What do you think of Unions?

[JeffSpicoli]

I began my career in IT in the mid-80s working in a unionized plant. My company made me sign something when I was hired that I would not join a union. I despised the union because they made simple tasks I needed to complete for my job difficult for no valuable reason except to create more work for themselves.

However, as the government has conspired with big business SIGs over the last few years to flood the US with IT workers on H1B Visas in return for kick backs (e.g. Clinton's library) I now wish I had a union to fight for my job. IT is no longer a viable career in the US for Americans due to abuse of the H1B Visa program...abuse which probably could not have been stopped, but might have at least been slowed down if a union existed to fight for its members. How many IT people do you know who are out of work?

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Unions are always a good thing and very much in the spirit of democracy. I think every worker should unionize. More inportantly Unions are a workers only protection against exploitation by those who have capital.

Well, this country(US) is no democracy. I used to be union up until about 2 years ago. I have seen so much crap when I was a union member that makes me glad I am no longer. atleast 40% of the union workforce here are dead weight to the company. Why should a company in this day and age be forced to keep someone that does not do his or her job, it's just retarded. And the union sticks up for these folks, when they know the employee is useless. Shows you were the morals of the unions are. If they wouldn't take such a anti-corperate stance then maybe they would be worthwhile. Why shouldn't a company be allow to let go some people if the company is not doing well. That would help keep the company afloat and maybe provide jobs in the future. But unions only care about one thing, keeping their membership because membership is income to them.

KK

 

[KMurphy]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

If you ask most of our regular employees they will tell you they would rather not be in the union.

Of course not groundedSailor, once you have the pay and benefits the Union fought for their is no reason any longer to be Union right. Well it will take only limited time to revert back to the old ways of doing things, which include low pay, harrazdous conditions, and poor benefits. Almost every poster here benefits from unions whether they are part of one or not bacause you have to provide close to what the union guys are getting or you applicant pool sucks. Also white colar benefits too, you can't hire me as a materials engineer and pay me and treat me worse than the loading dock workers (who were union at one time), I won't have it and niether will the rest of the people in my company. So it inflates thier standard of living too.

The government regulates and mandates safe working conditions. Ever hear of the NEC or OSHA? No union required. That is one reason why manufacturing jobs are being moved out of the US. Cheaper labor elsewhere and most foreign companies aren't regulated into bankruptcy. The union workers at my plant have a "neck down" philosophy. They won't even bring a screwdriver to the jobsite even though they use screwdrivers every day. They waste 30 minutes going to get each tool, unless a complete job description including all tool types is included in thier schedule for the day. What a waste. No accountability or initiative. Unions are teh devil, especially PACE.

 

[Ferocious]

Unions helped build the middle class.

The middle class in the USA was basically non-existant before unions finally gained some real strength in the 1930's.

Every single nation on EARTH that has a solid middle class also has unions.

Unfortunately unions are becoming weaker in the USA and as a result the middle class is slowly getting weaker.

 

[Kilrsat]

Unions work, at least moderately sized ones do. Hey I'm biased, I'll admit that from the start, my father holds a vice-president title in a union, so I get fun stories.

Over the past 12 years the local BCT&GM (Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco, & Grain Millers) have worked out a deal to keep wage increases minimum in order to maintain quality health insurance. Every 3 years the contract would come up, and every time they'd fight because the health insurance was what the workers cared about and needed. When the last contract expired the corporate negociator came in with a different plan. The offer was this, an average of a $100 raise per month for each employee at the cost of a $500 month loss in health insurance. It took over a year of negociations because the corporate guys were given instructions not to budge this time. Some exec said this is what we need, but finally the union was able to use its weight and keep a somewhat better health plan. Although it was still a hit from what they had been negociating for the past decade.

These aren't rich people, the ones that have been there for 20 years are still lucky to bring in $35,000 a year. People are raising families, trying to save, trying to make for a better life, and they really can't afford to lose the $400 a month the corporation was trying to take. The company tried everything possible to get their way, attempted to tell the workers half truths to put pressure on the union, hoping to find a crack, but that was thankfully avoided.

As for a few details on the union:
It has a single employee. His job is to keep track of all of the dues, where the money goes once its received, stay on top of the status of all contract negociation, etc. All other people with titles make no money off their positions, but they do have to take half work days during contract negociations so they can attend the meetings on the company's schedule.

So for all the union haters, seperate the idea of the union from the corruption you see in other locations. There are still reasons they are needed, and they can be very beneficial to the employees. Just because some apples are rotten doesn't mean we need to give up on the whole batch.

 

[LeeTJ]

Put one more option in the Poll and i'll vote.

I think unions still have their place. HOWEVER, i feel strongly that unions as they currently are have monopoly power, PARTICULARLY like teachers associations. They should be forced to have competing Unions, like in anything else, you shouldn't allow one entity to have so much control.

IF there were competing unions. 3 or 4 per industry then i would be a strong supporter of such unions. Unions as they are right now, they are corrupt, they yield too much power in some industries and they are not about the workers but about the union itself.

 

[tk149]

I vote for "Unions are still necessary, but when they abuse their power they suck, and increase the unemployment rate and decrease the wages/benefits for everyone."

Numerous examples have been detailed in this thread. For every deadweight union worker or bit of wasted time because "only a specific union member can perform this function," there is less money to hire someone competent, or to grow the company, or to give better wages/benefits to the "good/competent" workers.

 

[brtspears2]

At one time, it was great. But its common for employers to offer benifits.

But Henry Ford had the great idea to counter the unions. He would advertise a job for $5 a week, but had a probationary wage period of 6 months. There were always people waiting in line outside due to the high wage offering. If someone was lazy or performed poorly, new person comes in. Of course its debated that no one ever made it past the 6 mo. probation.

 

[Darein]

We just talked about unions, to a small degree, in economics and I think they are overall a good thing. Without unions corporations walked over employees who were powerless to do anything. Nowadays I am not sure if that would happen, but I think they do more good than not. Although a lot of unions look at only one thing, more benefits (be it pay, health care, etc) for their members and not caring about the company which employs them, a huge downfall.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Kilrsat

As for a few details on the union:
It has a single employee. His job is to keep track of all of the dues, where the money goes once its received, stay on top of the status of all contract negociation, etc. All other people with titles make no money off their positions, but they do have to take half work days during contract negociations so they can attend the meetings on the company's schedule.

That is a rare union - at least in the north east & specially in NY. The norm here is different. As someone else pointed out the main purpose of unions is to make money for themselves. There are also enough examples of union leaders hoarding millions of dollars & it still goes on. One of our employees worked over 20 years in another union in the mid west and he lost all his benefits due to mismanagement and embezzlement. Understandably he hates unions and wanted to work off union with us which we could not do.

Fortunately we are a small company and try to look after our workers (irrespective of the union BS) so we have a good work atmosphere. Yes the union 'requirements' do add a lot of unnecessary expenses and deadweight but they work with us to keep that to a minimum. In our industry the average turnover of employees is less than 6 months and most of our guys have been with us between 2 - 6 years.

 

[IGBT]

The've raised the standard of living for union and non union alike. Most of the laggards are in management. Their the ones with the power..........

 

[datalink7]

Unions can be good, and have been good.

Unfortunately, they can become corrupt like any other kind of organization.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I see them as encouraging mediocrity in the workplace and driving up the cost of goods.

You mean the costs of goods produced in Mexico, China, or Korea?

Hate them, have long outlived their usefulness.

Have you noticed the layoffs of the last 2 years? I just talked to Compaq tech support in freaking India last week.

They're corrupted and abused to the point that I despise them.

Examples please..

I also see a terrible abuse of power shown in hospitals by *some* specific unions, as well as the bane of public education - teachers unions.

Yep, horrible mis-use of power, trying to help a largely female group who are among the lowest paid groups of professionals in the US, perhaps you'd like to see more public schools run as day care centers are...

The only prob with Unions is they also protect people who should be fired.

Unions can only make management follow their own rules for hiring & firing, if management bothers to follow their own policies, there's nothing the union can do to protect people who should be fired.

I've been a union member, steward, chief steward, and currently a dues paying member for the last 13 years.

With good management, unions die.

With bad management, unions prosper.

The economic & social forces that caused union's birth are all still in place.

I don't like the union's monetary donations to Democrats exclusively, and recent campaign reform laws have greatyl reduced the amounts of money that unions can donate. Corporate entities now are having their management level folks make personal donations to elected officials & then giving said managers a bonus to cover the donation. Unfortunately, I suspect we'll see more & more restrictions of unions & less co-operation as a result of the recent changes.

I hope all the folks who are anti union have jobs that absolutely, positively cannot be outsourced to another country where they pay the worker 1/4 of your salary.

Unions-the folks that brought you the weekend...

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff
Personally I despise them. I see them as encouraging mediocrity in the workplace and driving up the cost of goods. What do you think?

I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: Queasy
I like unions that work with business owners while protecting the rights of the workers. That is the ideal situation there. And yes, that does require business owner willing to work with unions as well.

What I don't like is unions that want to squeeze the everloving life out a business no matter what the consequences. They aren't doing the workers they represent any favors when they drive a company into bankruptcy forcing them to lay-off the workers.

That is what my union local and shop committee are like. Thay work with management to find ways to improve in ways that benefit everyone. We are fortunate to have a management team that operates the same way and takes advantage of the opportunities that cooperation affords them.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: LH
Small unions are okay, but the big ones are bad. UAW is bad.

Its funny work on an auto assembly line, make $30-40 a hour. Work on a fighter jet assembly line and make half that. The auto worker unions use extortion IMHO. Anyone that belongs to a large union, is overpaid for the job they do, and they continue to extort more money.

I hate the teachers unions too, not because they ask for more money, thats fine they deserve, but trying to get a teacher fired is next to impossible.

Sorry buddy! top straight time rate At GM under the current UAW contract is $23.46 hr for non skilled trades employees. Get the facts before you open your mouth!

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Kilrsat

As for a few details on the union:
It has a single employee. His job is to keep track of all of the dues, where the money goes once its received, stay on top of the status of all contract negociation, etc. All other people with titles make no money off their positions, but they do have to take half work days during contract negociations so they can attend the meetings on the company's schedule.

That is a rare union - at least in the north east & specially in NY. The norm here is different. As someone else pointed out the main purpose of unions is to make money for themselves. There are also enough examples of union leaders hoarding millions of dollars & it still goes on. One of our employees worked over 20 years in another union in the mid west and he lost all his benefits due to mismanagement and embezzlement. Understandably he hates unions and wanted to work off union with us which we could not do.

Fortunately we are a small company and try to look after our workers (irrespective of the union BS) so we have a good work atmosphere. Yes the union 'requirements' do add a lot of unnecessary expenses and deadweight but they work with us to keep that to a minimum. In our industry the average turnover of employees is less than 6 months and most of our guys have been with us between 2 - 6 years.

It's not as rare as you may think it is. For every GM UAW member making 20+ an hour there are 3 poor slugs working at one of GM's suppliers with union representation making $12-16 an hour and getting crumbs for benefits compared to The GM employee. Can you imagine what thes people would have if they didn't have union representation? I can. Go ask the employees of Walmart what they make for all their hard work. Don't forget to figure in the overtime with no pay either. Last i heard Walmart was the largest most profitable retailer in the world.

 

[rival]

unions made the 8hr workday and 5 day workweek happen...unless you want to work 16hr days and 6-7 days a week, dont bag on em

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff
Personally I despise them. I see them as encouraging mediocrity in the workplace and driving up the cost of goods. What do you think?

Your answers show your bias.
If there were no need for unions, they would not exist.
When you finally suffer at the hands of "the Man" you will come to see how the collective bargaining arrangement actually serves the bottom line.
Make the answers more representative please.

 

[datalink7]

They can be a good thing, but like any organization can become corrupt.

 

[tcsenter]

unions made the 8hr workday and 5 day workweek happen...unless you want to work 16hr days and 6-7 days a week, dont bag on em

Ok, so we'll have a national labor movement day to commemorate this nearly 100 year-old staple of American labor law. Oh that's right, we already have one, and it seems to be a far more fitting deference to the labor movement than three drunken UAW members with their bellies dunlapped over their belts and their ass cracks showing.

Unions were little more than a catalyst for change that was inevitable because the practices they opposed were intolerable as a matter of public and social policy. While needed change is better sooner than later, it would have happened at any rate. Just as the fall of industrialism has found many communities unprepared who thought they would forever enjoy high paying factory jobs without needing an education, the rise of unregulated industrialism caught a society unprepared for such rapid change and the response was naturally behind the curve.

Unionism helped give that response a kick in the ass, but that's not the same as unionism being the sole agent or impetus of change.

Many things are beneficial only by a function of the circumstances, and when found outside of those circumstances, not only cease to be beneficial (because everything is relative) but constitute the greater harm. Standing armies are one, intransigent and powerful unionism is another.

Civil law enforcement and criminal justice can more suitably and competently replace the need for standing armies once the imminent public danger has passed. Similarly, laws more suitably and competently replace the need for unionism.

I'm not saying unions should be prohibited, but federal law should prohibit compulsory union membership as a condition of employment. Let unions convince people through persuasion to join their ranks, not engage in the same kind of economic coercion they purport to be against.