Unions good idea or got to go?

[BlaqueKatt]

seeing so many union workers being ousted recently in my home state due to unreasonable deamands, and companies "held hostage" by strikes, makes me think that they aren't really necessary anymore.

Unions were formed when jobs were unsafe, before OSHA(law enacted in 1970) and federal minimum wage. I kinda think they're time is over, all they really do now is line their own pockets, and secure jobs(due to seniority) for people that would be fired otherwise. I've seen people that make over $20-$30 an hour on strike because they want more, while I've worked two minimum wage jobs. I saw my stepfather stand on a picket line for $25 a day when his hourly wage was $27 while the union reps were given brand new cars by the union. I saw people jump at the chance to make half the hourly wage that striking workers said wasn't enough at Tyson. And now my local unionized supermarket is sending out flyers to get people to boycott the store because the "owner" wants the union out. His reasons are he has workers that don't work that he can't fire due to seniority and good workers that he has to let go, and the bad workers are getting the same wages as the good ones. The main issue is most of his better workers are immigrants, and don't want to join the union as they feel they should be judged on merit rather than time they've worked there. Sadly at that store I purposely go to the checkouts where I see the non-union uniform, as I know from experience shopping there for over 5 years, it will be a more pleasant transaction. The non-union employees are the ones that joke with you while scanning your groceries, are cheerful, and actually see to like being there, while the union employees sigh, roll their eyes, ignore you through the entire transaction, and act like you've inconvenienced them.

Toyota workers seeing what happened with the American automakers Chrysler and GM refuse to let the UAW anywhere near their plants in the US, and the UAW can't see past it's own greed to figure out why.

So what are your opinions?

[protege]

The word "union" is still a dirty one here in Pittsburgh, mainly because of what happened with the steel industry. Those fools wanted huge raises, and would threaten strikes whenever the topics of plant modernization came up, or if they felt their jobs were being threatened. Needless to say, because the mill companies were being constantly blocked...they couldn't cut costs to compete with steel from overseas. In other words, they basically killed our steel industry. Not to go unnoticed, for many years, one of the mills had "Union Yes" spray-painted on an overpass leading into town :rolleyes:

[AFPheonix]

Unions need an overhaul, yes, but they are still absolutely necessary to hold a balance between corporate and worker interest.

[Rapscallion]

For me, it depends on how they work.

Over here in the UK, one of the things Thatcher did that was good was to smash the power of the unions. Wildcat strikes brought companies to their knees and below, flying pickets went out on strike at unrelated companies to picket on another company's doorstep, and the owners/managers of companies often didn't run their own companies without fear of the union bringing the entire operation to a standstill. Left-wing firebrands ran the unions and saw the hated bosses as the enemy.

I'm not saying that the unions sometimes didn't have a case, but they had too much power.

Arthur Scargill went without pay for a year (or more - I forget the timescale) during the miner's strike when the UK was closing down pits left, right, and centre. He was leader of the NUM. The bosses were pointing out that foreign coal was so much cheaper, and he is on record pointing out that if the UK miners got the same level of subsidy as the foreign mines then he'd be able to give the coal free to the customer and a ten quid bonus on top. Time has dimmed the exact nature of the quote, but it was along those lines. Even with the union, though, the pits closed and entire towns fell to wasteland - they were the primary employers in many areas, and without the income the local economies fell to pieces.

Thatcher did away with huge amount of union power and exacted swinging retribution, but with the current system we have unions that occasionally strike, but generally get results from negotiation with the employers. We're talking twenty years on, but it's no longer getting up in the morning and wondering who's on strike this time. Other social advances, such as the minimum wage, have improved worker conditions.

There's now a reasonable balance over here. I'm in a union - I'm not an active member, and I only occasionally turn up to meetings, but what I do see is good. If a worker has a grievance against the company, the union will help. The union has sponsored extra nightschool classes for workers from the union dues. The union has a health and safety rep recognised by the company. There are external courses to help people further their education.

I don't know how the unions are at other companies, but if a union's run like the one I'm in then they can be a powerful force for good in little ways that don't grab the headlines.

Of note, however, is the reinforcement of a theory of mine. Humans have a habit of forming social structures for the best reasons, and then the next generation come along and try to get as much power for themselves as possible.

Rapscallion

[powerboy]

For a member that belonged to a Union. They should stay. But only if they are actually for the employees.

[lordlundar]

Unions were originally meant to give a voice to the working stiffs against corporate abuse and to give them a fair deal during a negotiation. In that concept, not only do I think they should exist, but in cases like Wal-Mart and Best Buy (both notorious for at best ignoring their staff) it should be mandatory.

The problem is a large amount of unions these days are no better than the corporations they are supposed to stand against. Their only mandate it to maintain their own stature at the expense of their members who can only leave the union by quitting their job and in some cases finding a completely different line of work.

To be honest (and at the risk of a thread derailment:p) I see those types of unions as no better than the RIAA, MPAA or ESA. They only react to things that are a direct threat to their own sustainability, but do jack shit for any of their members.

[CancelMyService]

The unions didn't kill the steel industry in Pittsburgh, it was the start of what we know now as outsourcing. Not to mention one of the first things done when the Reagan administration took over was large scale union busting on all levels. The steel industry as Pittsburgh knew it wasn't going to last forever, and if anything, the unions overplayed their hand by trying to get their workers as much as they could before shit hit the fan. It's not as if the mills would still be going if they never were unionized. It may have stumbled on for another few years with guys making less and less money, but the end result would have been the same.

Blaming the unions when companies move jobs overseas is classic anti-union FUD seen time and time again. Management gets offended that the peons want more than the (usually shit) wages and benefits offered and decide to send jobs to a place where they can pay 1/3 the salary. Then they turn around and say the mean ol' unions made them do it. Imagine if that would have happend back when unions helped establish labor laws/overtime laws/40 hour work weeks. We would all be working 80 our weeks for pennies an hour because people would think it was a terrible thing to unionize.

[protege]

<i>the unions overplayed their hand by trying to get their workers as much as they could before shit hit the fan.</i>

Sounds like they did it to me--they got greedy, and started looking out for their own interests instead of their members. Plenty of stories abound how the union didn't take care of its members after the mills closed. Oh, and you do realize that the jobs weren't truly outsourced? These foreign companies weren't US subsidiaries. Nope, our factories found that they could buy steel cheaper from someone else.

[CancelMyService]

I know that the asshole who owned the steel mill my dad worked for raided the pension fund and ran, and if it wasn't for the union he would have had approximately $0 for 36 years of work. As it is, my mom only gets $122 a month, which was the result of the union dogging him for every last cent they could find.


Also, getting cheaper labor from foreign companies = outsourcing. That's why factories were able to get steel cheaper, they bought it from countries where workers were paid peanuts and worked to death. I'd wager those folks wished they had someone looking out for them.

[Boozy]

The idea behind unions is solid, and despite recent excesses and abuse of power, I am really loathe to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I work for a subsidiary of a multi-million dollar company. I'm part-time, so I don't make much. Let's use the round figure of $10,000 as my annual salary. My company's revenue in fiscal 2008 was about $500 million.

If we get into a legal dispute over the terms of my employment, what chances do I have? Even if I could afford to use a part of my meager earnings to pay a lawyer, what quality of lawyer will that be? My company, on the other hand, already has a team of lawyers on staff.

I'm out-gunned, unless my fellow employees and I decide to join forces and even the playing field a bit. Collective bargaining balances the scales.

As with any sort of organization, there are good ones and bad ones. But to say "all unions are evil" is shortsighted. There's also a serious media bias on this issue, and that's partly where anti-union sentiment comes from. Stories about unions improving the lives of hard-working people don't make it to the news. These stories are missing the "outrage" factor that people seem to like so much. Everyone knows when a union has become corrupted or ineffective or greedy, but no one will ever hear about the ones that work.

[Scamper]

Unions are awesome! Studebaker needed to shut down! </sarcasm>
The only thing worse than a union is the conditions that make unions necessary. I've seen people striking because the union wanted more money/benefits, when I would have happily took the job at half what they were making. As for the 40 hour work week, I've never seen one, and would have no problem with a 60 hr/wk position making 2/3 pay.

[CancelMyService]

You realize how you end up stating the reason unions are needed, right? You've never seen a 40 hour work week? You'd work more hours for less money? How dare people want better pay and benefits, why they should take the peanuts management would want to pay them and be happy for the privledge!

Why are some people so offended at the concept of people wanting to better themselves?

[linguist]

my personal experience with unions is that they are in the business of making money, and nothing more. i seriously considered joining one several years ago while working at a company in which union and non-union employees worked side by side. joining looked great on the surface--more stability, higher pay, etc. but then i started really looking at things and it didn't look so good any more. the union insurance was crap, and was more expensive than what i was already being provided. by the time union dues and such were taken from my check, i'd have been making less than i was making as a non-union employee. sick and vacation time, which i was given by my employer, would have to be "purchased," even more out of my check. but the real kicker was that the union refused to take my years of experience outside the union into account, and wanted to start me at the bottom of the union pay scale, which was less than half of what i was making. that is, unless i agreed to buy my way to journeyman status, a cost of several thousand dollars.

even the stability issue didn't work out so well, as when my plant shut down the non-union employees, free from being bound to work in a union shop, were able to be transferred elswhere in the company, while the majority of the union crew were layed off, and a number of those i was friends with were out of work for a year or more before the union found them another job.

[BlaqueKatt]

How dare people want better pay and benefits, why they should take the peanuts management would want to pay them and be happy for the privledge!

the GM plant closing here in WI wages were $36 an hour for unskilled labor-that's hardly peanuts-my husband with his college degree makes less than $15-working in his field(IT work)

Why are some people so offended at the concept of people wanting to better themselves?

And here they really weren't "bettering themselves"-they were buying huge McMansions, numerous cars, and now whining because they'll have to work-gasp a $9-$12 and hour job because they have no marketable skills(unskilled labor). The article in question had the now-laid off workers saying anything less than $30/hour was beneath them to even bother working/applying.

How would you feel if someone with less skills than you have said a job paying three times what you make an hour was beneath them because it didn't pay enough? It's insulting, they basically said that my job fixing their cell phone bills when they screw up was beneath them, or my current job at a lab that tests food for bacteria, is beneath them, and worthy of contempt.

Trust me my job is quite important, unless you like your food with a side of salmonella, and a dash of listeria and e. coli. I make $10 an hour to ensure you* have safe food on your table at home and in a restaurant.

*yes this is a general you, we test for local, national, and international companies, chances are something in your house right now(or something you've eaten i the past month at least) has had a sample pass through my hands.

[CancelMyService]

Perhaps instead of condemning them as evil because they got other places more money, your job should be unionized to get you a better wage as well. ll

Even if you look at it from the most cynical view possible, at least unions have an interest in getting workers paid more even if you feel its only so they can get more dues. Management wouldn't even pay a minimum wage if labor laws fought for by unions didn't exist.

Basically whatever income you get (even minus what the union takes) is better than you would get if they never were around and the compensation was left to management.

[Difdi]

I once had the "opportunity" to join the Teamsters union (for reasons unknown, that literally no one could answer, the Teamsters was the only union in a bottling plant). My job was not a union-only job, but it was optional for me to join (some jobs at the plant, you couldn't get hired for without joining).

After looking at it and weighing costs vs benefits, I declined. Why? Because I'd have been spending 97% of my after-taxes paycheck on union dues, while working too few hours to receive any benefits if laid off.

[Shangri-laschild]

Unions being good or bad depend soley on the workers in the and the reps in charge. I'm in a union right now actually. It has it's good and bad things about it. It's harder to fire someone (good for me if I make a mistake, bad for the rest of us when the bad worker can't just be canned right away). If the company and the union are on fairly good terms or at least can be civil, it works out nicely for all. The union bargans for the best for it's members. The company bargans for what's best for the company, and best case senario is that they meet in the middle where it's the best compromise.

Of course, when the union is a bad one, it doesn't work like this. Also, when it's a bad company, it's harder for the union to seem good sometimes.