Are Labor Unions standing up for the rights of American workers or are they holding back our economy from reaching its full potential?

Union's are organizations that operate on the principle of collective bargaining, where workers organize themselves along either trades or industries to protect their collective interests at the negotiating table. How can it possibly be a bad thing for the working class to try to protect itself? If you question whether the working class's interests conflict with "economic development", then ask whose interests are being served and whether or not it is really the sort of "economic development" a democratic society ought to have.

I think that we need unions more now than ever, if at least too keep the corporate scum we have running the country now in check (Ken Lay, Michael Milken, Niel Bush, Dick Cheney, and so on). But one thing unions are doing really positive is starting to spend money over seas to organize third world countries, and expose groups like K mart and Nike etc for running slave labor camps basically. It is sad to say, but unions are the only check and balance in runaway corporate power.

I live in Southern California where, you might have heard, many of the large Super- Market employees are on strike. The strike was initiated in response to the corporation's change to its employees' medical benefits. As part of the change, employees will now have to pay for half of their medical insurance. How dare they!
Effective January 2003, my employer did the same thing. Due to the rapidly increasing costs of insurance in this country, it's one of the steps that management feels is necessary to remain competitive in the market. Since I want to keep my job, I have to deal with the extra expense.

Each year "Mom and Pop" grocery stores nationwide are forced out of business due to their inability to compete with Super-Market prices. What happens if the Super-Markets can no longer offer its products at "bargain-basement low prices?" They can't raise their prices or the Mom and Pop groceries might come back. Either way, layoffs are the result. So while employees don't have to pay for any of their medical insurance, some of them are losing their jobs. Thanks Unions!

When I go to the small grocery store around the corner, I notice the employees appear to be between 16-23 years old. But yet when I shop at Ralph's or Vons or Albertsons I notice the employees to be between 18-60. At the small grocery store most of the workers make minimum wage and probably view their job as a way to make some spending money while going to school. At the large grocery stores, where the union protects employees, they can stay employed indefinitely and earn a wage in which they can live quite comfortably (I know a few). The workers at the small grocery store are forced to find a better paying job, which will usually demand that they learn some sort of new skill. Meanwhile, back at the Super-Market, "Why should I go to school and learn a new skill when the Union will make sure that Ralph's pays me a pretty decent wage?" Ten years later, when she is laid off, she is dumped into the work force without any marketable skills. Now she gets Unemployment Insurance, Yeah!!

The quality of service I receive at the small grocery store is equal to that of the Super-Market. Why should the Super-Market be forced to pay much higher salaries for the same labor? Do only those employed at large Super-Markets deserve the protection of a Union? What about workers at the small grocery store? They seem to progress into the working force just fine without the protection. Just as I did.

The argument that if workers aren't payed less in benefits or wages, some will have to be layed off, is silly. If a corporation is actually losing money (as opposed to making a profit but laying people off to get even more money) then they should think about laying off five executives instead of five hundread workers to recover the same amount of money :-P.

I don't believe preventing American corporations from employing foreign labor is the right way to go. Nike may pay a man in a third world country $4 a day to make shoes, but in his country $4 will feed his family. Take away the only job he has available to him and he will make $0 a day. Now that you reduce the money Nike saves on labor, you reduce the amount of money Nike can spend on advertising, American employees (management, accounting, marketing, etc.) the company cars and trips and parties. These are all things that employ people and generate revenue in the US for the US.
Since all those workers in that third world country are no longer working and generating income for their country, that's less they can afford to import from other countries such as the US.
The economy only works when we let it work. While I agree that a Laissez-Faire economy can be dangerous and needs some government intervention, I believe Unions push too far in the other direction. I think our government provides enough protection for its workers. If it didn't, how can you explain the success of so many people employed by non-Unionized companies?

It may be silly, but it's true. If laying off 5 executives will enable the company to run more efficiently, they probably WILL be laid off. Companies don't usually lay workers off for fun; it's out of necessity. Reducing workers usually results is reduction of production (unless some of them were sitting around doing nothing). Reduction of production usually results in reduction of revenue. So laying off workers without a reduction in demand doesn't make sense. Unless it's all you can do to "pay the bills". If you can't do that, you have to close up shop and lay everyone off.

This is a topic that is hits close to home. Are labor Unions needed..you bet. Are they mis-managed you bet. Labor Unions are having an issue right now because basically you have about 1/3 that work hard 1/3 that are just putting time in and 1/3 that are just riding the Union card and are lazy. If you have ever been out on a "true" union worksite you know what I am talking about. If an Electrician even nails a board up temporarilly to do some work you can bet the carpenter's union will file a grievence...and it goes on and on and on. There was so much of this going on a job site that I was at, that Donald Trump went out and looked at things and basically fired every Union worker on site and hired non-Union labor in to get things done. I think Unions need to get more into the 21st century and start watching what their people are doing and get them trained.

cusbilla

Absolutely, unions are needed...

Unions serve two roles: (1) to band together lower pay/lower value workers to ensure -- through their numbers -- that they are treated equitably; (2) to provide a trained and able work force for companies. Companies hate the first role and love the second.

However, the downside to the first role for the worker is that if their union overreaches and prices their labor above reasonable return for the company, those jobs can disappear.

I think the workers at a trade, facility, plant, etc should make the decision if they need a union. It should not be the role of government to make that decision for them. Nor should goverment, except in cases of national security interests, arbitrate between companies and unions.

I think we still need them because Unions are the only thing representing American workers and their interests. Getting rid of them would give no representation when something arises that requires it

That's quite an innocuous phraseology..."organize themselves to protect their collective interests at the negotiating table", which isn't always the case. Union leaders can effectively become extremely powerful and corrupt. If a person isn't free to work independently on their own merits, and coerced into joining a union and paying dues against their will, for a voice they don't control or even concur with, the union becomes the equivalent of a mafia agency.

I have mixed feelings about this one. A union which becomes so powerful it virtually owns the workers (under the guise of protecting them) and company (an example would be Eastern Airlines, which was driven to extinction by the unions) is dangerous. On the other hand, some companies (such as EDS) will fire their employees for no compelling reason two years before their thirty year retirement, offering them almost no compensation whatsoever. Simultaneously, Dick Brown, the CEO of that company, will be fired for gross negligence and offered 55 million dollars for his trouble. His last year he made almost 100 million dollars, and ruined the company.

I don't know the answer to this one.

Please, fire ME for gross negligence and pay me $55,000,000.00 for severance. (Fifty-five million looks so much more impressive with all of those zeroes after it!) I'll somehow manage to bear the shame!

The fact is, salaried employees also benefit when a union gains concessions from the corporation. Curmudgeon can tell you that.

When the livelihoods of so many employees are subject to the whim of an "up and coming" young executive and can be wiped out nearly without a thought in order to beef up a bottom line, employees need some kind of protection.

Unions are still important, even if corporations have found ways to work around them. It is still the little guys who do the grunt work and provide profits for the big guys. Those who contribute their time, effort and brains to the process should not be marginalized.

What exactly differentiates union leader scum from corporate boardroom scum? Both are frequently power-hungry egotists who care nothing for the people underneath them. Anyone who thinks most union leaders are in it 'for the worker' are being extremely naive.

Also, keep in mind that, in general, the problems for which unions came into existence are essentially gone. All that unions have to go after any more to show benefit to their constituents is higher pay. What's wrong with that, you say? Well, this is what is driving all the jobs overseas. If a company can get a worker to do the same job for 1/10 the money, then it is absolutely imperative that they do so. If they don't, someone else will, and they won't be able to compete and everyone will lose their jobs.

Case in point: I saw a large construction project get bid out-of-state because of the demands of the local union. It was cheaper for the out-of-state company to bring all of their equipment up to the worksite (about a thousand miles) because they didn't have to deal with unionized labor. Union response--shoot at the workers! Hmmmm, now there's a mature reaction. Another case in point--the employees in a restaurant in this town voted not to unionize. Unions then picketed the establishment, causing business to suffer leading to these people to potentially be laid off. Please tell me how this is 'helping the workers'? Unions are not about the workers--they're about getting and keeping power. In many cases, this makes them even more of 'the establishment' than the corporate execs they love to rail against.

All of which isn't to say I'm against unions. But their focus needs to be on creating a cooperative arrangementwith management with the objective of making the company as successful as possible, and that both then share in the success. This is the only way to ensure the success of the company, without which both groups will suffer. In general, the things unions are for aren't necessary anymore. Companies that treat their employees well and pay them well will get the best employees, thereby becoming the more successful companies. Other companies will have to adopt similar practices or go out of business. All of this will happen with or without unions, so in that sense they are probably an archaic concept.

Hobbes, I agree with you 100%. If it weren’t for the "greed" of the company, they wouldn't be in a position to hire people in the first place.
High labor costs are driving manufacturing away from this country. I don't see that as a totally bad thing since money saved on cheaper foreign labor is spent in other ways in the US, which leads to the employment of others. This is why there has been a decline in manufacturing jobs in the US and an increase in service jobs. It sounds like a good trend to me. Some people would prefer to have unions shelter them from the cruel world of reality where people have to learn new skills and adapt to a changing economy to survive. Perhaps we would all be better off if the Unions concentrated more of their effort towards helping people get educated so that they can get a job that is in demand. Now everyone benefits and the quality of life in this country (and the rest of the world) can increase. But that would be detrimental to the Union itself, so I guess that won’t be happening any time soon.

I still don't understand why people think workers are laid off simply for the sheer glee of executives. As I stated earlier:
"Reducing workers usually results in reduction of production (unless some of them were sitting around doing nothing). Reduction of production usually results in reduction of revenue. So laying off workers without a reduction in demand doesn't make sense. Unless it's all you can do to 'pay the bills'. If you can't do that, you have to close up shop and lay everyone off. "

Yes, laying off workers may save you some expenses, but for what benefit? Less expenses means larger profits (for now) which means you pay more taxes. Maybe to show increased profits to investors? That's how a corporation raises the money to make the company larger, which equates to hiring more people.

There are plenty of reasons a company may have to layoff people. Sometimes it is simply to pay the bills. Take the airlines for example. When fuel prices go sharply up, they start to lose money. Each employee that is cut represents a savings in that employee's salary, health benefits, retirement, etc. When a company is losing money in such a situation the idea of keeping more employees to have a bigger airline to make more sales doesn't work.

I don't think CEO's cut people out of meaness, but the system can be very cold. People who have been with the company the longest usually make the most money. From the bottom line standpoint you can layoff someone who's been with a company for 30 years and replace him with two new people with half the pay for each. This leaves the older person out of a job at an age when it is difficult to start over.

I checked over what I wrote before and, no, I said nothing about glee. Bonuses and raises, yes, glee no.



Mrs. Pigpen answered this quite well. The fewer benefits you have to pay out, the more money you save.



Yeah, hiring more people to whom you do not have to pay benefits.

But these corporate honchos bite off their noses to spite their faces when you consider that the rank and file employee is on to them--it is in a current employee's best interests not to train the new guy (guys) well if it means he is working himself out of a job. So a lot of mistakes are made, and a lot of training has to be undertaken again. What goes around comes around.

Who on this forum ever asserted that union bosses are necessarily lily-white in their attitudes or their practices? It is their obligation to represent the workers that makes them valuable. They are paid to look out for the rank and file to make sure that management doesn't cheat them or otherwise treat them unfairly. And at least the rank and file can go through the motions of electing the person who will lead them.

Not every villain is a blue collar mook with a broken nose who says "youse guys." There are quite a few villains wearing suits and ties and getting manicures. The major difference is that their crimes are a little further removed from them personally, and the money skimmed is far more than any union steward could ever hope to extort. Remember Enron....

Mrs.Pigpen:



I beg to differ with you on this matter. I was living in Atlanta when this happened. Almost everyone agreed it was Lorenzos fault.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Co...ines/Tran13.htm



There were several times after 1992 that Lorenzo tried to get permission to buy and license a new airline and was told no by the industry.

And yes I think we do need unions, if only to keep the companies in check. True, there is greed and graft in the union leadership but the good outweighs the bad.

Yes, I realize this. If you look in my quote that you so kindly quoted in your post, you will find:


You then stated:

So let's make it more difficult for the airline to save money, forcing them into bankruptcy. That makes sense. What would you suggest the airline do in your hypothetical situation? If keeping more employees to have a bigger airline to make more sales doesn't work, than obviously there is a lack of demand in the economy. How do you deal with a lack in demand? You reduce the supply. How do you reduce the supply? Less flights = less workers. Since there is more supply than demand, you must allow the company to cut back in order to deal with it. BUT what if there isn’t actually a lack in demand? Then why are the airlines having trouble surviving? Why can't they keep their costs lower than their expenditures? Could the UNION have something to do with that?

I'm not saying it doesn't hurt when people get laid off. My aunt has been a flight attendant with American Airlines (TWA before the merger) for over 30 years and was just recently laid off. But you can't restrain the American economic system to keep people's feelings from being hurt. As I stated before, I seriously doubt a company would lay people off unless deemed absolutely necessary.


glee
n 1: great merriment 2: malicious satisfaction
That sounds like a synonym to bonuses and raises to me.


That's exactly what I said. That was just to set up my question of "but for what benefit? Less expenses means larger profits (for now) which means you pay more taxes. Maybe to show increased profits to investors?"
My point was, companies don't just feel like saving money because it's fun (or gleeful ) They do it because it keeps the company alive. Unions believe the good of the worker outweighs the good of the company. Without the company there are no workers.


Well if it comes down to that or pulling the plug on the entire company and thousands of employees, I say go for it. I think we can agree that the top execs are probably pretty bright people. I would guess that they have given plenty of thought as to the consequences of this action. Workers with benefits = happy workers = happy customers = repeat business = rich execs. So I still fail to see how laying off workers benefits the execs. Somebody PLEASE show me how laying off workers benefits execs.

I've got a different take on this whole labor/management issue.

Both unions and corporations are obsolete.

Robots will eventually be making the shoes, so the $4/day cheap foreign labor is just a transition phase while the technology gets developed.

Same can be said for any manufacturing situation.

So, semi-skilled labor is near obsolete.

That leaves the skilled trades like electrician, plumber, and programmer. The skilled trades are protected by all sorts of licensing and certification programs.

A rise in the return of guilds is in the making. But that's not what will happen, Medieval-styled apprenticeships. It'll be different in significant ways.

My take is that professional associations will rise as nonprofits and set the value of services rendered. For example, the Editorial Freelancers Association out of New York, NY has a Common Rates sheet for writers and editors.

Once you get established as a writer, you can charge up to $110 per book page without a blush. I suppose that's for ghost writing, as authors get royalties--not per page rates.

Meanwhile, we need some shareholder rebellions to makeover corporations. Corps have become the feeding troughs of the insiders. Self-regulation doesn't work, nor does government oversight. This has to be done from within with strict rules and harsh punishments for those who go against the benefit of the organization.

I doubt that's going to happen with all the incestuous relationships in the corporate world. Maybe an unraveling of capitalism will happen.

Then what? It'll be interesting to see, painful to experience. We are now in an economic evolutionary phase where the concentration of wealth in the top echelon is killing the middle class. That's never a good situation, economically.

Politically and spiritually it sucks, too. Need I mention the strain on families?

Anyway, I see a trend toward 25-50% of the US workforce becoming freelancers with professional association backing, coupled with reputation, carving out decent hourly rates/flat rates from the organizational coffers. Just what these organizations will look like, I don't know. It's too early. The entropy hasn't set in enough.

I believe that collective bargaining is a right. I would like to see it enshrined as an amendment to the constitution, as well as see the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 repealed entirely. In my humble opinion, we cannot have a republic if our workplaces, schools, and other important institutions are run like anything but a republic!

A company receives money for its stock at the time of issue. That is the only time the company receives money from that transaction. The only way it can receive income from its shares (later) is to issue more, which dilutes the value of those currently out there. So...why wouldn't a CEO, and the members of the board of directors, have an interest in laying off workers to increase their personal stock worth by the reasoning you gave?

If a company reduces its labor force without a reduction in demand, that will reduce the company's output. The only reasoning behind a layoff in such a situation would be out of personal greed of the major stock holders and that is against the law. We already have laws in place to prevent stock-holders from acting in their own best interest. This is a major reason why I don't think Unions are needed anymore, other than possibly as lobbyists for future labor laws, etc.

When I stated the ways a company could reduce expenses in my example, I was trying to show how tax cuts help the rich get richer by allowing the corp to increase the value of its stock WITHOUT negatively effecting the company. As I'm sure you noticed, my post was long enough without going into every minute detail and explanation.

What law eliminates the option to fire employees, whether for greed purposes or otherwise? And how would that be enforced? I am only aware of insider-trading laws. Employee layoffs have nothing to do with insider trading.

IMO, your argument could be turned around entirely. On the one hand (yours)... The corporation would only lay off people if it had to, in order to pay the bills. Layoffs would lead to less productivity and therefore the company would suffer.

On the other hand (similar but opposite logic)...workers can only work if the company is profitable and doing well. If they don't work to the best of their ability, at their upmost capacity, the company will fail and they will lose their job. Therefore, the workers would never do anything to endanger the company.

Now, everyone should be happy and prosperous, right? Somehow, it doesn't work that way. Just as a union of workers cannot be expected to do everything in the best interest of the company, a company cannot be expected to do everything in the best interest of the workers. Each has their own independent perspective and objectives which often conflict. The workers sometimes need a voice. I am against government enforced labor laws, so the only way I can see to offer that is through a union. For some industries (airlines included), the unions have long outlived their usefullness, but others have a need like never before.

If we simply had safeguards in the workplace, then unions would not be necesary. What am I talking about? Tenure right after three years for full time employees in any sector, right of a due process hearing before the employee can possibly be let go, as well as a strong grievance process, a lot of times-those things are a joke. Institute these things, and unions disappear.

Sure, but something MUCH worse would be set up in their place. How could a company function if it didn't have the discretion to fire its employees except through a trial? Would small businesses be subject to this policy as well? Who would pay for all that litigation, and how many companies would survive that sort of expense? I can't imagine the massive expense of enacting something like that, and our court system is tied up enough to begin with.

Agreed. The biggest problem, as I see it now, is the Unions simply do NOT police themselves of the dead weight.

cusbilla

When I previously posted, I wrote that these changes could be possible in any sector. In stating such, I understand how that could be construed to mean that every full time worker, from a middle level bank manager to the lowest employee at the local McDonald's should have tenure, grievance processes, as well as othe rmechanisms to safe guard employee rights. Perhaps the service sector could be excluded from this. The cost? Our nations public school system uses due process in order to retain/fire bad teachers. The costs are somewhat minimal in that the school board is the "jury" so to speak, and the actions do not take place in court. Thus, court costs are limited to both sides having a lawyer present at their hearing if they choose to do so. I've personally known of cases where lawyers weren't present, it happens more often than you would think. Most companies pay a retainer fee for lawyers, so whether or not they are sued once or thirty times, the cost is fairly the same. Have a group of investors for a corporation be the "jury" or designate random employees for the duty. The only true "cost" to a business would be time.
There needs to be a safeguard for employees who are terminated for the wrong reasons. I honestly don't believe that employees are on the same level with their employers who have the leverage of continued employment behind them.

I spent the bulk of my working years under the protection/representation of a union. I saw our productivity increase due to automation while our work force went from close to 9,000 hourly employees to close to 1,000 hourly employees.

I also saw how salary employees were fired. A notice would go out on Monday morning. Your boss might not be able to let you know you had lost your job, because he might get axed before you did. I recall a secretary who learned that she had lost her job when she was unable to log on to the computer at 8:00 AM. I remember a purchasing agent signing a contract that would save the company $14 million dollars a year. "It should be safe for me to go to lunch." he joked to his boss. "Yes, it should." his boss replied. He went to lunch, and was stopped at the gate when he tried to return to work. If you happened to be on vacation when the notice came out, you were fair game.

PE and I were discussing with someone the other day that Wal-Mart's inventory used to be advertised as 100% made in America. Today, it is hard to find any business except a restaurant that would claim it's products were made in America. We decided that it would be interesting if Union members across America started to invest in Wal-Mart stock. Their proxies could then be voted to seek a change in the corporate board and its policies. Imagine, if America's largest retailer started to purchase American made goods again, we might have to reopen American factories, employ more American workers, etc. There might be a rebound in our economy. Wal-Mart workers could speak of joining a union without fear of being fired for it. (In violation of federal law, but with no union to represent you when you're fired...)

Alternatively, a local bakery closed here a couple days ago. Workers, who had been there up to 46 years, were all given the same severance package; a 1 lb. fruitcake.

The Bush White House, and his Corporate sponsored Congress seem to be doing nothing to keep Americans working. We can vote Democratic next year, and hope that causes some changes; or we can look to the unions who have been representing workers successfully for a long time. When I signed my first apprenticeship papers; I was told that the training period for an apprentice to become a journeyman, a journeyman to become a master, and the concept of guilds were all laid out in the Code of Hammurabi, the oldest written law.

There are plenty of laws concerning corporations other than insider-trading. When incorporating, shareholders have the advantage of limited liability. Regardless of the condition of the corporation, the shareholders' private assets can't be touched. If a Board Member is found to act in his own self interest at the expense of the welfare of the corporation, that member can lose his right to limited liability in which a corporation instills on its share holders.


Sure my argument can be turned around; it can be made to sound like whatever you want if you twist my words. I don't really get your logic here. Managers are responsible for setting a workforce that is capable of producing the most output at the least cost. If they don't work to the "best of their ability" or at their "utmost capacity" then mangers will have to make adjustments to the workforce (more workers, better equip., etc.) so that the company doesn't fail. Unions hinder this managerial task and reduce the efficiency of corporations.

"To pay off bills" is a summary for everything that might be required to keep the corp afloat. Yes, layoffs can lead to decreased production, and the company can suffer in that it may not be able to produce as much as the economy demands. If the company has to "pay off bills" such as a loan that's due, they may have to reduce production to pay off the loan. It's either that, or bankruptcy, or liquidation resulting in the layoff of everyone. But since laying people off can reduce production, I would have to assume that the corp might try to reduce other expenses first.


Workers ALWAYS need a voice, and it's called government enforced labor laws; you know, the ones that you are against. So you are against 40 hour work-weeks? You are against child labor restrictions? These are all government enforced labor laws. These were made into laws due to the lobbying of Unions when these laws were needed. Mission accomplished, Unions go home.


So let's wait until the Unions destroy all industries like they have with the airlines?
The airlines tried to make changes in their worker force in which they thought would help their companies turn a profit. Unions would have no part of that.

I see where you're coming from, smeliot, but what about the situation we're in right now? The Bush administration has made it glaringly obvious that when it comes to labor law enforcement, they are firmly on the side of corporate managers and CEOs. I don't think we can trust the government to be on the side of the working people. We barely could before, and we certainly can't now.

Unions are the product of a natural evolution. As human suffrage and rights have increased, those rights must be defended. Workers at one point came to the realization that ALL production depended on them. But that power, great as it was, could only be exercised collectively. Of course there are unions today that have become the beast they were created to tame; but as long as we respect the individual's rights, we must respect worker's rights. One of those rights is to work collectively for their goals. It has to be.

The forty hour work week doesn't apply to salaried employees. Hourly wage earners have a voice, and children can't be exploited, so nothing else is needed? Oh, yes...teens can't earn less than five bucks an hour either.

When I mention labor laws, I'm speaking of the sort which require 6 month's notice and severance pay for every termination. Maternity benefits to include a guarantee that a job will be on hold for up to two years, should a mother choose to return. Four or five weeks' paid vacation every year. IOW...the types of laws afforded to the workers in much of Europe. I against that type of micromanagement by a bureaucracy.

Here's a real-life situation: A company must fire a certain number of employees. They can fire Stan, who is two years away from retirement, and save on the expense of his retirement, as well as health benefits. Or, they can fire Henry, who makes basically the same salary but is 10 years from retirement (the company doesn't have to worry about paying his benefits anytime soon). Stan has been a good and faithful worker, but they fire him and cut him short two years before retirement so they can eliminate his compensation long-term and save on that expense. Should a company be able to terminate the employee with virtually no compensation two years prior to retirement and cut him off at the end, due to no fault whatsoever on their part? It happens all of the time in unionless companies where the workers have no voice. You say the workers have representation through labor laws, and seem appalled that I am against that sort of government intervention. Could you then explain what laws currently protect them in such a case? I'd personally give up the (virtually non-existant) option of a 40 hour workweek for some job security my last five of thirty years with a company.

"Go to college." is a fine mantra, but what if you can't get admitted, or can't do the work? What if you're married, and your job has you working different hours each week? johnlocke claims he can't pay his tuition and costs without engaging in risky illegal behaviors such as smuggling and moon-shining. Do we really need every carpenter, plumber, electrician, car mechanic, and factory worker to graduate from college? Do we want to push our work force to the point that working for McDonald's is not a way to earn college tuition; but a job that requires an Associates degree from Hamburger University as a requirement for an entry level position?

The only permanent thing, I have been told, is change. Some changes have come from unions, and some from management.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Another day, another dollar?" It dates back to a time when workers were paid 10 cents an hour for their ten hour day. Henry Ford drew his workforce to Detroit by offering to pay $5 a day so that his workers could afford his product. It is a concept management is forgetting, that consumers need to have an income if businesses are to have customers.

"Don't cry fire in a crowded building unless there is one." is the law here in Michigan. It resulted from a management attempt to break up a union meeting. There wasn't even any smell of smoke, but several people were trampled to death.

The forty hour week was established as a maximum work week. Many companies find overtime cheaper than the benefits attached to the base pay, and I have worked many an 84 hour week. To avoid any risk of accidental overtime, companies like Wal-Mart currently define "full-time" employment at closer to 30 hours a week. It is pragmatically, a myth.

Salaried work forces fall into two classes, exempt and non-exempt; referring of course to the federal labor laws. When I was out on strike in 1974, the next door neighbor was salaried exempt. He worked 4 days on and 4 days off to keep the plant running. He was extremely proud of his lawn, always wanting to have the shortest grass around. I would always make certain that I was mowing my lawn as he was leaving for work that summer. He always came back four days later, mowed his lawn, then went inside to say hello to his wife. I know that he always mowed the grass before talking to his wife, because the police asked me to corroborate our behavior that summer, after he came home, mowed the lawn, and only then went inside and found her dead. His request for funeral leave was denied. "You had four days off, and you were only entitled to three."

Salaried job security... I came home once to see an unfamiliar car in the driveway, and found a neighbor inside talking to my wife. "You're home early." I remarked, as the salaried work day ran a half hour longer than the hourly work day. He had applied for a loan for the car in the driveway, he told me, and when he stopped on the way to work, learned that the loan had been denied. He went to his boss, and asked "Is my job in jeopardy?" They sat down, had an impromptu job performance review, and his supervisor was so confident his job was secure, that they went together to the Credit Union where his supervisor co-signed the note for the car. He took the check, went to the dealership, and he picked up his new car. He went back to work, where his supervisor said, "You've got to believe me when I say, I didn't see this coming..." He was unemployed for awhile, but his former supervisor was having his car payments taken from his paycheck, which took some of the sting out of it.

It was the same neighbor, who when he found a new job a few months later, told me one of my favorite labor-management stories. His job had been in labor relations, contract negotiations, grievance settlements, etc. He had been to another unsuccessful interview, when he stopped for a pre-flight drink on his way home. Misery loves company, and he found himself chatting with someone else waiting in the bar. "A worker of ours, for 25 years, took a six month leave of absence every year to trap animals, and sell their furs. Our new manager felt he was going to have to decide who he was working for, our company or himself. He refused his request for a leave of absence. The worker reported to work for the midnight shift, bringing his bed with him from home. He clocked in, then set his bed up in the lobby, complete with sheets, blankets, and pillows. crawled in and went to sleep. He was caught sleeping on the job of course, and his supervisor gave him six months disciplinary time off. When he returned; the steward asked how he had gotten the decision reversed on the leave of absence, heard the story, and then filed a grievance asking for six months back pay. What would you recommend we do?" After learning this was the man's first disciplinary action in 25 years, and that anyone else caught sleeping on the job for the first time would have normally gotten a letter of warning; he said, "I would have bitten the bullet and paid the grievance." He then learned that after three years of legal battles, including three more "disciplinary" periods of six months off, the NLRB had ruled the worker was entitled to two years back pay, all records of the incidents to be expunged from his work records, and in accordance with 28 years of past practice, the worker was to be awarded six months leave of absence annually until he was ready to retire. "I've another plane to catch." He was telling me at the same time. "I have to make certain that I dot all the i's and cross all the t's before I fire that manager. I was awarded his job, application to be filled in after I start working."

Perhaps the time has come for salaried employees to quit fighting the unions, and start fighting for the same protections and rights offered to union members. Of course, they'd probably have to organize in order to do that effectively. Organized, trained managers, able to research the world labor market could create a formidable union indeed. Our current unions seem unable to convince Congress of the need to keep companies and jobs here in America. I remember a co-worker who lamented, "My grandfather worked for Dow, my father worked for Dow, and I've worked all my life for Dow. They haven't hired my son yet, and I'm afraid he may end up on welfare." At the time, I suggested that his son could move to another city to look for work, or perhaps even another state. It never occurred to me that we might have to tell our children, "See what job openings there are in Mexico."

And that's why we need a Democrat in office.

I saw that exact scenario happen when I worked for Sprint a few years back. A guy that was there for over 20 years was layed off. While Sprint tried to justify their actions by stating that he was lazy (he DID spend most the day walking the halls), many felt that is still a pretty low thing to do. Before that happened people used to say how Sprint offered a great and stable career. A lot of opinions changed after that and I'm sure that will have an impact on how employees treat the company. I say if that company is willing to accept the consequences, lay him off. If he can prove that Sprint didn't have good reason to select him to be layed off, he should get a lawyer. Some people think that since they have been at a company for so-many years, it gives them the right to stop working hard. Maybe now people will think twice.
Everyone at Sprint hates when they have to call Verizon New York. They are the rudest, laziest TelCo employees I have ever had the displeasure of working with. They constantly say things like, "I don't give a ####, I'm Union."

DO NOT BYPASS THE PROFANITY FILTER

If unions aren't the answer, I believe a good number of people believe that there needs to be some recourse for workers. Let me share with you my story. I began working for my employer four years ago. I was in my second year as an employee and had nothing but positive remarks on my evaluations. Well, it turns out that the money wasn't coming in as it had been in the past and a few changes had to be made. We were told that at least four positions would be eliminated, but weren't told which ones those would be. A meeting of the board was scheduled for a weeknight, and we were told that the positions to be cut would be announced to the entire group of employees in a foyer area. Private meetings in which the person who was to be cut would be told was not feasible, because that person would just blab it to everyone else anyways-that was their reasoning. The next morning, I went to work and found out that my job, as well as the jobs of three others were at risk, though there woudl be a 50-50 chance that I wouldn't have to be let go. Nothing like being told you are being let go in front of everyone else. The manager made the announcement and then headed for the door faster than you imagine. I don't expect to work for anyone my entire working career. At the same time, management needs to follow procedures that do not embarass employees. I'm still very angry about this, and use every moment that I can to plant seeds of doubt in the new employees about the boss.

I was posting in another thread when an old memory came back to me.

My last supervisor was actually assigned to supervise the four of us that were on my last job assignment.

I had signed the job, which was part of the crew I was working on. My supervisor on that job protested when it was time to award the job, that I was not qualified, despite the fact that there were no other signers. He used as evidence, an unsigned letter which had been circulating behind my back for some time. Michigan law establishes what can go in a personnel file, and how long it is allowed to stay there. The union pointed out that it met neither criterion. The supervisor was somehow able to track down the individual who had written the letter, and asked him to testify at what turned out to be the final hearing on the issue. The engineer walked into the meeting, was introduced, shook my hand, and said, "I'm glad to finally meet you. I've heard a lot of great things about you." The senior committee man told my supervisor that I was to be awarded the job; and where he could stuff the letter "...after every copy of it in existence is shredded!"

I was given a break-in period, and then finally turned loose on my own. My first night, I came on to be told there was one job left for the midnight shift, a very low priority one; the curtains wouldn't open in the auditorium. As I was leaving the next day, I heard my supervisor arguing with someone on the phone about how important he was to the company, and "I won't tell him any such thing." A few seconds later, he stopped me and said, “Some guy who claims to be the new President of the company wants me to tell you that he would have had to cancel his board of director’s meeting if it wasn’t for your assistance in the middle of the night. I told him what I thought of you personally, and that he had just been lucky.” A supervisor’s job was posted later that day.

The new supervisor, the last one I ever had; spent, I learned from him later, several weeks running down the facts behind all the rumors he had been told about me. He said, in the end, the only one that could be confirmed was that I had consistently fought the construction of the nuclear power plant. He was actually my supervisor for nearly six months before I ever met him!

My previous supervisor finished out his career in an office adjacent to mine. (Still supervising the balance of his old crew.) Every time an offer came up for bonuses for salaried employees who wanted to accept retirement, his application was personally vetoed by the President of the company. "I have been told in the past just how valuable this man's experience is to the company." or something like that would come through in a memo to several people in the department. Eventually, the Company President he had spoken to was given a different assignment for a number of years, and the supervisor was allowed to accept an "early retirement" bonus and leave the company after 47 years on the job.

Would you rather have a union backing you, as I did; or be victimized by company politics and rumors?

After reading about what IBM is planning on doing, which is shifting almost 5000 software jobs to India, China, and elsewhere (i guess their exceeded Wall Street expectations last quarter wasn't good enough), i see unions as the best thing in the world, besides Democracy.

Unions, which are usually the butt of office jokes and sometimes a pain in the butt in the workplace for the average worker, are useful in fighting for an employee's job when it is in jepordey. For example, in my first paragraph, i mentioned IBM's job moving. Well, the labor union representing workers at IBM are on the defensive position and is taking action against the stupid move:

Article



All i can say is GO FOR IT!

For once, i can really say Unions are worth the union dues

The only thing holding our economy back from it's potential is the sending of jobs overseas.

Curmudgeon:


I would rather have a union backing me. Most definetly.

The exact same thing is happening at EDS. Companies have moved over to India, and American workers are currently overseas, training people in India to take over hundreds (thousands?) of American jobs.

In Europe, the labor laws are very strong, so when the time comes to cut jobs, they cut the American workers who aren't protected.....some literally a year or two away from their retirement. My mother-in-law is a corporate exec at EDS. She tells me of hiring freezes and has been required to fire dozens of people during the timeframe that Dick Brown (the old CEO) was fired for gross negligence and given 55 million dollars severance.

Hmmm...where to begin.

I reply as a former president of a union chapter and now as a producer/co-host of a conservative radio talk show.

Unions are killing our country. Permit me to elaborate.

They started with a noble purpose of giving workers a voice in negotiating for better working conditions and salaries. Everything you take for granted: 40 hour work week, paid vacation, health benefits, etc, are the result of union activity.

That's the good part.

The flip side is that unions have become so powerful that they buy politicians and influence public policy. When the AFL-CIO recently told a Democratic presidential hopeful not to run just yet...he cowered and complied.

The NEA and AFT, two of the most powerful teachers unions, oppose school vouchers that actually give parents in poor communities the choice to send their kids to better schools and avoid the gladiator camps of their current failing inner-city school mills. Any politician that don't comply loses all the money they give.

Follow the money.

The other reason, as our socialist friend above aptly points out, is philosophical.

Under the guise of 'workers rights', most socialist/communist nations started their grass roots drives to infamy with unions. Fidel Castro was a fierce unionist and fought the Batista administration in Cuba for workers rights. Right up until he got control. Then he killed al the union leaders and crushed any idea of collective bargaining. It is a time-tested formula for corruption.

The aforementioned socialist was correct about collective bargaining and its value. But you don't need a union to collective bargain. Collective bargaining is a legal negotiation that helps all parties. Unions are corrupt by their very nature.

Let me leave you with a quote from the former president of the NEA when asked about the quality of education the children are getting from teachers who cannot pass basic teaching tests:

"I'll worry about the kids when the kids start paying union dues."

Nice.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but corporations have followed almost the exact same path. One could almost substitute the words, keeping everything else the same. Could it be that powerful unions are in fact a response to overly powerful corporate behemoths? Today's corporate environment would cause Adam Smith to roll over in his grave. Why should there be any limit to a union's power, if there is to be no corresponding limit to corporate power? After all, in a "free market," the key word is freedom, yes? In fact, almost every criticism you level at unions applies just as well to corporations.

You and I Quarkhead agree more than we disagree here.

Unions are the direct result of corporate selfishness. That premise doesn't exucse their current behavior.

After moving from Texas, where unions are pretty much non-existant, to New England to work for Sprint , I was in for a culture shock. My favorite Verizon line is "That not my job, and I don't know who you should call. <click>." I pretty much do the same tasks as Verizon, but I pretty much do what it takes 4 Verizon techs to do. (BTW ATT local is pretty bad too, and everyone including Sprint hates Verizon. I know half of people in Verizon hate themselves. )
Then was the time Sprint opened an office in NYC. They had the building Electricians put in commercial service, then they wanted to take over all of the work. EVERYTHING, including hooking up the water cooler. They even started harassing the employees to the point where we had to bring in our own security team. (The funny part was I saw my own cousin there, after fighting all morning we took a lunch together.)
The way I look at it is, why should I pay someone else to fight my battles? If I don't like my job right now I can leave a find a better one, and if the company keeps losing their good people they will be forced to keep up with the other companies. I have nothing to worry about since I'm pretty much plan on funding my own retirement, and that the only long term benefit of staying with one company. If you are going to do a job you should do it to the best of your ability, you shouldn't be pigeon hold from expanding because it's not your job.

The only way unions can achieve their goals is their political pull. Political pull is used in two ways: closing shops and not allowing businesses to fire strikers. Unions can keep their wages up by having an government enforced "closed shop" in which everyone wanting to practice a trade must be approved by the union first. I recall that people can be fined for doing non-union labor in a closed shop trade. Unions also use the government to violate the property rights of businessmen. Businesses are often forced to negotiate with strikers rather than practicing their freedom of (not) association.

...and businesses are free to relocate overseas to reduce their labor costs to remain competetive. Sooner or later, the workers will wake up and realize this isn't necessarily in their best interests. At this point, unions will either rethink their basic principles, or follow their constituents out of the country

Unions in the past have purchased businesses and kept them going to keep their workers employed. They frequently boycott manufacturers who they feel are being unfair. They are not restricted to one or two tools, but rather have a broad spectrum of management tools, just as the manufacturers do. I wouldn't ring their death knell simply because the Republicans are in power.


I worked for thirty years in a "Union Shop" where I was hired by the company, and then had thirty days to join the union. The union had no say whatsoever in who was to be hired.

You're right - most unions don't do this overtly, or even neccessarily knowingly. They do, though, create this problem through setting wage prices above their market rate, which lessens the jobs available to people in their field.

- Rick

We not only need Unions in the U S but the rest of the world needs them too !, They are the only protection a worker has from the power of Corporations, which to a worker is total power over you life and livelihood.

For those of you who oppose unions, go back and read history of the working classs in America, and perhaps you will learn why they are important.

In the early 19 hundreds working conditions were so bad in America that half the people who migrated to the U S, went back to Europe.

You had to live in a Company house, (shack) you got paid in Company money called script, and it was only good at a company store, by the time a man was 45 he was used up and tossed out of his home and job, if you were injured too bad out you went, you worked 10 hours a day 7 days a week.

All that is changed now right, well that change did not come voluntarily from Corporations, the Unions forced them to change, and FDR created the laws making it possible. Today Republicans are tampering with those labor laws, and just recently alterered the wage and hour law, so certain workers will not be paid overtime, people better wake up about all this, Bush is bringing 14 million Mexican peasants and serfs to America, and they want your job at half your wage rate and they don't mind living in a shack, its better than what they have now.

Las Vegas is one of the most highly Unionized Cities in America, and it is also Americas fastest growing city, so end the crap about how Unions interfere with business and progress.