what is your opinion of unions?

[alkemyst]

IMHO unions really screwed up the system. What should have happenend in the beginning was a movement like OSHA not forming unions to exploit the companies back.

Unions are great for getting a ton of nobodies into $50k+ jobs usually just as a sitter in case the main worker and his backup fail.

When you have to hire on union workers for a bid, it really screws up the pricing you could offer without them.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Deeko

When I was in high school, SCHOOL hours were 7:30-2:30. So the teachers were there a minimum of 7-3, lunch break certainly was not an hour, and most teachers spent it doing work anyway. So that's at least 8 hours/day in the classroom, not to mention the amount of time out of class, which you are grossly underestimating. Recertification can vary from state to state, I'm pretty sure it's more frequent than that here, but you can't just ignore the significant time/money that's put into that.

Plus, all that aside, you scoff at them making an average of 47k (with starting salaries in the low-mid 30's)....dude. That's not a lot of money, you know that right?

As I said before, thats 47k for 9 months plus TONS of vacation time in-between. If they worked the entire year it would be 62k Add in the vacation time, health benefits, dental, ect.. that apply instantly and you are looking at some pretty large salaries.

The lunch break, at least in my school, was certainly an hour long. I guess I should be taking a step back though. I grew up in a very small town where class sizes rarely went over 11 students. From my POV those teachers, while very good, where getting overpaid.

Add in all of the hours of grading papers, meeting with parents, etc. after school hours. Most teachers put in 12 months of hours in 9 months.

My friend is an English teacher. Weekly, she's grading and writing comments on 120 papers which take her 10-15 minutes each. You do the math.

Yup.

Anyway, I've taken this topic far enough off course, if you'd like to continue talking about teachers (not specifically their unions), start a new thread....

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: andy04
This is for all you b1tches who think that you are smarter... just like you think that your wee wee is bigger that it really is...

You gotta be shitting me.

SBC, which has been experiencing falling sales for the last three years, was looking to slow increases in health care and other costs.

"That means SBC will have to take costs out of their business through automation, attrition or laying off certain non-union people."

"because SBC will probably incur higher health care costs over the period. So they are probably going to have to wring costs out of other parts of their business."

Translation: SBC is making less money than before but are now being forced to keep all the workers who were there from when they were making more money.

Simple equation for you: Profit = Revenue - Expenses. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're at least smart enough to know basic mathematics. If sales (revenue) is down, and the union is forcing the company to maintain it's current costs (Expenses)... guess what happens as profit plummets to 0.

I feel bad that these workers were facing layoffs, but they get NO respect from me from telling a company that the company can't cut costs to save the business. If you weren't so stupid you would realize that by forcing this stuff on the company, the company gets one step closer to financial collapse.

Why does anyone have a company? Why does McDonald's make hamburgers, why does Dell make computers, why does GM make cars? TO MAKE MONEY. They aren't in this game for the joy and privilege of providing hamburgers, computers, and cars to the world. If it's not profitable, they'll close up shop and then ALL of them are out of a job... not just the ones that are in the union, not just the ones that were pissed about their health care being cut, not just the CEOs or the people in the middle, ALL of them.


Finding a New York Times article about a company ending a strike is far from proof of unions being great.

 

[andy04]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: andy04
This is for all you b1tches who think that you are smarter... just like you think that your wee wee is bigger that it really is...

You gotta be shitting me.

SBC, which has been experiencing falling sales for the last three years, was looking to slow increases in health care and other costs.

"That means SBC will have to take costs out of their business through automation, attrition or laying off certain non-union people."

"because SBC will probably incur higher health care costs over the period. So they are probably going to have to wring costs out of other parts of their business."

Translation: SBC is making less money than before but are now being forced to keep all the workers who were there from when they were making more money.

Simple equation for you: Profit = Revenue - Expenses. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're at least smart enough to know basic mathematics. If sales (revenue) is down, and the union is forcing the company to maintain it's current costs (Expenses)... guess what happens as profit plummets to 0.

I feel bad that these workers were facing layoffs, but they get NO respect from me from telling a company that the company can't cut costs to save the business. If you weren't so stupid you would realize that by forcing this stuff on the company, the company gets one step closer to financial collapse.

Why does anyone have a company? Why does McDonald's make hamburgers, why does Dell make computers, why does GM make cars? TO MAKE MONEY. They aren't in this game for the joy and privilege of providing hamburgers, computers, and cars to the world. If it's not profitable, they'll close up shop and then ALL of them are out of a job... not just the ones that are in the union, not just the ones that were pissed about their health care being cut, not just the CEOs or the people in the middle, ALL of them.


Finding a New York Times article about a company ending a strike is far from proof of unions being great.

All these companies are doing good business.
SBC failed not bcoz of employee burder but bcoz of the market, at that time all the baby bells went down... telecom boom was over... the union saved several employees retirement plans

 

[meltdown75]

< Ontario Public Service Employees Union

suck it long and hard. my union pwns.

 

[BoomerD]

I'm not gonna wade through all the anti-union hate here, I'll just post my opinion.

I'm probably the most pro-union member of these boards. Nearly 30 years in a couple of Operating Engineers locals around the country, and have paid "traveler's dues" in many, many more.

A lot of people think the time for unions is over...I don't think so.

The same issues that caused people to form unions over 100 years ago still exist today. Sure, there are now laws (mostly fought for by unions) that prevent a lot of those things from happening in the workplace today, but the Conservatives fight in the state and federal legislatures all the time to overturn many of those laws and union rules.

Companies and Corporations only care about their bottom line, not their employees, and if all the unions disappeared tomorrow, wages would start falling through the floor. You think the housing bubble popped fast, wages would crash so fast you'd think they were a airplane out of fuel...

I've seen it happen in states that went "Right to Work" (for less) over the years. Union pay= $20-$25/hr, RTW pay= $12-$15/hr and benefits cut or totally eliminated.

Do SOME unions have a bad name? You betcha. Have they earned that bad name? HELL YES. Are ALL unions bad? Fuck NO.


As I've pointed out numerous time here, the list of things fought for by union members that everyone benefits from is long, and includes:
Paid vacations
Sick leave
40 hour work week
Holiday pay
Health insurance
Safe working conditions
Social Security (whether you agree with it or not)
Pensions
Decent wages (remember, the non-union wages are higher in areas where they have to compete against union wages for their employees)

If all the unions disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn't be long before wages in all sectors started falling since they no longer have union wages to compete against.

Are SOME unions and union rules bad? YES
Are ALL unions and union rules bad? FUCK NO!

America works best when we say UNION YES!

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: andy04

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: andy04
This is for all you b1tches who think that you are smarter... just like you think that your wee wee is bigger that it really is...

You gotta be shitting me.

SBC, which has been experiencing falling sales for the last three years, was looking to slow increases in health care and other costs.

"That means SBC will have to take costs out of their business through automation, attrition or laying off certain non-union people."

"because SBC will probably incur higher health care costs over the period. So they are probably going to have to wring costs out of other parts of their business."

Translation: SBC is making less money than before but are now being forced to keep all the workers who were there from when they were making more money.

Simple equation for you: Profit = Revenue - Expenses. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're at least smart enough to know basic mathematics. If sales (revenue) is down, and the union is forcing the company to maintain it's current costs (Expenses)... guess what happens as profit plummets to 0.

I feel bad that these workers were facing layoffs, but they get NO respect from me from telling a company that the company can't cut costs to save the business. If you weren't so stupid you would realize that by forcing this stuff on the company, the company gets one step closer to financial collapse.

Why does anyone have a company? Why does McDonald's make hamburgers, why does Dell make computers, why does GM make cars? TO MAKE MONEY. They aren't in this game for the joy and privilege of providing hamburgers, computers, and cars to the world. If it's not profitable, they'll close up shop and then ALL of them are out of a job... not just the ones that are in the union, not just the ones that were pissed about their health care being cut, not just the CEOs or the people in the middle, ALL of them.


Finding a New York Times article about a company ending a strike is far from proof of unions being great.

All these companies are doing good business.
SBC failed not bcoz of employee burder but bcoz of the market, at that time all the baby bells went down... telecom boom was over... the union saved several employees retirement plans

Assuming what you typed is actually English and I'm using my secret decoder ring correctly, I get the impression you think that SBC has a duty to keep people employed and continue to give them health benefits just because the market is bad or the industry they are in isn't doing so well. It doesn't matter whether a company is doing good business or bad business, their goal is to make money, not to employ people and give their products away at cost. Just because people rely on them to put food on the table doesn't mean they should have an obligation to jack up the prices for consumers or reduce the quality of their product to make ends meet.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Companies and Corporations only care about their bottom line, not their employees, and if all the unions disappeared tomorrow, wages would start falling through the floor. You think the housing bubble popped fast, wages would crash so fast you'd think they were a airplane out of fuel...

Without arguing too much with you, Henry Ford in the early 20th century essentially told his supervisors to knock off the abuse because people work best when happy.

So while I agree, that Corporations care about bottom lines, the disgruntlement of their employees is an issue, because, again, in an incentive society, we don't run on slave labor, we run on efficient employees, the more satisfied an employee is within the bounds of reasonableness, the better off that corporation is.

So in short, America works best when it actually is allowed to work.

 

[andy04]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: andy04

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: andy04
This is for all you b1tches who think that you are smarter... just like you think that your wee wee is bigger that it really is...

You gotta be shitting me.

SBC, which has been experiencing falling sales for the last three years, was looking to slow increases in health care and other costs.

"That means SBC will have to take costs out of their business through automation, attrition or laying off certain non-union people."

"because SBC will probably incur higher health care costs over the period. So they are probably going to have to wring costs out of other parts of their business."

Translation: SBC is making less money than before but are now being forced to keep all the workers who were there from when they were making more money.

Simple equation for you: Profit = Revenue - Expenses. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're at least smart enough to know basic mathematics. If sales (revenue) is down, and the union is forcing the company to maintain it's current costs (Expenses)... guess what happens as profit plummets to 0.

I feel bad that these workers were facing layoffs, but they get NO respect from me from telling a company that the company can't cut costs to save the business. If you weren't so stupid you would realize that by forcing this stuff on the company, the company gets one step closer to financial collapse.

Why does anyone have a company? Why does McDonald's make hamburgers, why does Dell make computers, why does GM make cars? TO MAKE MONEY. They aren't in this game for the joy and privilege of providing hamburgers, computers, and cars to the world. If it's not profitable, they'll close up shop and then ALL of them are out of a job... not just the ones that are in the union, not just the ones that were pissed about their health care being cut, not just the CEOs or the people in the middle, ALL of them.


Finding a New York Times article about a company ending a strike is far from proof of unions being great.

All these companies are doing good business.
SBC failed not bcoz of employee burder but bcoz of the market, at that time all the baby bells went down... telecom boom was over... the union saved several employees retirement plans

Assuming what you typed is actually English and I'm using my secret decoder ring correctly, I get the impression you think that SBC has a duty to keep people employed and continue to give them health benefits just because the market is bad or the industry they are in isn't doing so well. It doesn't matter whether a company is doing good business or bad business, their goal is to make money, not to employ people and give their products away at cost.

Agreed (Ignoring your cheap sarcasm) but these companies dont have the right to run away with millions of dollars while the employees who gave them their whole lives suddenly loose everything and find themselves on the streets just so that the CEOs get their PHAT bonuses

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Injury
Assuming what you typed is actually English and I'm using my secret decoder ring correctly, I get the impression you think that SBC has a duty to keep people employed and continue to give them health benefits just because the market is bad or the industry they are in isn't doing so well. It doesn't matter whether a company is doing good business or bad business, their goal is to make money, not to employ people and give their products away at cost. Just because people rely on them to put food on the table doesn't mean they should have an obligation to jack up the prices for consumers or reduce the quality of their product to make ends meet.

that's the same impression i got, a sense of entitlement while doing nothing to earn or deserve it.

if i lose my job due to market conditions, bad economy, i grin and bear it.
if due to poor performance, i take responsibility.
i won't bitch and moan and point fingers and want and EXPECT someone to pay for it.

and yes, his posts are hard to understand.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: andy04
unions rock, as this country (USA) continues to degrade... we need union more than ever b4. IT needs union the most. Otherwise one day the CEOs will send evey last job overseas and we will just be left to flip burgers... but who do we sell it to??? good question...

this.





we need unions to guarantee fair wages. dont think for a minute that your boss isnt comtemplating replacing you with 2 mexicans who will each work for < minimum wage and work double your shift for it.

Prices are high, not because GM workers make $28 /hr... thats a measly pennies. A mere $55K per year. The CEO makes 20x what these workers make in a year, and dont do a dam thing to assemble one single car.
Want to solve the worlds problems? Gurarantee every worker a salary of at least 40K per year regardless of title, so he can feed his family. Then make a universal salary cap of $250K, regardless of title.

If you don't like capitalism, move to another country.

You can hire most anyone to be a manually laborer but not everyone can be a CEO.

most CEO's get paid to make decisions that a high school student could make.

Whether you like socialism or not, i dont care.
But the fact of economics are these... The economy is only as good as your lowest class.
when more money is in the hands of the workforce... IE the middle and lower class, then the economy is better.
When the money is hoarded by the management, and profiteering corporations, the economy fails.

The economy flourished during the fatness of the industrial revolution. Then the managing, and the downsizing, and the corporate greed took over. Now the economy is in the shitter.

Whether you realize it or not, the 100 guys you have assembling cars are 10000% more important to the economy than the CEO, the upper management, or the corporation.
The corporationms are the tools toward an end goal. They ARE NOT the end goal themselves. Someone down in macro-economics 101 seems to have forgotten this.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: andy04
Agreed (Ignoring your cheap sarcasm) but these companies dont have the right to run away with millions of dollars while the employees who gave them their whole lives suddenly loose everything and find themselves on the streets just so that the CEOs get their PHAT bonuses

ahhh, the truth is out. the hatred and bitterness is towards the CEO's and upper management that make more money than you.

i have some news for you, CEO's get fired too when the company is doing bad.
they are in a much higher profile position and are under much more stress than you are. they usually have more education/experience than the average worker and have to climb the corporate ladder, just like everyone else.

sure, there are those that get 'hooked up' to get their positions, but if they under perform, they'll be exposed MUCH faster than Bill in accounting.

think of it as the coach on your pro-sports team. they're usually the ones to blame when the team is stinking it up, and they get fired, even when it's the players that are the ones donning the jersey.


and lastly, companies have no obligation to keep you employed, no matter how long you've been working for them.
do you really think an employee will not jump ship if they were offered a higher salary elsewhere? employees leaving for another company happens just as much, if not more frequently.
it goes both ways, don't be ignorant.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: sao123
most CEO's get paid to make decisions that a high school student could make.

Whether you like socialism or not, i dont care.
But the fact of economics are these... The economy is only as good as your lowest class.
when more money is in the hands of the workforce... IE the middle and lower class, then the economy is better.
When the money is hoarded by the management, and profiteering corporations, the economy fails.

The economy flourished during the fatness of the industrial revolution. Then the managing, and the downsizing, and the corporate greed took over. Now the economy is in the shitter.

Whether you realize it or not, the 100 guys you have assembling cars are 10000% more important to the economy than the CEO, the upper management, or the corporation.
The corporationms are the tools toward an end goal. They ARE NOT the end goal themselves. Someone down in macro-economics 101 seems to have forgotten this.

:roll:
you clearly have no clue if you think that's all that CEO's do.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: sao123

most CEO's get paid to make decisions that a high school student could make.

Whether you like socialism or not, i dont care.
But the fact of economics are these... The economy is only as good as your lowest class.
when more money is in the hands of the workforce... IE the middle and lower class, then the economy is better.
When the money is hoarded by the management, and profiteering corporations, the economy fails.

The economy flourished during the fatness of the industrial revolution. Then the managing, and the downsizing, and the corporate greed took over. Now the economy is in the shitter.

Whether you realize it or not, the 100 guys you have assembling cars are 10000% more important to the economy than the CEO, the upper management, or the corporation.
The corporationms are the tools toward an end goal. They ARE NOT the end goal themselves. Someone down in macro-economics 101 seems to have forgotten this.

No offense but you're clueless.

Now, I do think the "wealth gap" is too wide and that top executives are generally overpaid, however, they DO deserve a considerable amount more than the average worker because their job IS that much more difficult.

 

[andy04]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: andy04
Agreed (Ignoring your cheap sarcasm) but these companies dont have the right to run away with millions of dollars while the employees who gave them their whole lives suddenly loose everything and find themselves on the streets just so that the CEOs get their PHAT bonuses

ahhh, the truth is out. the hatred and bitterness is towards the CEO's and upper management that make more money than you.

i have some news for you, CEO's get fired too when the company is doing bad.
they are in a much higher profile position and are under much more stress than you are. they usually have more education/experience than the average worker and have to climb the corporate ladder, just like everyone else.

sure, there are those that get 'hooked up' to get their positions, but if they under perform, they'll be exposed MUCH faster than Bill in accounting.

think of it as the coach on your pro-sports team. they're usually the ones to blame when the team is stinking it up, and they get fired, even when it's the players that are the ones donning the jersey.


and lastly, companies have no obligation to keep you employed, no matter how long you've been working for them.
do you really think an employee will not jump ship if they were offered a higher salary elsewhere? employees leaving for another company happens just as much, if not more frequently.
it goes both ways, don't be ignorant.

Again... if you guys are so wise why are you not getting the points made by me and others... what you guys are giving as argument is juvenile crap... nobody hates CEOs who have making big bucks and well educated and climbed corporate ladders and sh1t... as long as what they are doing is morally right... in the capitalist economy you cannot be completely honest but you should not be a devil either...

 

[Deeko]

Again... if you guys are so wise why are you not getting the points made by me and others... what you guys are giving as argument is juvenile crap... nobody hates CEOs who have making big bucks and well educated and climbed corporate ladders and sh1t... as long as what they are doing is morally right... in the capitalist economy you cannot be completely honest but you should not be a devil either...

What does this mean? You do realize that companies exist to make money, not to give you a job, right? You having a job is a means towards that goal, it is not the goal. This isn't even about CEOs vs laborers, or unions vs anti-union, this is a basic function of capitalism. If the company is doing poorly, and they have to cut their expenses, the option is either fire people or keep people with lower pay/benefits. Or the company can keep going until they soon after dissolve, and EVERYBODY loses.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm not gonna wade through all the anti-union hate here, I'll just post my opinion.

I'm probably the most pro-union member of these boards. Nearly 30 years in a couple of Operating Engineers locals around the country, and have paid "traveler's dues" in many, many more.

A lot of people think the time for unions is over...I don't think so.

The same issues that caused people to form unions over 100 years ago still exist today. Sure, there are now laws (mostly fought for by unions) that prevent a lot of those things from happening in the workplace today, but the Conservatives fight in the state and federal legislatures all the time to overturn many of those laws and union rules.

Companies and Corporations only care about their bottom line, not their employees, and if all the unions disappeared tomorrow, wages would start falling through the floor. You think the housing bubble popped fast, wages would crash so fast you'd think they were a airplane out of fuel...

I've seen it happen in states that went "Right to Work" (for less) over the years. Union pay= $20-$25/hr, RTW pay= $12-$15/hr and benefits cut or totally eliminated.

Do SOME unions have a bad name? You betcha. Have they earned that bad name? HELL YES. Are ALL unions bad? Fuck NO.


As I've pointed out numerous time here, the list of things fought for by union members that everyone benefits from is long, and includes:
Paid vacations
Sick leave
40 hour work week
Holiday pay
Health insurance
Safe working conditions
Social Security (whether you agree with it or not)
Pensions
Decent wages (remember, the non-union wages are higher in areas where they have to compete against union wages for their employees)

If all the unions disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn't be long before wages in all sectors started falling since they no longer have union wages to compete against.

Are SOME unions and union rules bad? YES
Are ALL unions and union rules bad? FUCK NO!

America works best when we say UNION YES!

no. all that is doing is raising costs and prices of goods unnecessarily.
if they can pay someone $12-15 to do something that you are doing for $20-25, then you have just doubled their cost (or they have halved theirs), which will be passed onto consumers.

as i said earlier, if someone is willing a task for less, and provide the same quality of work, who wouldn't hire that person instead?
obviously your job isn't that hard to do. if it were, someone given the same cost of living, would not do it for less (think sanitation workers - menial, dirty work that doesn't require any brains; most wouldn't do it for $60k/yr but a few will, so they can command their salary - but i don't know, maybe they're unionized also).
but because of unions, they have artificially inflated prices because union members feel "entitled" to higher pay.

let the market decide what you're worth. not a union which basically twists the arms of big business to give in to their demands.
if your services are worth more, then an employer will see the value in that and pay you more.

 

[andy04]

American workers are most productive in all developed nations... and still we are the ones most scared of loosing our jobs... knuckle heads still think we dont need unions...

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: andy04
American workers are most productive in all developed nations... and still we are the ones most scared of loosing our jobs... knuckle heads still think we dont need unions...

As cute as it is that you speak in this broken form of English and pepper your responses with insults, you haven't provided anything to make me change my stance, no. This post does little to enhance your position, either.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Deeko
When I was in high school, SCHOOL hours were 7:30-2:30. So the teachers were there a minimum of 7-3, lunch break certainly was not an hour, and most teachers spent it doing work anyway. So that's at least 8 hours/day in the classroom, not to mention the amount of time out of class, which you are grossly underestimating. Recertification can vary from state to state, I'm pretty sure it's more frequent than that here, but you can't just ignore the significant time/money that's put into that.

Plus, all that aside, you scoff at them making an average of 47k (with starting salaries in the low-mid 30's)....dude. That's not a lot of money, you know that right?

100% dependent on where you live

37K here isnt so bad

37k in Cali yes very bad

 

[andy04]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: andy04
American workers are most productive in all developed nations... and still we are the ones most scared of loosing our jobs... knuckle heads still think we dont need unions...

As cute as it is that you speak in this broken form of English and pepper your responses with insults, you haven't provided anything to make me change my stance, no. This post does little to enhance your position, either.

ya... i am tired banging my head on the wall too...

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: andy04
American workers are most productive in all developed nations... and still we are the ones most scared of loosing our jobs... knuckle heads still think we dont need unions...

We seem to be doing just fine with 87.9% of the workforce not unionized.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Again... if you guys are so wise why are you not getting the points made by me and others... what you guys are giving as argument is juvenile crap... nobody hates CEOs who have making big bucks and well educated and climbed corporate ladders and sh1t... as long as what they are doing is morally right... in the capitalist economy you cannot be completely honest but you should not be a devil either...

What does this mean? You do realize that companies exist to make money, not to give you a job, right? You having a job is a means towards that goal, it is not the goal. This isn't even about CEOs vs laborers, or unions vs anti-union, this is a basic function of capitalism. If the company is doing poorly, and they have to cut their expenses, the option is either fire people or keep people with lower pay/benefits. Or the company can keep going until they soon after dissolve, and EVERYBODY loses.

i have no clue what his point is.
first he's arguing that CEO's make too much money compared to the laborers. then he's arguing the morals of CEO's, and somehow having a union will keep them honest.

basically he's saying we're juvenile but he's all-knowing with his point about high school kids being able to perform CEO duties.
:roll:

i think his main beef is that he's getting paid jack squat by the firm he's working for and feels bitter knowing that his CEO is raking in millions.
andy04, can i ask what you do for a living and where?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm not gonna wade through all the anti-union hate here, I'll just post my opinion.

I'm probably the most pro-union member of these boards. Nearly 30 years in a couple of Operating Engineers locals around the country, and have paid "traveler's dues" in many, many more.

A lot of people think the time for unions is over...I don't think so.

The same issues that caused people to form unions over 100 years ago still exist today. Sure, there are now laws (mostly fought for by unions) that prevent a lot of those things from happening in the workplace today, but the Conservatives fight in the state and federal legislatures all the time to overturn many of those laws and union rules.

Companies and Corporations only care about their bottom line, not their employees, and if all the unions disappeared tomorrow, wages would start falling through the floor. You think the housing bubble popped fast, wages would crash so fast you'd think they were a airplane out of fuel...

I've seen it happen in states that went "Right to Work" (for less) over the years. Union pay= $20-$25/hr, RTW pay= $12-$15/hr and benefits cut or totally eliminated.

Do SOME unions have a bad name? You betcha. Have they earned that bad name? HELL YES. Are ALL unions bad? Fuck NO.


As I've pointed out numerous time here, the list of things fought for by union members that everyone benefits from is long, and includes:
Paid vacations
Sick leave
40 hour work week
Holiday pay
Health insurance
Safe working conditions
Social Security (whether you agree with it or not)
Pensions
Decent wages (remember, the non-union wages are higher in areas where they have to compete against union wages for their employees)

If all the unions disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn't be long before wages in all sectors started falling since they no longer have union wages to compete against.

Are SOME unions and union rules bad? YES
Are ALL unions and union rules bad? FUCK NO!

America works best when we say UNION YES!

no. all that is doing is raising costs and prices of goods unnecessarily.
if they can pay someone $12-15 to do something that you are doing for $20-25, then you have just doubled their cost (or they have halved theirs), which will be passed onto consumers.

as i said earlier, if someone is willing a task for less, and provide the same quality of work, who wouldn't hire that person instead?
obviously your job isn't that hard to do. if it were, someone given the same cost of living, would not do it for less (think sanitation workers - menial, dirty work that doesn't require any brains; most wouldn't do it for $60k/yr but a few will, so they can command their salary - but i don't know, maybe they're unionized also).
but because of unions, they have artificially inflated prices because union members feel "entitled" to higher pay.

let the market decide what you're worth. not a union which basically twists the arms of big business to give in to their demands.
if your services are worth more, then an employer will see the value in that and pay you more.

It's up to Big Business to determine if they will use Unions or not, They don't have to use Union Labor. Most small businesses don't. What you can't do is forbid people from organizing. If they choose to belong to a Union you can't force them to work at a shop or supply labor that supports a shop that's non Union.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: andy04
Agreed (Ignoring your cheap sarcasm) but these companies dont have the right to run away with millions of dollars while the employees who gave them their whole lives suddenly loose everything and find themselves on the streets just so that the CEOs get their PHAT bonuses

Why not? As wrong as it seems... they DO have the right to let people go if they are no longer an asset to their company.