'Lean In' All You Want -- But If You Want a Better Job, Unionize!

[Lakhota]

By Brigid O'Farrell

Women at companies should consider spending their time organizing to have a say in their workplace.

OK, Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg didn’t say “join a union.” But that’s the message the vast majority of working women should be considering this Women’s History Month. The best way for the most women to improve their working lives is through a union.

The new PBS documentary Makers: Women Who Make America shows how the women's movement changed the workplace for women, men and families. Two of the young Makers highlighted in the film, Sheryl Sandberg at Facebook and Marissa Mayer at Yahoo, now dominate the news. Here's what neither of them tell you: union women earn more than non-union women and have better benefits and working conditions.

Women at Facebook and Yahoo should consider spending their time organizing to have a say in their workplace.

More: 'Lean In' All You Want -- But If You Want a Better Job, Unionize! (What the CEOS of Facebook and Yahoo! Won't Tell You)

MAKERS

 

[Agit8r]

Free trade and internal protectionism between the states has made unionizing much more difficult than what it once was. I think that cooperative enterprise is a more feasible alternative in the global economy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The women who became billionaires by free enterprise are urging women to become unemployed and face less opportunity by unionizing....um, yeah

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Prosperity for me, but not for thee -- Sheryl

 

[Nole]

the job I do as a represented employee (Union member) hourly wage can go from 35$-50$ an hour. A unrepresented employee doing the same job might see 15$-20$ an hour. Represented employees also can take the company to take over benefit cuts if they are attempted, you actually have a say, it's not just up to some Master degree holding bloated ego asshat.

 

[candycorn]

By Brigid O'Farrell

Women at companies should consider spending their time organizing to have a say in their workplace.

OK, Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg didn’t say “join a union.” But that’s the message the vast majority of working women should be considering this Women’s History Month. The best way for the most women to improve their working lives is through a union.

The new PBS documentary Makers: Women Who Make America shows how the women's movement changed the workplace for women, men and families. Two of the young Makers highlighted in the film, Sheryl Sandberg at Facebook and Marissa Mayer at Yahoo, now dominate the news. Here's what neither of them tell you: union women earn more than non-union women and have better benefits and working conditions.

Women at Facebook and Yahoo should consider spending their time organizing to have a say in their workplace.

More: 'Lean In' All You Want -- But If You Want a Better Job, Unionize! (What the CEOS of Facebook and Yahoo! Won't Tell You)

MAKERS

Unions are the ones who deserve most of the blame for unions losing ground over the last 40 years. When I graduated high school, I received letters from colleges trying to recruit me as a place to spend my parent's as well as my scholarships. I was "recruited" by the military numerous times in high school and received quite a few informational packets from the military--especially the Army. When I graduated college, professional organizations such as APICS, alumni groups, and yes the military came calling once more. Never, not once, did anyone from the AFL-CIO avail themselves of my church, my university, my high school, the various clubs I belonged to, the various functions I've attended, and/or the freakin postal service to do what we call and "outreach" to get new members or, at the very least, have a presence and present an option.

While it's true that business owners are likely, as a group, the most anti-union, the unions themselves have done a poor job of recruiting and, at the end of the day, if you're not gaining 2 members for every one you lose due to retirement, death, dis-satisfaction...you're losing ground.

 

[editec]

Free trade and internal protectionism between the states has made unionizing much more difficult than what it once was. I think that cooperative enterprise is a more feasible alternative in the global economy.

Spot on.

The Wobblies understood this and saw where we were headed nearly 100 years ago.

 

[martybegan]

By Brigid O'Farrell

Women at companies should consider spending their time organizing to have a say in their workplace.

OK, Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg didn’t say “join a union.” But that’s the message the vast majority of working women should be considering this Women’s History Month. The best way for the most women to improve their working lives is through a union.

The new PBS documentary Makers: Women Who Make America shows how the women's movement changed the workplace for women, men and families. Two of the young Makers highlighted in the film, Sheryl Sandberg at Facebook and Marissa Mayer at Yahoo, now dominate the news. Here's what neither of them tell you: union women earn more than non-union women and have better benefits and working conditions.

Women at Facebook and Yahoo should consider spending their time organizing to have a say in their workplace.

More: 'Lean In' All You Want -- But If You Want a Better Job, Unionize! (What the CEOS of Facebook and Yahoo! Won't Tell You)

MAKERS

If you are a strong, competent worker who wants to provide cover for the slackers that make up the union leadership and dead weights who use the union to do nothing while keeping thier jobs, Unionize!

 

[candycorn]

By Brigid O'Farrell

Women at companies should consider spending their time organizing to have a say in their workplace.

OK, Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg didn’t say “join a union.” But that’s the message the vast majority of working women should be considering this Women’s History Month. The best way for the most women to improve their working lives is through a union.

The new PBS documentary Makers: Women Who Make America shows how the women's movement changed the workplace for women, men and families. Two of the young Makers highlighted in the film, Sheryl Sandberg at Facebook and Marissa Mayer at Yahoo, now dominate the news. Here's what neither of them tell you: union women earn more than non-union women and have better benefits and working conditions.

Women at Facebook and Yahoo should consider spending their time organizing to have a say in their workplace.

More: 'Lean In' All You Want -- But If You Want a Better Job, Unionize! (What the CEOS of Facebook and Yahoo! Won't Tell You)

MAKERS

If you are a strong, competent worker who wants to provide cover for the slackers that make up the union leadership and dead weights who use the union to do nothing while keeping thier jobs, Unionize!

I'm sure that happens some times.

But generally what I've seen is this: We don't have a union shop here...

One of our hospitals used to have 12 RNs in Post-OP. We now have 6 RNs. Do we have 1/2 as many patients? No. Our census has seldom been higher than it was in 2012. This year is continuing the trend. What is happening? Six RNs are doing the work of 12 RNs. So as a result, turnover is ebbing upward. Pay has gone up but not relative to doing--this is where the math becomes complicated--2? times the work? I say "2?" because the 6 nurses that were let go were supposedly inferior to the 6 that remained. So if the 6 remaining RNs were doing more, the multiplier is not exactly 2...it's possibly/probably/maybe/could be 1.5 to 1.75 as much as you were doing.

The point (murky though it may be) is that the 6 remaining RNs are doing more than they were when there were 12 here and not getting paid commensurate (sp?) to their output.

If a union has a place, it is to prevent such "exploitation". Your example of workers contributing zero is a fallacy. Put another way, I'd rather have a co-worker producing 50% of their forecasted production than have to do her entire job for her. Of course, I'd rather have a co-worker producing 100%.

 

[martybegan]

More: 'Lean In' All You Want -- But If You Want a Better Job, Unionize! (What the CEOS of Facebook and Yahoo! Won't Tell You)

MAKERS

If you are a strong, competent worker who wants to provide cover for the slackers that make up the union leadership and dead weights who use the union to do nothing while keeping thier jobs, Unionize!

I'm sure that happens some times.

But generally what I've seen is this: We don't have a union shop here...

One of our hospitals used to have 12 RNs in Post-OP. We now have 6 RNs. Do we have 1/2 as many patients? No. Our census has seldom been higher than it was in 2012. This year is continuing the trend. What is happening? Six RNs are doing the work of 12 RNs. So as a result, turnover is ebbing upward. Pay has gone up but not relative to doing--this is where the math becomes complicated--2? times the work? I say "2?" because the 6 nurses that were let go were supposedly inferior to the 6 that remained. So if the 6 remaining RNs were doing more, the multiplier is not exactly 2...it's possibly/probably/maybe/could be 1.5 to 1.75 as much as you were doing.

The point (murky though it may be) is that the 6 remaining RNs are doing more than they were when there were 12 here and not getting paid commensurate (sp?) to their output.

If a union has a place, it is to prevent such "exploitation". Your example of workers contributing zero is a fallacy. Put another way, I'd rather have a co-worker producing 50% of their forecasted production than have to do her entire job for her. Of course, I'd rather have a co-worker producing 100%.

That is the issue people now have with unions, mostly public sector unions. I work for a consultant that works for a government agency, and there is alot of dead weight in the agency, but they can;t get rid of them.

Today laws are in place to prevent exploitation, and the unions won that. The problem is to keep thier existance relavent they now have to stoop to defending idiots that would have been glady fired 50 years ago, just to prove they are still "valuable" to the employees they represent.

 

[bripat9643]

Free trade and internal protectionism between the states has made unionizing much more difficult than what it once was. I think that cooperative enterprise is a more feasible alternative in the global economy.

Spot on.

The Wobblies understood this and saw where we were headed nearly 100 years ago.

The Wobblies too orders directly from Stalin.

 

[candycorn]

If you are a strong, competent worker who wants to provide cover for the slackers that make up the union leadership and dead weights who use the union to do nothing while keeping thier jobs, Unionize!

I'm sure that happens some times.

But generally what I've seen is this: We don't have a union shop here...

One of our hospitals used to have 12 RNs in Post-OP. We now have 6 RNs. Do we have 1/2 as many patients? No. Our census has seldom been higher than it was in 2012. This year is continuing the trend. What is happening? Six RNs are doing the work of 12 RNs. So as a result, turnover is ebbing upward. Pay has gone up but not relative to doing--this is where the math becomes complicated--2? times the work? I say "2?" because the 6 nurses that were let go were supposedly inferior to the 6 that remained. So if the 6 remaining RNs were doing more, the multiplier is not exactly 2...it's possibly/probably/maybe/could be 1.5 to 1.75 as much as you were doing.

The point (murky though it may be) is that the 6 remaining RNs are doing more than they were when there were 12 here and not getting paid commensurate (sp?) to their output.

If a union has a place, it is to prevent such "exploitation". Your example of workers contributing zero is a fallacy. Put another way, I'd rather have a co-worker producing 50% of their forecasted production than have to do her entire job for her. Of course, I'd rather have a co-worker producing 100%.

That is the issue people now have with unions, mostly public sector unions. I work for a consultant that works for a government agency, and there is alot of dead weight in the agency, but they can;t get rid of them.

Today laws are in place to prevent exploitation, and the unions won that. The problem is to keep thier existance relavent they now have to stoop to defending idiots that would have been glady fired 50 years ago, just to prove they are still "valuable" to the employees they represent.

It depends on what you or the authorities call exploitation I suppose in terms of application of the law. Application of justice, on the other hand is in the eyes of the worker. The DONs have had to become creative in trying to retain workers. But that only goes so far.

You're right (mostly). Unions have become almost a 3rd party instead of a conduit between labor and mangement. I'm still waiting for a union wrecker driver or union used car salesmen to put the levels of disgust into a high earth orbit.

Still though, the notion that workers are better off without union representation is garbage. Wage stagnation over the last several years is a hallmark sign of this. Nevertheless, the party responsible for transmitting the value of unionization are the unions themselves and they have been asleep at the switch for what amounts to two generations.

I've often talked about my grandfather on this board who was a Southern Democrat in the Zell Miller mold. He was a proud union man who was stunned that I wasn't in a union--I think he was a shop steward even. It was the first time I ever had a "gotcha" moment with the great man that he was but I pointed out stuff from my earlier post in this thread about how those that have administered unions across the board have basically abandoned everything except for hardball tactics and collecting dues. It would be a lot like the Army getting out of the recruiting business. You can be bad at training, bad at tactics, bad at being an agent for your members, and bad at collecting dues and still survive...however you can't do any of the above without workers; it's the one thing that you absolutely MUST DO to survive and the unions suck at it.

Anyway O.D. (the initials he went by) agreed with me when I pointed out the lack of presence that the unions now have and it was one of those rare "Ah-Ha" moments you come across in life.

 

[martybegan]

I'm sure that happens some times.

But generally what I've seen is this: We don't have a union shop here...

One of our hospitals used to have 12 RNs in Post-OP. We now have 6 RNs. Do we have 1/2 as many patients? No. Our census has seldom been higher than it was in 2012. This year is continuing the trend. What is happening? Six RNs are doing the work of 12 RNs. So as a result, turnover is ebbing upward. Pay has gone up but not relative to doing--this is where the math becomes complicated--2? times the work? I say "2?" because the 6 nurses that were let go were supposedly inferior to the 6 that remained. So if the 6 remaining RNs were doing more, the multiplier is not exactly 2...it's possibly/probably/maybe/could be 1.5 to 1.75 as much as you were doing.

The point (murky though it may be) is that the 6 remaining RNs are doing more than they were when there were 12 here and not getting paid commensurate (sp?) to their output.

If a union has a place, it is to prevent such "exploitation". Your example of workers contributing zero is a fallacy. Put another way, I'd rather have a co-worker producing 50% of their forecasted production than have to do her entire job for her. Of course, I'd rather have a co-worker producing 100%.

That is the issue people now have with unions, mostly public sector unions. I work for a consultant that works for a government agency, and there is alot of dead weight in the agency, but they can;t get rid of them.

Today laws are in place to prevent exploitation, and the unions won that. The problem is to keep thier existance relavent they now have to stoop to defending idiots that would have been glady fired 50 years ago, just to prove they are still "valuable" to the employees they represent.

It depends on what you or the authorities call exploitation I suppose in terms of application of the law. Application of justice, on the other hand is in the eyes of the worker. The DONs have had to become creative in trying to retain workers. But that only goes so far.

You're right (mostly). Unions have become almost a 3rd party instead of a conduit between labor and mangement. I'm still waiting for a union wrecker driver or union used car salesmen to put the levels of disgust into a high earth orbit.

Still though, the notion that workers are better off without union representation is garbage. Wage stagnation over the last several years is a hallmark sign of this. Nevertheless, the party responsible for transmitting the value of unionization are the unions themselves and they have been asleep at the switch for what amounts to two generations.

I've often talked about my grandfather on this board who was a Southern Democrat in the Zell Miller mold. He was a proud union man who was stunned that I wasn't in a union--I think he was a shop steward even. It was the first time I ever had a "gotcha" moment with the great man that he was but I pointed out stuff from my earlier post in this thread about how those that have administered unions across the board have basically abandoned everything except for hardball tactics and collecting dues. It would be a lot like the Army getting out of the recruiting business. You can be bad at training, bad at tactics, bad at being an agent for your members, and bad at collecting dues and still survive...however you can't do any of the above without workers; it's the one thing that you absolutely MUST DO to survive and the unions suck at it.

Anyway O.D. (the initials he went by) agreed with me when I pointed out the lack of presence that the unions now have and it was one of those rare "Ah-Ha" moments you come across in life.

If you want to place blame on wage stagnation, particularly in the private sector, one should look in the explosion in regulatory costs that have happened in the past 30 years.

The fact is, even a 10 fold increase in CEO pay does not suck up all the money out there, nor does the usual profit that goes to stockholders. But look at the increase in the staff and time needed to meet the myriad of federal, state and local regulations, and you may see why wages have gone down. its a simple as those who actually produce something share thier salaries with those who make sure they follow all these new regs government keeps pumping out.

 

[SuMar]

State Senator Jason Crowell of Southeast Missouri's 27th Senate District, has introduced a Senate Bill, that would make Missouri a Right to Work State, if passed, into law. Seeing that union membership is dropping goes to show folks are tired of the union thugs and the fact that the unions are an ATM for the democratic party.

Labor Union Membership Drops to Record Low video from Answers.com Videos​

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If You Want a Better Job, Unionize!

Unions drove 30 million America jobs offshore so they should be made illegal again!! Unions don't give you a better job, they give you no job at all!!!


See why we are 100% sure a liberal will be slow???

 

[BillyV]

the job I do as a represented employee (Union member) hourly wage can go from 35$-50$ an hour. A unrepresented employee doing the same job might see 15$-20$ an hour. Represented employees also can take the company to take over benefit cuts if they are attempted, you actually have a say, it's not just up to some Master degree holding bloated ego asshat.

Yes, because nothing says success like bargaining for equal wages and benefits with the lowest common denominator. Why not try to be the "Master degree holding bloated ego asshat"? That is much more rewarding both monetarily and in terms of "having a say".

 

[SuMar]

[ame=http://youtu.be/u_F3oev06i0]UNIONS ASSAULT ON CAMERA!! - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://youtu.be/3nLnQMoteUA]Union thugs attempt to create dangerous work condition in Halifax Mass - YouTube.flv - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the job I do as a represented employee (Union member) hourly wage can go from 35$-50$ an hour. A unrepresented employee doing the same job might see 15$-20$ an hour. Represented employees also can take the company to take over benefit cuts if they are attempted, you actually have a say, it's not just up to some Master degree holding bloated ego asshat.

Sorry but you're essentially a liberal thug and a thief. You rip off employers with union thug violence then everyone else has to pay higher prices for the union junk you make. Plus, a lot of folks lose jobs because at those rip off wages you ship millions of jobs off shore!!

Suppose all wages and prices were set by union thug violence? Is that the kind of liberal world you want to live in?? The rest of us are honest peaceful folks who engage in voluntary and peaceful economic transaction where both buyer and seller agree on prices and wages without liberal violence.