Unions - good or bad? - Page 2

WickedLou9 · 08-02-2006, 10:22 AM

I think it depends. Some unions are bad, some are not. I look at the transit workers union and I think that they are pretty aweful. They go on strike, they demand things that no one else gets and they shut down the entire public transit system in a region. The auto workers union have demanded to much and gotten so much that they have crippled thier own industries.
Then you have something like a Teachers Union which generally doesn't do much other than bargain for benefits or whatever for thier members. Teachers generally don't have much clout and going on strike in some states is actually illegal for them.

DosEquis · 08-02-2006, 10:31 AM

I think before we ask the question whether they were good or bad, ask why they were created to begin with. I don't think anyone would argue that they were bad when they were created, and corporate policy caused the desire for people to organize.

Phantom · 08-02-2006, 10:36 AM

I have a solution to the union problem, let me know what you guys think...

There are two huge protections unions are given in the US:
1) they are exempt from laws against collusion (normally a group of people cannot get together and use their collective power to extort compromises)

and

2) a company cannot fire a striking worker

These together give unions enormous power. They can use monopolistic power, and the government actually protects their use of monopolistic power by not allowing the company to drop workers on strike.

I say just drop the protection for striking workers. If workers go on strike, let them all be fired right away. If the workers have a legitimate reason to strike (say they are paid less than comparative workers) then the company will not fire these guys since they cannot be replaced. If the striking workers were asking for something more than fair wages in the market, the company should be able to drop them and replace with people who want to do the work at the fair price.

The workers could keep their otherwise illegal right to collectively bargain, but they would only be able to bargain for fair terms and not extort ridiculous terms from employers.

How does that sound?

DosEquis · 08-02-2006, 10:45 AM

It sounds like a standard modern republican way of doing things. If its broken get rid of it. Like social security, broken? Throw it away.

I think we fix it. I dont think giving them a ton of power is the answer, but removing all their teeth is not the answer either. Most employers have an interest (espcially skilled labor) in keeping the people they have. If you fired your workforce and you depend on skilled labor, good luck replacing them and still maintain the ability to produce quality work at an efficient pace (not that everyone is efficient).

I think we remove some of their powers, such as making it incredibly difficult to fire someone. If someone deserves to be fired, then let them get fired. I would also say that they should have a limited amount of funding. Afterall, without as much money they can't afford the lawyers and other things they need for trivial bull shit and would save it for a major issue.... such as a company stealing everyones pension.

JaJae · 08-02-2006, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

I have a solution to the union problem, let me know what you guys think...

There are two huge protections unions are given in the US:
1) they are exempt from laws against collusion (normally a group of people cannot get together and use their collective power to extort compromises)

and

2) a company cannot fire a striking worker

These together give unions enormous power. They can use monopolistic power, and the government actually protects their use of monopolistic power by not allowing the company to drop workers on strike.

I say just drop the protection for striking workers. If workers go on strike, let them all be fired right away. If the workers have a legitimate reason to strike (say they are paid less than comparative workers) then the company will not fire these guys since they cannot be replaced. If the striking workers were asking for something more than fair wages in the market, the company should be able to drop them and replace with people who want to do the work at the fair price.

The workers could keep their otherwise illegal right to collectively bargain, but they would only be able to bargain for fair terms and not extort ridiculous terms from employers.

How does that sound?

Not a bad idea. Striking employees shouldn't be protected from being fired anyway.

Diesel66 · 08-02-2006, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by TheMrs

Remember hearing about trucking companies putting the pressure on drivers to make so many miles in "x" amount of time - and if they didn't.. *THEY LOST THEIR JOBS*? *nods* Yeah. That was causing drivers to fall asleep behind the wheel

Not really. Yes employers pushed drivers but since drivers were paid by the mile, they push themselves to drive longer and faster.

WickedLou9 · 08-02-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Not a bad idea. Striking employees shouldn't be protected from being fired anyway.

does that not depend on the state? I mean we live in NJ. NJ is a "employment at will" state. meaning I can be fired at any time for any reason.

If my department went on strike, we would all be fired and replaced

Phantom · 08-02-2006, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

does that not depend on the state? I mean we live in NJ. NJ is a "employment at will" state. meaning I can be fired at any time for any reason.

If my department went on strike, we would all be fired and replaced

I believe unions are given all the protections in at will states.

There are differences between "at-will" and "right to work" states. Right to work states are less union-friendly, but I don't know the specifics.

Edit: here's a list of states and short explanation of right to work vs. forced unionization allowed: Right to Work States - National Right to Work Foundation

thomez · 08-02-2006, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

does that not depend on the state? I mean we live in NJ. NJ is a "employment at will" state. meaning I can be fired at any time for any reason.

If my department went on strike, we would all be fired and replaced

that's why all the jobs in the US have migrated to "employment at will"/"right to work" states

TheMrs · 08-02-2006, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Not really. Yes employers pushed drivers but since drivers were paid by the mile, they push themselves to drive longer and faster.

Some drivers were paid by the mile. I'm talking about truckers, like my father, who work for a big company... UPS, and drive OTR. I remember as a kid him working and being on the road 18 hours - driving. And he was not being paid by the mile and he was told if he didn't get load "X" to destination "A" then he was threatened with reprimand. Just because he wasn't paid by the mile doesn't mean that they weren't pushing their drivers to drive MORE THAN their bodies would allow them to. I don't know of many peope who could be on such a tight schedule and be actually driving 14+ hours a day.

Ardentfrost · 08-02-2006, 12:30 PM

There does need to be some that is left up to the company though. I mean, if they let just anyone drive trucks, they would have no control over when shipments arrived. If someone can drive for 20 hours a day for 4 days straight, they are better at driving a truck than someone who can only do 14 hours per day for 4 days straight.

The companies do deserve to be able to hire the best employees they can find, and that will also make that job more competitive, and drivers would get paid more.

Concept · 08-02-2006, 12:36 PM

I believe the Union is an outdated institution that is unnecessary now. Unions were manifested at the end of the 19th century through a series of anti-trust, progressive administrations which countered the rise of unchecked monopolies and corporations who dominated their markets.

Now, the worker has options. Businesses are forced to keep their wages and benefits at a reasonable level to insure that their workers do not leave. Many Unions simply demand a fee and do not do much.

Let competition defend the worker.

kinggovernor · 08-02-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by TheMrs

Some drivers were paid by the mile. I'm talking about truckers, like my father, who work for a big company... UPS, and drive OTR. I remember as a kid him working and being on the road 18 hours - driving. And he was not being paid by the mile and he was told if he didn't get load "X" to destination "A" then he was threatened with reprimand. Just because he wasn't paid by the mile doesn't mean that they weren't pushing their drivers to drive MORE THAN their bodies would allow them to. I don't know of many peope who could be on such a tight schedule and be actually driving 14+ hours a day.

that doesn't happen anymore at least for big trucking firms