what is your opinion of unions?

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Bignate603
My FIL is a union electrician, usually doing large industrial jobs (power plants, factories, etc). It actually offers a tangible benefit to the companies that use them. The company says how many electricians they need and with what skills, the union arranges to have that number of qualified, trained electricians show up when they need it. The company doesn't worry about any benefits, they just pay the hourly rate and the union pays for all the worker's healthcare, pension, etc.

It works out pretty well, makes it much easier for companies to find the workers they need much more quickly.

However, some unions abuse their power. Shutting down a city because you can shouldn't be legal.

i assume you're referring to the NYC MTA.
what a scumbag, that toussaint fellow. did he ever get fined and face jail time?

Bingo. I thought that was terrible. It's basically like somebody keeping me from using my car. When you rely on it for your transportation a strike like that can prevent you from getting to your job and things it can cause you huge problems if it's suddenly not there.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
If without Unions we would go back to slave wages and zero benefits. Then why does about 85% of the workforce not work under a Union and recieve far better wages and benefits that your prediction?

Because of increased govt interference and regulation in employment over the years. HR depts spend the majority of their time dealing just with compliance.

And why? Because unions are part of the free market. As I posted earlier, labor has every bit as much right to organize as does capital. An union is, in effect, a corporation which pools and sells labor. All the classical free market economists were united in agreement on this.
So big govt and big corps have been undermining the unions through regulation to make them seem unnecessary. But strip away the regulation, and the circumstances would change.
But ask yourself, seriously, without such big govt intervention in the marketplace, how could unions be made to go away without violating the free assembly clause in the 1st amendment?

Well I asking why the workforce has such a low rate of union membership but are not paid at minimum wage with no benefits. I understand the purpose of a union and dont have a problem with them being formed. I just dont buy into the doom and gloom predictions people always give when answering what happens to our job market if they go away. For the most part within the private sectory they have gone away and yet the medium wage is nearly 3 times the federal min wage.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Genx87
If without Unions we would go back to slave wages and zero benefits. Then why does about 85% of the workforce not work under a Union and recieve far better wages and benefits that your prediction?

Because the workforce doesn't exist in a vacuum. Not all workers in the workforce have to be unionized in order to provide salary pressures across all areas. As long as there are unions jobs paying attractive salaries, other jobs are going to have to compete on salaries in order to keep people interested in such careers. Why don't you take a look at newly emerging industrial nations that don't have unions or have weak unions and take a look at salaries there? Why do you think they can outsource jobs to, say, India? Why are computer programmers so much cheaper in India than in the United States? Have the trades unions been fighting for higher salaries for the past 100 years in India? No? Do you think a student in India thinks to himself, "Hmmmm, what career for me? I could be a plumber and make $60k per year, or I can be a computer programmer and make $10k per year." I don't even have to google wages in India or any other country to have a rough idea of the relative salaries between computer programmers and plumbers. Unions have fought, tooth and nail for decades so that their employees can get a decent portion of a company's profits. And, even non-union workers benefit from this. I can also point to many areas where there are union jobs and non-union jobs doing the exact same tasks for different companies, with union employees making 150% or more of the pay that the non-union employees receive. I can point to companies where the designers, engineers, draftsmen, etc., silently whine about their salaried jobs that require them to sometimes work 50 or more hours in a week, while the guys in the shop are getting time and a half on weekends and wind up making far more than the people with degrees, simply because of all the overtime benefits. And, what do the people in this forum say to the people forced to work 50 hours a week? "Don't like it? Quit."

You may be confusing skill of the labor pool with a lack of union in foreign markets. Low skill labor will always on avg recieve less wage for their service. I am not saying a Union couldnt help force a higher wage. But at the same time the wage demanded may turn off customers because of the level of skill for compensation.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Genx87
If without Unions we would go back to slave wages and zero benefits. Then why does about 85% of the workforce not work under a Union and recieve far better wages and benefits that your prediction?

I thought you were older than you're statement reflects. 30-40 years ago middle class blue collars jobs came with pensions and paid health care (100% employers paid)


"Most union-negotiated pension plans are defined-benefit pension plans, which for decades have guaranteed retirees a fixed monthly income. These defined-benefit plans are usually funded entirely by employers through tax-exempt contributions and automatically cover all qualified employees. Since 1978, the number of defined-benefit plans plummeted from 128,041 plans covering some 41 percent of private-sector workers to only 26,000 today, according to the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics finds 21 percent of workers in the private sector have defined-benefit pensions.

Many companies have eliminated their defined-benefit plans and others have reduced the value of benefits and shifted to providing benefits through 401(k)s and other defined-contribution plans. In these plans, the employer only contributes a fixed amount to the plan each year. Defined-contribution plans shift the investment risk and responsibility to individual workers and typically reduce corporate costs."

Pensions, like SS, are unrealistic without very good growth in profits. The simple fact is a 401K plan is a better alternative for both parties involved.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Unions were created because working conditions were poor and dangerous. They also helped establish fair wages for workers in those dangers situations.

Currently unions are nearly worthless. If a company treats their employees correctly, looks out for their well being and pay them a fair wage then we would no longer need unions. From my experience with unions, they just pressure people into doing things that typically are only best for about 10% of those they should be trying to protect. Unions also have a tendency to protect the weakest workers and give them the most attention and protection while leaving the best workers with nothing.

A hard working person would be better off without having a union in most cases. A weak worker will love unions. I've known several people that would have been fired if it wasn't for a union because they were shite workers.

The very existence of unions keeps companies on their toes, even in non-unionized fields. If you treat your employees fairly, they won't need to unionize. If they do, you've got an unstoppable beast on your hands and you can get screwed badly.

If unions didn't exist, working conditions would be much worse than they are today across the board. Unions help us all even when we're not in them. At the same time, they also hurt us all by helping bad workers. You have to take the good with the bad.

A BETTER idea than doing away with all unions is to reform the bad ones; use the few remaining good unions as a template.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: nonameo
Some good, some bad. I don't think it's black and white like some people try and make it out to be.

True.

There are problems though. The UAW is responsible for destroying the US auto market.

I'm sure it was union members which designed products with questionable quality. I'm sure it was union members that ignored people desires for more refined interiors. We all know it was union members that made the decision to ignore the impending rise in oil prices and thus neglect the manufacture of smaller vehicles, specifically hybrids. And, it is funny how the unions can enter into agreements without management having any input.

well said.

no, but it's the unions that have the US automakers handcuffed because they refuse to lower wages commensurate with their job level and skill set, reduce healthcare costs by refusing to have employees pay a portion of the premium, continue to pay idle employees at idle plants, outlandish pensions etc.
with all these legacy costs, they are unable to pump money into R&D to produce competitive products.

then they have the audacity to go on strike to demand higher pay, as if they weren't overpaid already?

well, guess what. now US automakers are now suffering and if they crumble, all the union members will be out of jobs.
which would you rather have? less pay or no pay?

i'm not saying the blame is all on the unions, management shares the blame by relying too much on trucks.
but unions aren't exactly helping the situation. they're making it far worse.

Even if you cut the wage of all autoworkers in half, you wouldn't hit anywhere near the dollar value that these companies would make if they bothered to give the public what it wants. You're making a mountain out of a molehill by blaming high manufacturing wages.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Genx87
If without Unions we would go back to slave wages and zero benefits. Then why does about 85% of the workforce not work under a Union and recieve far better wages and benefits that your prediction?

Because 15% of the work force is under a union. It's actually very simple if you'd bother to sit down and think about it. If you own a business and unions were outlawed (ie no chance of a union ever existing), would you give your employees a decent wage and health care or give them as little as possible? How about if you're at the top of the corporate ladder and don't even have to see these individuals?

Yes, other businesses will try to compete by offering more money, but there are seldom enough jobs to go around. If the low-wage company is hiring and no one else is, where else can you go? It's a very complicated situation. You can't assume a perfect world, where every company can hire an unlimited number of people at a fair wage.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Vic
... Because unions are part of the free market. As I posted earlier, labor has every bit as much right to organize as does capital. An union is, in effect, a corporation which pools and sells labor...

Wrong, what you describe would be an employee owned contracting company. A union does not equate to a corporation, because corporations arent aloud to use monopolistic methods.

...But ask yourself, seriously, without such big govt intervention in the marketplace, how could unions be made to go away without violating the free assembly clause in the 1st amendment?

The same way Standard Oil & trust was broken up in 1911, using anti-trust laws. You are forgetting that Anti-Trust laws dont apply to unions, so again, they arent held to the same standards as corporations. They have a thier own special "definition" under the National Labor Act, which lets them play by thier own rules in an otherwise free market.

Not all unions use monopolistic methods. Again, you are painting too broadly. You seem to be mostly misinformed and are using personal experience and hearsay rather than facts.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Vic
... Because unions are part of the free market. As I posted earlier, labor has every bit as much right to organize as does capital. An union is, in effect, a corporation which pools and sells labor...

Wrong, what you describe would be an employee owned contracting company. A union does not equate to a corporation, because corporations arent aloud to use monopolistic methods.

...But ask yourself, seriously, without such big govt intervention in the marketplace, how could unions be made to go away without violating the free assembly clause in the 1st amendment?

The same way Standard Oil & trust was broken up in 1911, using anti-trust laws. You are forgetting that Anti-Trust laws dont apply to unions, so again, they arent held to the same standards as corporations. They have a thier own special "definition" under the National Labor Act, which lets them play by thier own rules in an otherwise free market.

Not all unions use monopolistic methods. Again, you are painting too broadly. You seem to be mostly misinformed and are using personal experience and hearsay rather than facts.

LOL, unions ARE monopolies. This isnt heresay or opinion, its a FACT, look it up. They are only allowed to exist because they created a special govt definition after the anti trust laws started busting up monopolies prior to WWI. The same anti trust laws used against Ma Bell, Standard Oil, and even Microsoft, CANNOT BE APPLIED TO UNIONS!!

And in respose to your prior post, you have an insanely short sighted view of what "doing away with unions" would do. Stop playing the "unions keep companies on thier toes" crap. Only 11% of the US workforce still works for a union. Its been dropping every year, and this is a good thing.

Whats to stop a company that sells a product or service from charging whatever price they want? Um heres a clue, its called competition. There are no union equivalents that keep prices down. Whats the stop a company from paying employees what they want? Heres a clue, its the same answer as the last question. Competition. A worker will work for the company that pays him the most. And if doing away with a union causes wages to drop, all that says is the union screwed up that particular labor pool in the first place.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Vic
... Because unions are part of the free market. As I posted earlier, labor has every bit as much right to organize as does capital. An union is, in effect, a corporation which pools and sells labor...

Wrong, what you describe would be an employee owned contracting company. A union does not equate to a corporation, because corporations arent aloud to use monopolistic methods.

...But ask yourself, seriously, without such big govt intervention in the marketplace, how could unions be made to go away without violating the free assembly clause in the 1st amendment?

The same way Standard Oil & trust was broken up in 1911, using anti-trust laws. You are forgetting that Anti-Trust laws dont apply to unions, so again, they arent held to the same standards as corporations. They have a thier own special "definition" under the National Labor Act, which lets them play by thier own rules in an otherwise free market.

Not all unions use monopolistic methods. Again, you are painting too broadly. You seem to be mostly misinformed and are using personal experience and hearsay rather than facts.

I make a post talking about standard oil being broken up in 1911, and monopolies and the National Labor act... and you say I'm using "personal experience and hearsay rather than facts."

Are you friggin retarted?

 

[Dufusyte]

Unions are good because they give power to the common man, which is a rare thing. Unions have even been an effective force against evil governments as in Communist Poland.

It is true that unions can be used to obtain unusually high wages for its members. However, a parasite has to be careful not to kill its host. If the company goes out of business, then the union ultimately suffers the consequences since the laborers no longer have an employer. Therefore it is in the interest of unions not to ruin the companies where the members work.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Yes, other businesses will try to compete by offering more money, but there are seldom enough jobs to go around.

Bull shit. I will not say I have done this, but I know people who have have gotten turned down from one job to another job, and they always find a job, or always enough.

You see, people with your mindset think the market is static: You don't understand that in a free market, in an ideal world, businesses are constantly expanding, I have worked with a start up business, in three months, employees leaped from 4 to 30. Companies are expanding, shrinking, and there are jobs to go around. The problem is qualifications, and that is where people fall short. That is why you need an education that is above average, or teach yourself and get in. There are always options, but if you're more "disadvantaged" than other people, chances are you will have to compensate for a hefty dose of willpower.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Genx87
If without Unions we would go back to slave wages and zero benefits. Then why does about 85% of the workforce not work under a Union and recieve far better wages and benefits that your prediction?

I thought you were older than you're statement reflects. 30-40 years ago middle class blue collars jobs came with pensions and paid health care (100% employers paid)


"Most union-negotiated pension plans are defined-benefit pension plans, which for decades have guaranteed retirees a fixed monthly income. These defined-benefit plans are usually funded entirely by employers through tax-exempt contributions and automatically cover all qualified employees. Since 1978, the number of defined-benefit plans plummeted from 128,041 plans covering some 41 percent of private-sector workers to only 26,000 today, according to the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics finds 21 percent of workers in the private sector have defined-benefit pensions.

Many companies have eliminated their defined-benefit plans and others have reduced the value of benefits and shifted to providing benefits through 401(k)s and other defined-contribution plans. In these plans, the employer only contributes a fixed amount to the plan each year. Defined-contribution plans shift the investment risk and responsibility to individual workers and typically reduce corporate costs."

Pensions, like SS, are unrealistic without very good growth in profits. The simple fact is a 401K plan is a better alternative for both parties involved.

I disagree, you pay for your 401k. There is a reason companies switched to them, it wasnt to help you, it was to increase their profit.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Genx87
If without Unions we would go back to slave wages and zero benefits. Then why does about 85% of the workforce not work under a Union and recieve far better wages and benefits that your prediction?

I thought you were older than you're statement reflects. 30-40 years ago middle class blue collars jobs came with pensions and paid health care (100% employers paid)


"Most union-negotiated pension plans are defined-benefit pension plans, which for decades have guaranteed retirees a fixed monthly income. These defined-benefit plans are usually funded entirely by employers through tax-exempt contributions and automatically cover all qualified employees. Since 1978, the number of defined-benefit plans plummeted from 128,041 plans covering some 41 percent of private-sector workers to only 26,000 today, according to the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics finds 21 percent of workers in the private sector have defined-benefit pensions.

Many companies have eliminated their defined-benefit plans and others have reduced the value of benefits and shifted to providing benefits through 401(k)s and other defined-contribution plans. In these plans, the employer only contributes a fixed amount to the plan each year. Defined-contribution plans shift the investment risk and responsibility to individual workers and typically reduce corporate costs."

Pensions, like SS, are unrealistic without very good growth in profits. The simple fact is a 401K plan is a better alternative for both parties involved.

I disagree, you pay for your 401k. There is a reason companies switched to them, it wasnt to help you, it was to increase their profit.

401ks are mutually beneficial. Rarely can you move a fixed pension after putting 10 years into a company. With a 401k you can just take it to the next job.

Most people would PREFER a 401k to a fixed pension if thier company offered both.

Theres nothing wrong with something being mutually beneficial... I know its hard ot believe, the union types think good things only come through fear and extermely large quantities of money spent on union "negotiators"... scare the eveil CEO's! pfft get a clue.

 

[Xavier434]

I am in a union and am very happy to be a part of it. Being that I have a government job, it really doesn't matter how productive my work is if my area gets budget cuts. I can still get laid off rather easily. My union protects me enough to the point where I don't have too worry as much about that. How it works exactly is just details. The only part about it which I do not like is that those in power within the union are sometimes only in it for their own good rather than everyone's good who is a part of the union.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bctbct

I disagree, you pay for your 401k. There is a reason companies switched to them, it wasnt to help you, it was to increase their profit.

It's true. I have spoken to several people about the differences between pension plans and 401k plans. Pension plans usually work out for the better when it comes to the employee. I am really glad I have that instead of a 401k.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
However, a parasite has to be careful not to kill its host. If the company goes out of business, then the union ultimately suffers the consequences since the laborers no longer have an employer. Therefore it is in the interest of unions not to ruin the companies where the members work.

cough cough, UAW.
and i like the use of the word parasite, because that's exactly what unions are.

parasite: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return.

"leech" would be even more appropriate.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Train
Whats to stop a company that sells a product or service from charging whatever price they want? Um heres a clue, its called competition. There are no union equivalents that keep prices down. Whats the stop a company from paying employees what they want? Heres a clue, its the same answer as the last question. Competition. A worker will work for the company that pays him the most. And if doing away with a union causes wages to drop, all that says is the union screwed up that particular labor pool in the first place.

:thumbsup:

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Train
Whats to stop a company that sells a product or service from charging whatever price they want? Um heres a clue, its called competition. There are no union equivalents that keep prices down. Whats the stop a company from paying employees what they want? Heres a clue, its the same answer as the last question. Competition. A worker will work for the company that pays him the most. And if doing away with a union causes wages to drop, all that says is the union screwed up that particular labor pool in the first place.

:thumbsup:

One of this big problems with this logic is any case where an employee is living in an area where there isn't much competition and the employers clearly have an advantage. The other problem is government jobs and their unions since competition works very differently than that of the commercial world.

It all goes back to one of the original posts in this thread which is that there are some unions which are good and others which are not so good. To state that all unions are good or bad are the only retarded answers.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
However, a parasite has to be careful not to kill its host. If the company goes out of business, then the union ultimately suffers the consequences since the laborers no longer have an employer. Therefore it is in the interest of unions not to ruin the companies where the members work.

cough cough, UAW.
and i like the use of the word parasite, because that's exactly what unions are.

parasite: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return.

"leech" would be even more appropriate.

So you lose your job to a Union shop? Bitter that some guy who's union makes more than you? Bug crawl up your ass and die?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
However, a parasite has to be careful not to kill its host. If the company goes out of business, then the union ultimately suffers the consequences since the laborers no longer have an employer. Therefore it is in the interest of unions not to ruin the companies where the members work.

cough cough, UAW.
and i like the use of the word parasite, because that's exactly what unions are.

parasite: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return.

"leech" would be even more appropriate.

A lot of big business corporations out there do far more leeching off their employees without making a useful or adequate return than unions do. Unions are supposed to provide some checks and balances in that department. I realize that not all of them do a bang up job, but there are many which do pretty well.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Train
Whats to stop a company that sells a product or service from charging whatever price they want? Um heres a clue, its called competition. There are no union equivalents that keep prices down. Whats the stop a company from paying employees what they want? Heres a clue, its the same answer as the last question. Competition. A worker will work for the company that pays him the most. And if doing away with a union causes wages to drop, all that says is the union screwed up that particular labor pool in the first place.

:thumbsup:

One of this big problems with this logic is any case where an employee is living in an area where there isn't much competition and the employers clearly have an advantage. The other problem is government jobs and their unions since competition works very differently than that of the commercial world.

It all goes back to one of the original posts in this thread which is that there are some unions which are good and others which are not so good. To state that all unions are good or bad are the only retarded answers.

You completely missed the point. Lets use the large employer in an isolated area example.... how do you think all those people got there in the first place? They were either all unemployed before said employer showed up, or they moved there for work.

If they want to organize, more power to them, but they should just be held to the same legal standard as any other business organization. Like I stated before, remove the monopolistic abilities of unions, and everything thats bad about them will quickly disappear.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Train
You completely missed the point. Lets use the large employer in an isolated area example.... how do you think all those people got there in the first place? They were either all unemployed before said employer showed up, or they moved there for work.

If they want to organize, more power to them, but they should just be held to the same legal standard as any other business organization. Like I stated before, remove the monopolistic abilities of unions, and everything thats bad about them will quickly disappear.

Everything that is good about them will disappear too. So, basically it boils down to the union and whether or not that particular union is doing what it is supposed to be doing. If it is then removal is a bad thing for the employees. If it isn't to a great degree then removal is probably a good thing unless the corporation is even worse. Gotta choose the lesser of two evils. There is no greater good here. It's all selfish greed.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Train
You completely missed the point. Lets use the large employer in an isolated area example.... how do you think all those people got there in the first place? They were either all unemployed before said employer showed up, or they moved there for work.

If they want to organize, more power to them, but they should just be held to the same legal standard as any other business organization. Like I stated before, remove the monopolistic abilities of unions, and everything thats bad about them will quickly disappear.

Everything that is good about them will disappear too.

How? Unless you can back this up your entire argument is baseless.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Train
You completely missed the point. Lets use the large employer in an isolated area example.... how do you think all those people got there in the first place? They were either all unemployed before said employer showed up, or they moved there for work.

If they want to organize, more power to them, but they should just be held to the same legal standard as any other business organization. Like I stated before, remove the monopolistic abilities of unions, and everything thats bad about them will quickly disappear.

Everything that is good about them will disappear too.

How? Unless you can back this up your entire argument is baseless.

Dude...I am not going to sit here and list for you every potential good reason for a union to exist. There are so many good and bad examples out there. Surely you can look them up on your own. Essentially, it boils down to a lot of cases regarding fair treatment and protection which is very general statement to say the least.

If you truly believe that there is absolutely no good reason for any union to exist then your ignorance alone will end this conversation. There are good reasons and good unions take advantage of them. Bad unions do not. To provide you with a solid example which will counter every bad example that I am sure you are ripe and ready to post here will take days and I really don't want to get into that.

Have you ever been a member of union to at least experience both sides of the fence? I have.