TV standard is a 10hr work day).

Non-union gig: The only thing I knew I would get is a paycheck. Shooting outdoors from 11am until midnight or 1am w/*maybe* a 20minute break around 7pm isn't very fun. Nothing like sprinting to go take a leak 'cause you only have 60seconds to get there and back before the commercial break is up and you are back on the air. The *only* saving grace is that I usually got at paid at least 2x as much on non-union gigs than I did on union gigs.

Can, and have, many unions gone too far? Yes. But saying we should get rid of them entirely is throwing the baby out w/the bathwater.

Most of the people I've met who say we don't need unions are people who've never had a job where they need a union. All it takes is one job where you get worked to the bone and/or screwed over and you'll be looking for a way (either thru a union or a contract) to make sure that you at least get food, water and a bathroom break at least once during the day.


Lethal

Why not let the market dictate how the employers should act? If they're bastards, then people won't work for them... and they'll eventually learn to ease up. Why didn't you quit that job that didn't give you a long enough break? Not all employers are out to screw the employees... and infact, i'll say most aren't.

Or they could just get uniformly worse. The FCC deregulated a lot durring the 90's in an effert to spur competition and let the market dicate what happends and look where we are now. A hand full of giant media conglomerates controls everything we hear, read, and watch. Instead of competing w/they mergered in to super companies. How many companies would meet environmental and saftey needs if there weren't penalties inflicted for non-complience? I'm not trying to get the thread OT I'm just trying to show that many, most?, companies care about nothing more than the bottom line and only do "the right thing" when they are forced to.

And I'm not saying all employers are out to screw their employees. I've stressed that 2 or 3 times now. I've loved working for "mom and pop" places, or smaller companies that actuall care about their empolyees. But I've almost always had wores experiences when working directly for big companies or corporations.

As far as the gig where we usually worked 12hr days w/little or no breaks that was just a week long freelance gig and walking out on them not only would have screwed them over but it also would have screwed me over. Most, if not all, freelance works comes and goes on word of mouth.


Lethal

 

[CPA]

see my sig. Ironic isn't it?

 

[Mill]

Sh!tty workers are the downfall of American companies. That and gratuitous sex.

 

[Looney]

Or they could just get uniformly worse. The FCC deregulated a lot durring the 90's in an effert to spur competition and let the market dicate what happends and look where we are now. A hand full of giant media conglomerates controls everything we hear, read, and watch. Instead of competing w/they mergered in to super companies. How many companies would meet environmental and saftey needs if there weren't penalties inflicted for non-complience? I'm not trying to get the thread OT I'm just trying to show that many, most?, companies care about nothing more than the bottom line and only do "the right thing" when they are forced to.

That's not entirely right... when it comes to environmental issues, there are no incentive for them to follow the guidelines unless there are penalties. But companies compete with one another, if one is treating their worker badly, they could suffer from low worker morale and suffer loss in quality, or even loss of workers. LET THE MARKET DETERMINE these issues, not organized unions.

As far as the gig where we usually worked 12hr days w/little or no breaks that was just a week long freelance gig and walking out on them not only would have screwed them over but it also would have screwed me over. Most, if not all, freelance works comes and goes on word of mouth.

And you could have walked out on them, and screwed them over... and hopefully they would have learned and treat their employees better.

I'm not saying unions don't help some people, but they do more harm than good.

 

[MikeMike]

bump for some more debate now that im back from vacation

MIKE

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
Speaking in generalities here... If employers didn't f*ck over empolyee's then there wouldn't be a need for unions. But they do so there is.


Lethal

What exactly do employers do to fvck over employees these days that the union counters?

Please don't tell me you think most companies actually look out for, care about, and go the extra mile for their employees. Employees, especially corporate ones, are numbers on a page and if accounting thinks your salary could be spent better on something else you gone w/out anyone blinking an eye.

From my retial experice: I rarely, rarely ever got to take all of my dairly break/lunch time mandated by OSHA because corporate never let us hire enough people to properly cover the shifts (even though people came in almost every day looking for a job). I wouldn't have kept my job very long if I locked the store and left so I could take my lunch break now would I?

Now lets look at union vs non-union freelance production experience I've had.

Union gig: I got 60min for lunch/dinner (15min travel time on each end) and 2 15minute breaks per day (TV standard is a 10hr work day).

Non-union gig: The only thing I knew I would get is a paycheck. Shooting outdoors from 11am until midnight or 1am w/*maybe* a 20minute break around 7pm isn't very fun. Nothing like sprinting to go take a leak 'cause you only have 60seconds to get there and back before the commercial break is up and you are back on the air. The *only* saving grace is that I usually got at paid at least 2x as much on non-union gigs than I did on union gigs.

Can, and have, many unions gone too far? Yes. But saying we should get rid of them entirely is throwing the baby out w/the bathwater.

Most of the people I've met who say we don't need unions are people who've never had a job where they need a union. All it takes is one job where you get worked to the bone and/or screwed over and you'll be looking for a way (either thru a union or a contract) to make sure that you at least get food, water and a bathroom break at least once during the day.


Lethal

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Or they could just get uniformly worse. The FCC deregulated a lot durring the 90's in an effert to spur competition and let the market dicate what happends and look where we are now. A hand full of giant media conglomerates controls everything we hear, read, and watch. Instead of competing w/they mergered in to super companies. How many companies would meet environmental and saftey needs if there weren't penalties inflicted for non-complience? I'm not trying to get the thread OT I'm just trying to show that many, most?, companies care about nothing more than the bottom line and only do "the right thing" when they are forced to.

That's not entirely right... when it comes to environmental issues, there are no incentive for them to follow the guidelines unless there are penalties. But companies compete with one another, if one is treating their worker badly, they could suffer from low worker morale and suffer loss in quality, or even loss of workers. LET THE MARKET DETERMINE these issues, not organized unions.

As far as the gig where we usually worked 12hr days w/little or no breaks that was just a week long freelance gig and walking out on them not only would have screwed them over but it also would have screwed me over. Most, if not all, freelance works comes and goes on word of mouth.

And you could have walked out on them, and screwed them over... and hopefully they would have learned and treat their employees better.

I'm not saying unions don't help some people, but they do more harm than good.

I know you love the free market system, MP, but I think even you have to admit that it doesn't work 100%. It's a very nice idea on paper, and in some cases, it even works well(see: AOL going to AYCE), but it doesn't work in all cases, which is why the market can never be left "free." Frankly, I think the reason of this is that the free market system is based on non-existant greed; employers are expected to be greedy, and the result is competition, and employees are greedy, and the result is willingness to switch jobs. The fact of the matter is however, that people aren't 100% greedy; they are also lazy. Companies instead will be lazy, and settle for a little less profit by merging, instead of beating each other to a bloody pulp, and workers will be lazy, and stay at a job instead of trying to move.

While blame can be placed in some cases, there is something that is undeniable, and that is a lack of greed results in everyone getting screwed; employees have their wages worked down by lazy employees, and employers have their money making abilities worked down by their inability to reasonably attract employees(see previous section of sentence), and their desire to merge. In that respect, unions are a balencing force; they prevent the lazy workers(in the sense that they won't jump ship) from hurting the other lazy workers, and in some cases with their great power, they help prevent the employer from getting lazy and merging. It's not a perfect system, and I have a feeling one more compatible with human needs/wants/attitudes exist, but it is a better and more workable system than the free market system, I believe. The market is good on paper, but by george, if we used it as the solution to everything, we'd be doing ourselves a big disfavor.