Unions in the US

[RadiomanATL]

I don't see where "pressure" enters the picture.

Thats because you are willingly blind. Like every other business they will only show the rosey side of things to their potential customers, and minimize and ignore the negative.

And once you join, in the majority of cases, you can't back out.

You say you can see, so produce examples.

I just did.

In the majority of cases, if you are part of the union you can't back out and retain your job.

When a union forms, if you are part of the <50% who did not want to join, too bad in the majority of cases. Either you join or find a new job.

In my area, there are two major chain grocery stores. One is union, one is not. They have nearly identical benefit packages for their workers. Identical pay scales. Only difference is that the Union members see more money taken out of their check for union dues than the non-union store. For no extra benefits than the non-union store.

Yeah, thats a winner for the workers. Lets take more money away from those who can least afford to lose it.

 

[Gatekeeper]

As expressed in previous threads, short and sweet:

"F" the UNIONS

 

[goldcatt]

checks and balances, gold?

Yep. It's how the system works best. Negotiation is always better when both sides have relatively equal footing and a direct stake in the outcome.

 

[shintao]

I vote C.
With the formation of more fair labor laws and practices, Unions serve to pad the pockets of their officers more than they do to help the members or the job force.

How did you arrive at that conclusion, considering the labor leaders negotiate Union wages and benefits for their workers and then serve a multitude of other functions during the year, from negotiating contracts with employers to dispatching Union members to job sites, overseeing their rights, etc.? Even after an Union member retires, they are there for their pensions and other benefits throughout their entire lives.

The formation of unions forced the hands of our labor department's guidelines. They were pushed into doing more for the labor force to more closely mirror union benefits.
Unions have since gone ape-shit crazy with their benefits.
By tacking on all these outrageous "legacy costs" they've priced us out of our own products.

Take the recent discussion of the CF bulbs and the banning of incandescents for example.
GE has had to lay off more than 500 workers because, with their current cost of labor, they won't be able to produce the new bulbs efficiently and would be cost prohibitive.
It's either pay $14 per bulb from ourselves or a buck or 2 from China.

LOL! No American can compete with a foreigner in the Global market, so it would make no difference if the worker is Union or NonUnion. I assume you are a capitalist that doesn't believe in making more money & benefits, so would work for free. Don't assume it is the Unions that caused $14 bulbs. That is why CEOs have a employment and there is a gap in this country between the middle class & top 10%. Had there been Union job protection for the scabs the gap would have never happened. Now you find your only options are making less money and giving up your benefits. Tsk!! And then blame Unions!!! LMAO!! I don't see Union members starving with their livingwages and benefits, and I do see disgrunted people like you jealous because of what Unions have done for their workers.

 

[RadiomanATL]

How did you arrive at that conclusion, considering the labor leaders negotiate Union wages and benefits for their workers and then serve a multitude of other functions during the year, from negotiating contracts with employers to dispatching Union members to job sites, overseeing their rights, etc.? Even after an Union member retires, they are there for their pensions and other benefits throughout their entire lives.

The formation of unions forced the hands of our labor department's guidelines. They were pushed into doing more for the labor force to more closely mirror union benefits.
Unions have since gone ape-shit crazy with their benefits.
By tacking on all these outrageous "legacy costs" they've priced us out of our own products.

Take the recent discussion of the CF bulbs and the banning of incandescents for example.
GE has had to lay off more than 500 workers because, with their current cost of labor, they won't be able to produce the new bulbs efficiently and would be cost prohibitive.
It's either pay $14 per bulb from ourselves or a buck or 2 from China.

LOL! No American can compete with a foreigner in the Global market.

On an individual basis?

 

[hortysir]

How did you arrive at that conclusion, considering the labor leaders negotiate Union wages and benefits for their workers and then serve a multitude of other functions during the year, from negotiating contracts with employers to dispatching Union members to job sites, overseeing their rights, etc.? Even after an Union member retires, they are there for their pensions and other benefits throughout their entire lives.

The formation of unions forced the hands of our labor department's guidelines. They were pushed into doing more for the labor force to more closely mirror union benefits.
Unions have since gone ape-shit crazy with their benefits.
By tacking on all these outrageous "legacy costs" they've priced us out of our own products.

Take the recent discussion of the CF bulbs and the banning of incandescents for example.
GE has had to lay off more than 500 workers because, with their current cost of labor, they won't be able to produce the new bulbs efficiently and would be cost prohibitive.
It's either pay $14 per bulb from ourselves or a buck or 2 from China.

LOL! No American can compete with a foreigner in the Global market, so it would make no difference if the worker is Union or NonUnion. I assume you are a capitalist that doesn't believe in making more money & benefits, so would work for free. Don't assume it is the Unions that caused $14 bulbs. That is why CEOs have a employment and there is a gap in this country between the middle class & top 10%. Had there been Union job protection for the scabs the gap would have never happened. Now you find your only options are making less money and giving up your benefits. Tsk!! And then blame Unions!!! LMAO!! I don't see Union members starving with their livingwages and benefits, and I do see disgrunted people like you jealous because of what Unions have done for their workers.

Disgruntled because $2,000 of any new car price is strictly to cover these ridiculous legacy costs, you Hack.

 

[Missourian]

The formation of unions forced the hands of our labor department's guidelines. They were pushed into doing more for the labor force to more closely mirror union benefits.
Unions have since gone ape-shit crazy with their benefits.
By tacking on all these outrageous "legacy costs" they've priced us out of our own products.

Take the recent discussion of the CF bulbs and the banning of incandescents for example.
GE has had to lay off more than 500 workers because, with their current cost of labor, they won't be able to produce the new bulbs efficiently and would be cost prohibitive.
It's either pay $14 per bulb from ourselves or a buck or 2 from China.

LOL! No American can compete with a foreigner in the Global market.

On an individual basis?

On a collective basis.

When a first-world standard of living competes with a second or third world standard of living, there is only one possible outcome...eventual equilibrium.

That's a boon for the second or third world labor force as their standard of living rises, but it is a curse for the American labor force, as their standard of living must suffer an equivalent decline.

 

[Mr Natural]

The threat of unionization is the only thing that keeps the essential and necessary symbiotic relationship between labor and management in balance.

 

[shintao]

Thats because you are willingly blind. Like every other business they will only show the rosey side of things to their potential customers, and minimize and ignore the negative.

And once you join, in the majority of cases, you can't back out.

You say you can see, so produce examples.

I just did.

Oh negative is your example?? OK, whatever.

In the majority of cases, if you are part of the union you can't back out and retain your job.

No you can't in some instances, but I still see no reason why any capitalist would give up his wages & benefits & job protection & pension to work non-union. It is illogical.In course of employment as worker goes into management, they do drop out at some point where the wages and benefits are greater, like a CEO slot. The corporation pressures the person to become NonUnion. Ah, that word "pressure" again, felt from the corporate side.

When a union forms, if you are part of the <50% who did not want to join, too bad in the majority of cases. Either you join or find a new job.

Yep, that is the way it goes, but hey there are plenty of jobs a scab can land where working for free and no benefits are asked. The new employer will shit can his minimum wage earner and set you down in his warm seat. Problem solved.

In my area, there are two major chain grocery stores. One is union, one is not. They have nearly identical benefit packages for their workers. Identical pay scales. Only difference is that the Union members see more money taken out of their check for union dues than the non-union store. For no extra benefits than the non-union store.

So the Union members do not earn more money afterall, just have better benefits and retirement pensions, medical care for the family, and someone to protect their work site rights and safety issues. You say no extra benefits. Can you prove that?

Yeah, thats a winner for the workers. Lets take more money away from those who can least afford to lose it.

Oh, well, you the capitalist, would have them working for free and no benefits, so................

[...........................]

 

[goldcatt]

checks and balances, gold?

The threat of unionization is the only thing that keeps the essential and necessary symbiotic relationship between labor and management in balance.

Yes....and no. In theory, yes. In practice, modern nationalized unions can and do choose to bring more firepower to the table than most of the employers they deal with. If you're talking a blanket deal for a Fortune 500 company, it's very a different situation and requires a very different strategy than when you're dealing with Joe's small to medium sized business. Which is why the one size fits all, full on barrage of the nationalized union can be so detrimental to its members.

The negotiators themselves also have no direct stake in the outcome. The members do, but the members aren't getting all of the information from both sides and making the big decisions. They only vote up or down on the final outcome.

So between the national backing they bring to the table and the lack of a direct link to the outcome, the unions really don't have to listen to the other side. You don't get a good outcome that way, any more than you did when it was management dictating to labor.

 

[Moon]

The threat of unionization is the only thing that keeps the essential and necessary symbiotic relationship between labor and management in balance.

Considering the low number of workers that are unionized, I'd have to say your statement is incorrect. I've worked in two manufacturing facilities in two different states where an attempt was made to bring unions in. Both attempts failed miserably because the workers didn't want them there.

 

[shintao]

I detect Shintao might be a union hack? I too have had a couple bad experiences with union workers...Out of the couple times I've ever dealt with them personally...Libs complain about a couple instances of violence in thousands of tea Party rallies, but ignore the fact that there is violence in every 2-3 union rallies...There should be a wage cap on union members...minimum wage + 20%...their original intent was to protect the most vulnerable workers...Fat ass plumbers, electicians, and auto workers, who make $35 an hour have destroyed the market for future fat ass plumbers, electricians, and auto workers.

Glew must be a scab corporate Hack? Yes, a proud Union member here.

 

[RadiomanATL]

You say you can see, so produce examples.

I just did.




In the majority of cases, if you are part of the union you can't back out and retain your job.




When a union forms, if you are part of the <50% who did not want to join, too bad in the majority of cases. Either you join or find a new job.



In my area, there are two major chain grocery stores. One is union, one is not. They have nearly identical benefit packages for their workers. Identical pay scales. Only difference is that the Union members see more money taken out of their check for union dues than the non-union store. For no extra benefits than the non-union store.



Yeah, thats a winner for the workers. Lets take more money away from those who can least afford to lose it.

Oh, well, you the capitalist, would have them working for free and no benefits, so................

[...........................]

1. Negative is my example? Huh?

2. Better benefits, wages, opportunities. Take your pick. Your question is akin to asking why would someone go work for someone else. It's all on an individual basis. You say you can't see why someone would work for a non-union shop. At least you admit you are blind.

3. A scab working for free and no benefits? Man, you really are full of hooey. A person works for a benefits package, part of which is compensation. You just said they do it for nothing. Are you embarrassed to be this stupid?

4. There is no additional benefits between the two employers. We're talking grocery clerks here. The pay scales are identical. The insurance is comparable. Although the non-union shop does close at night, allowing the employees to go home to be with their families, and is closed on Easter. The union shop is open 24 hours, and is open on Easter.

5. I would have them working for free and for no benefits? Sorry, you just lost the argument with that hyperbole. When you have no rational counter, just lie and accuse the other person of whatever bullshit strikes your fancy.

You lost. Good day.

 

[RadiomanATL]

LOL! No American can compete with a foreigner in the Global market.

On an individual basis?

On a collective basis.

When a first-world standard of living competes with a second or third world standard of living, there is only one possible outcome...eventual equilibrium.

That's a boon for the second or third world labor force as their standard of living rises, but it is a curse for the American labor force, as their standard of living must suffer an equivalent decline.

I was looking for shint's answer

 

[syrenn]

C
But the leaders should be workers and not a seperate group.

Bingo.

They are, for the most part, simply separate arbitration companies now.

And companies need customers. Therefore they will use means at their disposal to pressure workers to join unions.

Yep. My 70+ year old mother was forced to join the union where she works. She works because she wants to and typically puts in less than 10 hours per week, but she HAD to join the union, or else. So now the union takes like $4 a week out of her paycheck.

All they want are the dues. They don't care about your mother.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Union workers are out to get everything they can get.

Sounds like Corporations, not Unions. Unions will negotiate downward for the benefit of the corporation in hard times like this. They will work for 25% less than contracted if need be to help the corporation ~ just like GM Union workers did. But I might ask, why do you work if not to get all you can get? Are you a capitalist or defeatous? Maybe you should work for free?

As a result, union shops make the prices of what they produce go up.

I would have to see an example of this. Have a reference??

Also, the attitude of the union workers that I know suck. They are pretty demanding and will tell you what they won't do but seldom, if ever, do you hear one say what he will do. They are only interested in protecting their job so their sub-par performance will not get them fired. I think all unions should be outlawed.

Hmm, is there something wrong with protecting your employment? I have not seen sub-par performance, so show an example. Usually Union workers do more than nonunion workers, hence better pay & benefits. What other interest should a worker have than protecting his employment? Do you still have that job working for free & doing everything you can to quit? IF I followed your logic, that would be the case...........

Typical "Pro-union" bullshit. Do you guys all have a handbook you learn this speech from?

 

[shintao]

The formation of unions forced the hands of our labor department's guidelines. They were pushed into doing more for the labor force to more closely mirror union benefits.
Unions have since gone ape-shit crazy with their benefits.
By tacking on all these outrageous "legacy costs" they've priced us out of our own products.

Take the recent discussion of the CF bulbs and the banning of incandescents for example.
GE has had to lay off more than 500 workers because, with their current cost of labor, they won't be able to produce the new bulbs efficiently and would be cost prohibitive.
It's either pay $14 per bulb from ourselves or a buck or 2 from China.

LOL! No American can compete with a foreigner in the Global market.

On an individual basis?

TWO EQUALLY INDEPENDENT COMPETITIVE WORKERS. WHICH ONE WILL GET THE JOB?


CHINESE WORKER

AMERICAN WORKER

 

[daveman]

Unions have turned into what they were formed to protect workers from: Organizations driven by profit and the exploitation of workers.

They also serve to protect the incompetent and lazy.

 

[RadiomanATL]

LOL! No American can compete with a foreigner in the Global market.

On an individual basis?

TWO EQUALLY INDEPENDENT COMPETITIVE WORKERS. WHICH ONE WILL GET THE JOB?


CHINESE WORKER

AMERICAN WORKER

If that is the American worker's house, then he doesn't need to work again.

Oh. wait. You were just spouting off useless hyperbole again.

You may continue with your bullshit.

 

[daveman]

LOL! No American can compete with a foreigner in the Global market.

On an individual basis?

TWO EQUALLY INDEPENDENT COMPETITIVE WORKERS. WHICH ONE WILL GET THE JOB?


CHINESE WORKER

From the file name: Chinese_huts_from_19th_century-Arrowtown.jpg

AMERICAN WORKER

You think LeBron James is a typical American worker?

If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.