Unions. Whats Your Opinion?

[MrFun]

Yeah . . . . . like, unions are the ultimate evil, trying to look after the interests of the common workers and all.



Why do we need unions when we should all be naive enough to believe that management and executives have the best interests at heart for their employees.

[Kontiki]

I work for a completely non-unionized company in a completely non-unionized industry. Short of doing something grossly illegal, it would be very difficult for me to actually get fired. Same thing goes with everybody in my immediate work area, down to all the admin assistants. We all get annual pay increases above the rate of inflation and bonuses based on division and corporate performance. Our employment equity standards across the board are at least as good as any unionized environment I've ever heard of. And I could move over to just about any one of our competitors and be in a very similar situation.

Yeah - executives and management (oh wait - I'm management) are universally evil, just waiting to screw over the bottom feeding employees as fast as possible.

That isn't to say that I think unions should be disbanded, just that they aren't the holy grail of goodness against tyranical corporations some people hold them out to be.

I would also suggest that most (not all!) of the ardent supporters of unions here have either A) never worked in a unionized environment or B) never held any real type of job.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Verres
I would seriously question the motives of any government that wants to get rid of Unions.

Cutting costs? Governments are fast realising that voters want lower taxes and better services, above most else. The only way to do this is to become more efficient, which usually ends up meaning job cuts, which will be staunchly opposed by unions.

Originally posted by Oerdin
If Unions push for reasonable demands such as safe working conditions and reasonable pay raises then they are a good thing but if they fight all job cuts no matter how needed they are or if they demand pay raises which far out stripe inflation then they can be a very, very bad thing.

The problem is in a closed shop there is no competetion and this often leads union bosses to make unreasonable demands which the market place can't support.

I admit the reasons for private sector unions, but I still think in the public sector they do a hell of a lot more harm than good. All unions seem to do in the public sector is strike for inflation busting wages and to stop job cuts. I agree on the first, public sector workers deserve to be paid more. However job cuts are necessary to modernise our horrendously outdated public services. Whether modernisation includes job cuts or not I don't really mind, but public services must become more efficient, and this is being bloked by unions like the FBU, the RMT, etc. who want to safeguard jobs at all cost. The trouble is that's cost to the taxpayer, in waste. There are far far better ways to reduce poverty than unions.

I agree with Laz that unions have got us much legislation, and that's a valuble job, and a big plus. I also think we have a bit further to go, but that's all legislation. We don't need unions for that, we need legislation.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You think so?

How hard it is to fire a bunch of, say, bus drivers who have been around for years and hire new ones at a lower wage level?

Would they be as good, without the experience? If so, why should they pay the other bus drivers more, when someone can do an equally good job for less money? Supply and demand, if there's someone that can do as good a job for less money, they'll get the job. However, wages do usually rise with experience, as more experience tends to make you better at your job.

If the new drivers aren't as good, then the company has a choice, of whether the current drivers are worth the extra. If the new drivers are as good, then why would they be paying more money for other drivers that don't give them any better results? The idea of supply and demand is that you get paid what you're worth to that company.

What's to stop a worker deciding he can get more money elsewhere and leaving to get a better job. I don't begrudge a worker who changes jobs because he's offered more money by a competator, the same way I don't begrudge a company changing workers because they can find as good or better workers cheaper. Supply and demand, the company pays what the worker is worth to them. If this is skewed, because there is only one company employing in that field, for example, then unions and collective bargaining is needed to correct that market failure.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It depends on where the inefficiency is.

Well no. In the long term, inefficiency, wherever it is, will reduce productivity, and thus average income. It may make it a more equitable distribution, but it will mean there is less to distribute.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


In the UK? Pressed for the expansion of anti-discrimination measures for women, the disabled, homosexuals and transgenders- with marked success. Worked for (and achieved) a great deal of "dignity at work" measures in modern environments such as call centres. Established employment resources and advice for workers getting laid off. They've driven forward health & safety measures around RSI and DSE use.

Do you want more? I could give loads, but how many do you need before you consider the point to be made?

I don't know much about UK unions but in my kneck of the woods if they're doing anything good it certainly isn't advertised.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I would also suggest that most (not all!) of the ardent supporters of unions here have either A) never worked in a unionized environment or B) never held any real type of job.

I must concur, however, this isn't surprising since most people who post on poly are in school and have never held a real job.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Agathon


And capitalism is a system that is set to keep wages low and jobs insecure.

wrong, capitalism lets the market decide.

Right now, with a plethora of cheap labor,reasonable security of investment overseas,etc, makes wages low and jobs insecure. I also see in Ramo's first post "instead of fighting for higher wages... they fight for protectionism and anti-immigration" How exactly are they going to fight for that with the situations there are now? Boeing left washington state because of this crap(and because of some incentives for moving out of the US...), they will build most of the parts in their airplanes outside of the US,and the few parts that are built here will be built in Non-union states.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whoha
I also see in Ramo's first post "instead of fighting for higher wages... they fight for protectionism and anti-immigration" How exactly are they going to fight for that with the situations there are now? Boeing left washington state because of this crap(and because of some incentives for moving out of the US...), they will build most of the parts in their airplanes outside of the US,and the few parts that are built here will be built in Non-union states.

Which is what happens when a country gets rich and it can't justify it's high wages. It's the world equalising itself, somewhat. The US gets rich, so it's workers demand more, so companies go overseas, so other countries grow faster and catch up. Capitalism isn't inherantly unequal, indeed, it usually works out the opposite. If you can get good workers for less money abroad than in America, it makes sense to do it. WHen it's equalised itself, enough companies going abroad and employing people over there, they'll be competition abroad, and so wages will rise there, until companies stop going. Then you have an equilibrium

[Whoha]

The companies go overseas for production but still seek to charge US prices. If US wages aren't justifiable, US Prices aren't either.

You also assume that those countries will buy our products in return when they "get rich". Europe,SK,and Japan all dispell this myth, they all run large trade surpluses with us.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I can see that most of those with poor opinions of unions don't show signs of experience with modern unions, so here's some more stuff.

My own union has just revamped its academy. This is a free service aimed at improving adult education and job skills- it'll teach them how to do a good CV, make presentations and do interviews, as well as offering consultancy services to give 1-to-1 advice on job issues. It also offers scholarships in non-work related qualifications for adults.

The reason for this is that my union acknowledges that modern labour is more mobile/transient than before, and that "jobs for life" is not such a relevant concept these days. Therefore the role of the union is to help them at work, and offer them opportunities in whatever the future may bring.

Does that fit in with the images of Unions being put forward by some here?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whoha
The companies go overseas for production but still seek to charge US prices. If US wages aren't justifiable, US Prices aren't either.

You're right. And when/if wages have fallen, due to outsourcing, prices will have to follow. But prices usually follow wages, because it takes a little while to hit.

Originally posted by Whoha
You also assume that those countries will buy our products in return when they "get rich". Europe,SK,and Japan all dispell this myth, they all run large trade surpluses with us.

Nope, I don't need to assume that. Whether or not that buy US products, they will get richer because US companies are employing them, and US companies will continue to employ them until their wage rate rises enough to make it more feasable to employ Americans. It's making them richer compared to the US, and will continue to do so, until they are closer to the UK in wage rate.

However these nations haven't got rich yet, not in the way of the US. I'm refering to outsourcing to countries with lower wages - India, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc.

The US is richer than those countries (bar Japan, but Japan is insular in products, because it's mostly ahead, and has very individual taste, as well as exporting a lot), and as such, is more likely to buy expensive foreign goods. That's why you have a trade deficit compared to Europe and Japan. When US prices are lower than ours, we'll buy them. Until then, we're not rich enough to afford them.

The richer a country is, usually the more it imports. But that's a side point. Outsourcing is about labour, and prices at home, not about imports. I don't need to assume those

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Drogue

Which is what happens when a country gets rich and it can't justify it's high wages. It's the world equalising itself, somewhat. The US gets rich, so it's workers demand more, so companies go overseas, so other countries grow faster and catch up. Capitalism isn't inherantly unequal, indeed, it usually works out the opposite. If you can get good workers for less money abroad than in America, it makes sense to do it. WHen it's equalised itself, enough companies going abroad and employing people over there, they'll be competition abroad, and so wages will rise there, until companies stop going. Then you have an equilibrium

Or, alternatively, while the sheep are outsourcing to Bangalore, the smart money are using their key staff here to switch to automated processes, work-streaming technology and the internet. Thereby obtaining even greater efficiencies without the expensive start-up costs of outsourcing, retaining the smart staff and avoiding the customer backlash that outsourcing causes.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Or, alternatively, while the sheep are outsourcing to Bangalore, the smart money are using their key staff here to switch to automated processes, work-streaming technology and the internet. Thereby obtaining even greater efficiencies without the expensive start-up costs of outsourcing, retaining the smart staff and avoiding the customer backlash that outsourcing causes.

actually those "sheep" in India,China,et all get the Indian market to sell to as well as the US market. See the "India outsources to the US" article a while back? 750 million dollars for IBM, only catch is that all of it had to stay in India. There is no reason what so ever for that policy to change once India "gets rich".

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Outsourcing deserves a thread of its own, as it's fairly marginal to the issue of unions.

[Whoha]

You are right, back to the thread at hand, I support the worker's right to choose whether they want to work for a union or not. I don't like this crap of forcing people into them, and don't like unions in general.