Because you are wrong and our argument points are correct, whether you are pro or anti union.
I can't even understand the rest of your post. No joke.
Because you are wrong and our argument points are correct, whether you are pro or anti union.
I can't even understand the rest of your post. No joke.
Have you ever heard the saying "Business isn't done in a meeting room, it's done on the golf course." This is the truth, but it's eluding to a grander scheme of things.
Business is about how you whine and dine people before it is about how you can make a mutually beneficial idea happen. Nobody does business with someone they can't trust. You can talk all you want about how the CEO of a corporation is overpaid, but they are the company image. A company isn't paying a CEO to make decisions... that's what a board of trustees is for. A CEO is paid for their business connections and their ability to get other people to listen to them about business by having a more personal relationship.
If you think that a guy with no college education who puts bolts in a part can do that, you're horribly mistaken.
The 100 guys you have assembling cars wouldn't be assembling cars and spending money in the economy if it wasn't for the corporation, CEO and management. Without them, the 100 guys wouldn't have no customers, nothing to build, and no job.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Not necessarily, most construction companies are Union for the reason that the best trained workers belong to a trade Union as they have to do attend and pass at least 3 years of trade school compared to a scab who usually sucks (not all there are some really good tradesman who aren't Union, just not in large supply)
Don't know.
A good union will get great shit for the employees, but put the business in the shitter. If the union members serve the public, major issues in the event of a strike.
A bad union or no union will do nothing for the employees so that they could get screwed anytime.
There's gotta be some middle ground there.
A good union will get great shit for the employees, but put the business in the shitter. If the union members serve the public, major issues in the event of a strike.
A bad union or no union will do nothing for the employees so that they could get screwed anytime.
There's gotta be some middle ground there.
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,967
- 140
- 106
..my comment was in reguard to a 40 hour work week and mandatory overtime and other behavior related issues an arrogant employeer will exact on non represented employees. No doubt unions have been beneficial in the Trades i.e. training and elevating standards. Some of the Trade Unions are tolerating split shops i.e. some number of non union employees whose labor is billed out at full union rates but not paid to the non union employees. This practice is ongoing in the SF area among plumbers,carpenters and roofers.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
<--- Teacher.
I don't know wtf you're talking about, but you must be basing your entire opinion on hearsay. 1. You're not required to be a member of the union. However, as the union is responsible for most of the benefits that have been won for teachers & serves as the contract negotiator, you still have to pay into the teacher's union - at a rate less (slightly) than what the union member teachers pay. 40 hours a week? Maybe a shitty teacher, but the vast majority of teachers that I know far exceed 40 hours a week.
i dunno, maybe i am that clueless.
why don't you educate me, and correct me where I'm wrong.
is paying someone $12 as opposed to $25 going to cost the company more or less?
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 27,918
- 12,461
- 136
And many shares (large voting chunks) are held by large funds and fund managers. It's a 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' scheme.
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
pretty much on the money.Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
i admittedly do not know much about unions. the only thing i know is from the UAW and MTA union strikes in recent events.
my take is that they were necessary in earlier times because large corporations would exploit workers, but with stricter labor laws, they are now obsolete.
nowadays, they exist to screw corporations for every penny they can get. union members are underworked, overpaid, which leads to higher costs to companies, which will be passed onto the price of their products, and/or screwing the parent company over.
GM plant workers get paid $28/hr whether they work or not. GM cannot shed themselves of them, or lower their wages, because of contracts and are forced to take it in the pooper, putting themselves in horrible financial shape.
MTA subway platform sweepers get $60k/yr... a mindless job that does not require a HS diploma, getting paid more than the average college graduate.
meanwhile, they continue to raise fares while providing sub-par service.
all imo of course. correct me where necessary
sao123
Lifer
- May 27, 2002
- 12,653
- 205
- 106
You've got to be joking...
Henry Ford was building and selling cars long before the concept of a CEO was ever imagined. There were no business analysists and managment boards, and cars sold just fine. They sold just fine because there was a good product and the customer base needed them, and EVERYONE could afford them.
The reason why you need CEO's now, is because you are trying to sell the same lousy product to an ever shrinking customer base at an increased cost.
It wasnt the industrial revolution that broke everything... it was the business revolution.
When did everything go wrong? When all the business people stepped in... and now theres a flood of them doing absolutely nothing, and adding cost after cost to the product.
What are the things businessmen did to ruin things?
Layoffs, downsizing, and outsourcing.
Planned Obsolescence.
Trade Quality for Quantity.
Profit Maximizing.
Weve spent dollars to save pennies.
The workforce is poorer than ever, and worker morale is at an all time low.
Product quality is at an all time low, evidenced by the sheer number of recalls that happen daily.
AND
Corporations are going bankrupt, BECAUSE its #1 customer no longer has the income to buy its products. If you want to sell more... pay your workers more. If you want to sell less, pay your workers less. Its a very simple symbiotic relationship, that no one in the business world seems to understand.
Utterly pointless to the topic, but for some reason when I read the thread title, I read "unions" as a mis-spelling of "onions", and didn't realize the difference until I read the first post.
db
Lifer
- Dec 6, 1999
- 10,575
- 292
- 126
Wrong. "Labor laws" in no way make unions obsolete.
Rather than pontificate about unions, I will simply say this:
There are employees in both management and hourly who are hosers--
always has been and always will be.
Managements are different in every company. Most union contracts, on
page 1, say that they will "cooperate" with the company. Many companies
don't really train their managers on how to deal with the unions.
In most cases, there are ways to effectively deal with the worst
union employees, but the local managers either don't know how, or
are too lazy.
Human nature never changes. Abuse happens on both sides, one side is no better than the other.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter