Right to Work Vs. Forced Union

[werepossum]

What is the point of a union when corporations can simply bypass them for non-union members. And thanks to the advent of IT infrastructure, we can now bypass Americans altogether for non-manufacturing jobs as well.

Even Adam Smith recognized how fucked up this can get:

Actually Adam Smith was wrong in this instance, probably because he never foresaw the modern union movement. Take for instance the UAW-automobile manufacturer relationship. If the management of GM, Chrysler, and Ford got together to agree on a strategy to keep down wages, they would face jail time. Yet the UAW is perfectly free to establish a strategy to get concessions from all three by going after the weakest link, the most vulnerable, at the moment.

Properly run, unions can be effective without a government-mandated blackmail capability built in. The trade unions establish training programs that are better than similar competing government- or private-run training programs, so the union shops generally deliver a better product at competitive rates. Hazardous duty workers' unions like miners' unions can organize to point out dangerous operations and/or conditions, either coercing the owners to fix them or steering the better workers away from them until the worse companies fold either from competitive inefficiencies, government action (e.g. OSHA), or at worst lawsuits by victims and survivors. Legislating mandatory union membership merely establishes blackmail (i.e. strikes) with no options other than meet the union's demand or fold the business. In the end, that always results in folding the business because the unions will always raise the wage costs above the level that the consumers are willing to buy the product or service. Except of course for those businesses (i.e. governments) with the ability to mint money or take it at gunpoint. That ends in revolution, peaceful or otherwise.

 

[Phokus]

Actually Adam Smith was wrong in this instance, probably because he never foresaw the modern union movement. Take for instance the UAW-automobile manufacturer relationship. If the management of GM, Chrysler, and Ford got together to agree on a strategy to keep down wages, they would face jail time. Yet the UAW is perfectly free to establish a strategy to get concessions from all three by going after the weakest link, the most vulnerable, at the moment.

Properly run, unions can be effective without a government-mandated blackmail capability built in. The trade unions establish training programs that are better than similar competing government- or private-run training programs, so the union shops generally deliver a better product at competitive rates. Hazardous duty workers' unions like miners' unions can organize to point out dangerous operations and/or conditions, either coercing the owners to fix them or steering the better workers away from them until the worse companies fold either from competitive inefficiencies, government action (e.g. OSHA), or at worst lawsuits by victims and survivors. Legislating mandatory union membership merely establishes blackmail (i.e. strikes) with no options other than meet the union's demand or fold the business. In the end, that always results in folding the business because the unions will always raise the wage costs above the level that the consumers are willing to buy the product or service. Except of course for those businesses (i.e. governments) with the ability to mint money or take it at gunpoint. That ends in revolution, peaceful or otherwise.

In reality this is nonsense. The effectiveness of your 'free' union ideal only works when there is not an overabundant supply of labor vs. demand. The need for a roof over your head and food on your table for your family overrides any safety concerns in your mining example. If the union organize to fix dangerous conditions and the company thinks it's too expensive to do so, the company can simply hire the desperate non-union members who won't cause such a fuss. Lawsuits don't do much to deter this behavior when the company (correctly) calculates the cost of a lawsuit vs. keeping a safe working condition and sees that it's more profitable to take on the risk of the dangerous conditions.

To quote one of my favorite movie lines: "A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one." (this, of course, is based on the case of the Ford Pinto)

Just look at Massey. I would like to know how, in your fairy tale world, this company is still in business, despite a shockingly cavalier attitude towards the environment and the health and lives of their workers/surrounding populations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massey_Energy#Controversy

 

[werepossum]

In reality this is nonsense. The effectiveness of your 'free' union ideal only works when there is not an overabundant supply of labor vs. demand. The need for a roof over your head and food on your table for your family overrides any safety concerns in your mining example. If the union organize to fix dangerous conditions and the company thinks it's too expensive to do so, the company can simply hire the desperate non-union members who won't cause such a fuss. Lawsuits don't do much to deter this behavior when the company (correctly) calculates the cost of a lawsuit vs. keeping a safe working condition and sees that it's more profitable to take on the risk of the dangerous conditions.

To quote one of my favorite movie lines: "A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one." (this, of course, is based on the case of the Ford Pinto)

Just look at Massey. I would like to know how, in your fairy tale world, this company is still in business, despite a shockingly cavalier attitude towards the environment and the health and lives of their workers/surrounding populations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massey_Energy#Controversy

Absolutely nothing about your befuddled defective car argument would change with mandatory union membership. If you are assuming that unions exist to benefit the general public, you are dead wrong; unions exist to benefit their membership only. As for Massey, the same applies except that with mandatory union membership, companies like Massey would enjoy a competitive advantage over those companies spending more on worker safety. All those things mentioned are failures of government, not failures of a non-unionized workforce. And while mandatory union membership might well put Massey Energy out of business, it would also put out of business other and better mining companies in favor of cheap imported coal. Unions exist primarily to maximize member wages and benefits; workers are free to bring to government's attention any safety violations whether they are union or otherwise.

Again, the prime guarantor of worker safety is the government.

 

[ShawnD1]

If you're talking about the recent snow clearing, please post proof instead of some rumor from the NYPost.

Thinking about it, this actually seems like something to remember. Stab someone right after it snows super hard. That way the ambulance can't come right to the door and it would be a bitch getting the guy to the hospital

 

[werepossum]

Thinking about it, this actually seems like something to remember. Stab someone right after it snows super hard. That way the ambulance can't come right to the door and it would be a bitch getting the guy to the hospital

LOL Puts me in mind of the local woman who was arrested for stabbing her husband to death. When told she was being arrested for murder, she asked why murder. She was told her husband had died. "What do you mean, died? I've stabbed him lots of times, he ain't never died before." So if your intent is not to kill, best to check the streets I guess.

 

[DrPizza]

So in your mind, paying people to do literally no work at all for more than a decade is "doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing"

This solves the mystery of why NYC has major budget problems. How many of the other unions have rubber rooms? Are there dozens of bus drivers getting paid to do nothing because their licenses were revoked and they can't legally drive a bus anymore?

1. Are you incapable of thinking? You already lost the argument about the nurses - not that there was any argument; you simply made up shit and I called you on it, then you quietly ignored getting your ass handed to you. The problem is that the guy is innocent, but the administration is wasting the money by not putting him back in the classroom. It's not the union's fault that the money is being wasted; it's not the employee's fault.
2. Now, you're making up shit again - rubber rooms for bus drivers? You're a real piece of work.

If you work in a factory, who gives a shit if the boss hates you. It's not like you get any kind of certification for making widgets, and it's not like you have a chance of moving up the ladder. If you get fired from this shitty job, you can just get another shitty job somewhere else. You (the royal you) have nothing to lose by collectively screwing your employer and burning all of your bridges.

Again, you prove yourself to be an idiot. Do you think they just hire welders off the street?

If you are assuming that unions exist to benefit the general public, you are dead wrong; unions exist to benefit their membership only.

I already debunked this bullshit. See nurse's union above - they were striking because of unsafe work conditions. Not unsafe for them - unsafe for their patients. I'm not saying that the sole reason for the nurse's union is for the general public - they do care about their own wages and benefits. But, they also fight for conditions that lead to better patient care. Ditto teachers. They fight for limits on class size, etc.

 

[werepossum]

1. Are you incapable of thinking? You already lost the argument about the nurses - not that there was any argument; you simply made up shit and I called you on it, then you quietly ignored getting your ass handed to you. The problem is that the guy is innocent, but the administration is wasting the money by not putting him back in the classroom. It's not the union's fault that the money is being wasted; it's not the employee's fault.
2. Now, you're making up shit again - rubber rooms for bus drivers? You're a real piece of work.

Again, you prove yourself to be an idiot. Do you think they just hire welders off the street?

I already debunked this bullshit. See nurse's union above - they were striking because of unsafe work conditions. Not unsafe for them - unsafe for their patients. I'm not saying that the sole reason for the nurse's union is for the general public - they do care about their own wages and benefits. But, they also fight for conditions that lead to better patient care. Ditto teachers. They fight for limits on class size, etc.

I'll concede that care for others can SOMETIMES be a VERY SMALL portion of a union's activity if you'll concede that a union's overwhelming concern is collecting benefits for itself and its members. Not that I'm against enlightened self interest, but even the examples you cite also have a big benefit for those unions - more nurses and more teachers. Find me examples of a nurse's union striking to demand drug testing of nurses, or a teacher's union striking to demand competency testing of teachers, and I'll concede some measure of genuine selflessness. Until then I'll take claims of protecting patients and students with a truck-sized grain of salt, thank you.

EDIT: And just to be clear, I'm in favor of unions as long as they add some value to the enterprise. When City Service was in operation, management could not fire any union worker, for any reason. If a man just didn't show up for a few weeks and you fired him, he'd lodge a grievance and unless management agreed to rehire (and reimburse lost wages from the termination) the whole damned plant would go out on strike. That's an example of a very bad union that drove it's company out of business. On the other hand, if I had my way I'd make all my jobs union only, because I think trade unions do a better job of training and maintaining standards than do employers or government certification. Enlightened self interest keeps people who are not qualified to be a journeyman from doing a journeyman's work, and employers are still free to hire and release as they wish (within certain limits) so good workers still advance faster and farther. The benefit for myself and my clients is the better quality of work (on average, there are bad union jobs and good non-union shops.) That's an example of a good union. I'd probably give you nurses' unions as generally good unions - though I agree with Shawn about the strike - but I think teachers' unions have been one of the most pernicious influences imaginable on our nation. And I can't get the Post article, but in general "not enough to prosecute" doesn't mean safe for kids. I can't form an opinion on that specific case, but in general I think a teacher (or any worker) who cannot do his job should not be receiving money for not doing it. If he cannot be trusted with middle school kids - whether or not he committed any prosecutable offense - let him move into adult education. Being a union member should not be a guarantee of an income for no work.

 

[DrPizza]

I'll concede that care for others can SOMETIMES be a VERY SMALL portion of a union's activity if you'll concede that a union's overwhelming concern is collecting benefits for itself and its members. Not that I'm against enlightened self interest, but even the examples you cite also have a big benefit for those unions - more nurses and more teachers. Find me examples of a nurse's union striking to demand drug testing of nurses, or a teacher's union striking to demand competency testing of teachers, and I'll concede some measure of genuine selflessness. Until then I'll take claims of protecting patients and students with a truck-sized grain of salt, thank you.

EDIT: And just to be clear, I'm in favor of unions as long as they add some value to the enterprise. When City Service was in operation, management could not fire any union worker, for any reason. If a man just didn't show up for a few weeks and you fired him, he'd lodge a grievance and unless management agreed to rehire (and reimburse lost wages from the termination) the whole damned plant would go out on strike. That's an example of a very bad union that drove it's company out of business. On the other hand, if I had my way I'd make all my jobs union only, because I think trade unions do a better job of training and maintaining standards than do employers or government certification. Enlightened self interest keeps people who are not qualified to be a journeyman from doing a journeyman's work, and employers are still free to hire and release as they wish (within certain limits) so good workers still advance faster and farther. The benefit for myself and my clients is the better quality of work (on average, there are bad union jobs and good non-union shops.) That's an example of a good union. I'd probably give you nurses' unions as generally good unions - though I agree with Shawn about the strike - but I think teachers' unions have been one of the most pernicious influences imaginable on our nation. And I can't get the Post article, but in general "not enough to prosecute" doesn't mean safe for kids. I can't form an opinion on that specific case, but in general I think a teacher (or any worker) who cannot do his job should not be receiving money for not doing it. If he cannot be trusted with middle school kids - whether or not he committed any prosecutable offense - let him move into adult education. Being a union member should not be a guarantee of an income for no work.

I completely agree with you on the first point in your edit - those are the types of unions & union tactics that no one wants. However, I'm not completely convinced of one point that you made - that unions are necessarily looking to swell their ranks. As far as competency for teachers, the teacher's union in NYS has agreed with the state on using standardized test performance of students to rate teachers - starting this year (or next year?) it's going to be a very large (more than 50, if I recall correctly) percentage of a teacher's annual performance appraisal. So far, I don't think it's tied to raises or anything like that, but I'm absolutely amazed that the union agreed to it without (it seems) a word from their members.

 

[child of wonder]

Seems pretty simple to me. Unions should not be prevented from forming and no one should be forced to join them.

 

[ShawnD1]

Again, you prove yourself to be an idiot. Do you think they just hire welders off the street?

I'm guessing you've never actually talked to someone who works in the trades. Yes, in fact, they do hire random people off the streets. You can't start your apprenticeship (ie training) until you have already been hired. That's how it works. They hire you when you have absolutely no experience, then they train you, then you become a journeyman.

 

[werepossum]

I completely agree with you on the first point in your edit - those are the types of unions & union tactics that no one wants. However, I'm not completely convinced of one point that you made - that unions are necessarily looking to swell their ranks. As far as competency for teachers, the teacher's union in NYS has agreed with the state on using standardized test performance of students to rate teachers - starting this year (or next year?) it's going to be a very large (more than 50, if I recall correctly) percentage of a teacher's annual performance appraisal. So far, I don't think it's tied to raises or anything like that, but I'm absolutely amazed that the union agreed to it without (it seems) a word from their members.

Depends on the union. Trade unions are typically not looking to swell their ranks, because more union members than jobs means unemployment in the ranks. But all unions are in favor of things that will increase the required jobs for their members and THUS increase their ranks.

Bravo for the NYS teachers' union, as long as teachers who fail to teach must either shape up quickly or be terminated. I can't remember now if this was a conversation with a local teacher in a badly failing school or something I read on line, but the quote was roughly: "These kids come in not able to read - and I'm to be graded on how well I teach them chemistry?" I think teachers especially need rigorous real world evaluations, with strong consequences (including termination) for failure to achieve results, but the devil's in the details. For teachers, like nurses and probably many other unionized professions, proper evaluation is going to be monstrously difficult to work out. And that's assuming that the unions will accept actual consequences for failure to perform; there's a huge difference in effect between a system that terminates a failing teacher, and one that merely reduces her workload and spends more tax money trying to build the education and ability that are supposedly a requirement for her job.

Seems pretty simple to me. Unions should not be prevented from forming and no one should be forced to join them.

Works for me, except for public workers' unions where there is no profit motive and no competition to keep wages in line with productivity.

 

[CitizenKain]

I'm guessing you've never actually talked to someone who works in the trades. Yes, in fact, they do hire random people off the streets. You can't start your apprenticeship (ie training) until you have already been hired. That's how it works. They hire you when you have absolutely no experience, then they train you, then you become a journeyman.

Explaining things to you doesn't really seem worth the effort, you seem incapable of understanding.

 

[ShawnD1]

Explaining things to you doesn't really seem worth the effort, you seem incapable of understanding.

2 seconds of googling "how does apprenticeship work"

http://www.saskapprenticeship.ca/ABOUT/How_Does_Apprenticeship_Work/

How do I get started? What steps do I take?

1. Stay in school. Most employers prefer to hire high school graduates with courses in mathematics, science and communications.

2. Contact the Apprenticeship and Trade Certification office in your area or visit our web page for information about specific trades and entrance requirements.

3. Find an employer or union willing to provide training and supervision to you as an apprentice. The Apprenticeship and Trade Certification office will help you and your employer sign a formal apprenticeship contract. This contract is registered with the Saskatchewan Apprenticeship and Trade Certification Commission. Now you are ready to start.

4. Complete the required term of apprenticeship.

5. Attend technical training for the required number of weeks each year in order to receive theory, testing, and hands-on experience, some of which may not be available on the job.

Notice the order of steps.
1 - get hired
2 - get trained

Oh fuck. Where will we ever find an apprentice welder? You could always try your local high school. My school even had a welding class. I took that for a semester and I made a "bird house" out of 1/4" thick iron (it's too heavy to hang from any tree branch)

 

[DrPizza]

I'm guessing you've never actually talked to someone who works in the trades. Yes, in fact, they do hire random people off the streets. You can't start your apprenticeship (ie training) until you have already been hired. That's how it works. They hire you when you have absolutely no experience, then they train you, then you become a journeyman.

The people aren't just randomly hired though - competition for those jobs is incredibly tough. Prior experience is a plus, prior training is a plus. For some of the unions, you have to take a test prior to getting an interview. Many people who have taken the test are put on a waiting list for months or years - if they ever get in. Very often, people would rather have the union workers, because, quite frankly, they know what the hell they're doing & are better trained. And, yes, I know people in the trades unions; quite a few of them.

In fact, my son was hired during the summer by the IBEW as an apprentice linesman. Works his ass off for his pay. Yesterday, midway through a 12 hour day of work, his leg got gashed open. They taped it up & he continued working. After work, he spent another 4 hours in the ER & got half a dozen stitches in his leg. After a short night of sleep, got back up and worked his ass off again today. Doesn't sound at all like your characterization of union workers sitting around doing nothing, now does it?

 

[bfdd]

Actually Adam Smith was wrong in this instance, probably because he never foresaw the modern union movement. Take for instance the UAW-automobile manufacturer relationship. If the management of GM, Chrysler, and Ford got together to agree on a strategy to keep down wages, they would face jail time. Yet the UAW is perfectly free to establish a strategy to get concessions from all three by going after the weakest link, the most vulnerable, at the moment.

Properly run, unions can be effective without a government-mandated blackmail capability built in. The trade unions establish training programs that are better than similar competing government- or private-run training programs, so the union shops generally deliver a better product at competitive rates. Hazardous duty workers' unions like miners' unions can organize to point out dangerous operations and/or conditions, either coercing the owners to fix them or steering the better workers away from them until the worse companies fold either from competitive inefficiencies, government action (e.g. OSHA), or at worst lawsuits by victims and survivors. Legislating mandatory union membership merely establishes blackmail (i.e. strikes) with no options other than meet the union's demand or fold the business. In the end, that always results in folding the business because the unions will always raise the wage costs above the level that the consumers are willing to buy the product or service. Except of course for those businesses (i.e. governments) with the ability to mint money or take it at gunpoint. That ends in revolution, peaceful or otherwise.

I have been saying that for awhile. Nothing more than the 1st amendment is needed to protect unions. anyone who thinks otherwise is retarded

 

[ShawnD1]

The people aren't just randomly hired though - competition for those jobs is incredibly tough. Prior experience is a plus, prior training is a plus. For some of the unions, you have to take a test prior to getting an interview. Many people who have taken the test are put on a waiting list for months or years - if they ever get in. Very often, people would rather have the union workers, because, quite frankly, they know what the hell they're doing & are better trained. And, yes, I know people in the trades unions; quite a few of them.

This is all true, but it's true for reasons I would deem unethical. I'm an EE, I work with electrical people, and one of my friends is part of the IBEW, so I hear the same stories you hear. The reason to hire union guys is because of how the union decides who to send out. A company will send a job to the IBEW, and the IBEW will pick people based on seniority. That means for any job you submit to the IBEW you will always get the most experienced person who is available to work.

During the boom period we had a few years ago, everything was going great. My electrician friend who would be about 22 at the time was making a good wage, he always had work to do, there were long shifts, overtime, and he was doing great. He was making a lot more than I'm making right now. Then the recession hit and there weren't as many jobs. In fact, there were fewer jobs than there were union members. Can you guess what happens next? Instead of having some kind of round-robin system where people take turns getting electrical jobs, it becomes a stacked game where the guys with seniority are working 40 hours every single week and guys like my friend will go months without a single job.

It's total bullshit. He has his journeyman ticket. He's good at what he does. He's a hard worker. Does any of that matter? No. The union is totally fucking him. He can't try to underbid on jobs because the union has a minimum wage for journeymen. He can't go outside the union either because they would kick him out forever if they found him doing that, and you dont' want to be kicked out since being in the union is awesome after you have 20 years seniority.


I had a similar problem myself when I was applying for jobs after graduating from EE. Several of the places I applied for (mostly utilities and government) had a minimum wage they were allowed to pay, and it was actually a very good wage. That's great and all, but it means I can't underbid anyone. If we're talking about a little introductory job where I just do drafting or conduct basic electrical tests and write reports, that's a job that any EE grad could do regardless of past experience. So what happens when a guy with no past experience and a guy with a few years of EE experience at a job that is totally unrelated apply for the same job? If I could underbid the other guy, I would at least have a chance. With minimum salary and benefits in effect, I have absolutely no chance of getting that job.

As a result of all that, it took a fuck of a long time to get a job in my field. I worked at a minimum wage job until September, and the engineering place that hired me just happened to be non-union. They didn't care about my seniority. They just wanted an eager guy to join the company.

 

[bfdd]

This is all true, but it's true for reasons I would deem unethical. I'm an EE, I work with electrical people, and one of my friends is part of the IBEW, so I hear the same stories you hear. The reason to hire union guys is because of how the union decides who to send out. A company will send a job to the IBEW, and the IBEW will pick people based on seniority. That means for any job you submit to the IBEW you will always get the most experienced person who is available to work.

During the boom period we had a few years ago, everything was going great. My electrician friend who would be about 22 at the time was making a good wage, he always had work to do, there were long shifts, overtime, and he was doing great. He was making a lot more than I'm making right now. Then the recession hit and there weren't as many jobs. In fact, there were fewer jobs than there were union members. Can you guess what happens next? Instead of having some kind of round-robin system where people take turns getting electrical jobs, it becomes a stacked game where the guys with seniority are working 40 hours every single week and guys like my friend will go months without a single job.

It's total bullshit. He has his journeyman ticket. He's good at what he does. He's a hard worker. Does any of that matter? No. The union is totally fucking him. He can't try to underbid on jobs because the union has a minimum wage for journeymen. He can't go outside the union either because they would kick him out forever if they found him doing that, and you dont' want to be kicked out since being in the union is awesome after you have 20 years seniority.


I had a similar problem myself when I was applying for jobs after graduating from EE. Several of the places I applied for (mostly utilities and government) had a minimum wage they were allowed to pay, and it was actually a very good wage. That's great and all, but it means I can't underbid anyone. If we're talking about a little introductory job where I just do drafting or conduct basic electrical tests and write reports, that's a job that any EE grad could do regardless of past experience. So what happens when a guy with no past experience and a guy with a few years of EE experience at a job that is totally unrelated apply for the same job? If I could underbid the other guy, I would at least have a chance. With minimum salary and benefits in effect, I have absolutely no chance of getting that job.

As a result of all that, it took a fuck of a long time to get a job in my field. I worked at a minimum wage job until September, and the engineering place that hired me just happened to be non-union. They didn't care about my seniority. They just wanted an eager guy to join the company.

lol. the contractor I worked for frequently requested apprentices and had apprentices working over journeymen while hiring them out as such. pretty much the sole reason I left.

 

[ShawnD1]

lol. the contractor I worked for frequently requested apprentices and had apprentices working over journeymen while hiring them out as such. pretty much the sole reason I left.

It's a legal thing. Laws often state that inspections or work must be done under the supervision of a journeyman because a journeyman is a professional with some legal standing. Most work is simple enough that it can be done by an apprentice. Apprentices get paid a lot less to do the same work, so it's often ideal to have 1 journeyman to supervise everything and do inspections while 10 apprentices are doing the bulk of the work. In a union it's the exact opposite; you get 10 journeymen to do the work while the apprentices collect UI and desperately look for work.

Engineering is the same way. Professional Engineers (P.Eng) have legal powers, they have a stamp, and their signature is needed on official documents. Most "engineering" work is actually grunt work like reading a drawing, drawing on a computer, picking parts out of a catalog, writing specifications, etc. That type of work can all be done by engineering techs who only have 2 years of training instead of 4. In any engineering office you can find, the 2 year engineering techs from community college greatly outnumber the 4 year professional engineers from university

 

[DrPizza]

Then the recession hit and there weren't as many jobs. In fact, there were fewer jobs than there were union members. Can you guess what happens next? Instead of having some kind of round-robin system where people take turns getting electrical jobs, it becomes a stacked game where the guys with seniority are working 40 hours every single week and guys like my friend will go months without a single job.

It's total bullshit. He has his journeyman ticket. He's good at what he does. He's a hard worker. Does any of that matter? No. The union is totally fucking him. He can't try to underbid on jobs because the union has a minimum wage for journeymen. He can't go outside the union either because they would kick him out forever if they found him doing that, and you dont' want to be kicked out since being in the union is awesome after you have 20 years seniority.


I had a similar problem myself when I was applying for jobs after graduating from EE. Several of the places I applied for (mostly utilities and government) had a minimum wage they were allowed to pay, and it was actually a very good wage. That's great and all, but it means I can't underbid anyone. If we're talking about a little introductory job where I just do drafting or conduct basic electrical tests and write reports, that's a job that any EE grad could do regardless of past experience. So what happens when a guy with no past experience and a guy with a few years of EE experience at a job that is totally unrelated apply for the same job? If I could underbid the other guy, I would at least have a chance. With minimum salary and benefits in effect, I have absolutely no chance of getting that job.

This is the most retarded reason to be anti-union yet. Do you think that if you have a non-union job, you're immune to layoffs? Do you think that if you have a non-union job, the company is going to take turns calling people in to come to work? No. You're layed off, period.

Now, to address the last paragraph that I quoted. You're not thinking long term. When you're 50, and there's a job that both you and someone right out of school are capable of handling, guess what could very well happen to you: Pink slip time. You're too old & experienced. They don't want to pay you those types of wages.

And lastly, in times when jobs are scarcer, you want people to start underbidding each other do do the job for less pay?! Are you fucking nuts? That's precisely the complaint most people have about excessive immigration into the country - they depress wages for everyone.

 

[hal2kilo]

Seems pretty simple to me. Unions should not be prevented from forming and no one should be forced to join them.

This/

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Seems pretty simple to me. Unions should not be prevented from forming and no one should be forced to join them.

IMO, private sector unions can form, but public-sector ones should be illegal. Public servants don't get to demand more money - they already have excellent benefits and job security.

 

[DrPizza]

IMO, private sector unions can form, but public-sector ones should be illegal. Public servants don't get to demand more money - they already have excellent benefits and job security.

Arguing on the other side of the coin for a moment, you're saying that they just freely gave them the excellent benefits and job security, but unions formed to get them more money? You don't think that the benefits & job security are also a result of unions advocating for the employees? Wow.