Whats your take on Unions?

[countryboy]

Management are not the dirt bags at the top, follow the money to the dirt bags house high on the hill overlooking cardboard city. If the fruits of labour do not stay in your community and circulate, you have worked for little or nothing. There is no such thing as a free market, there never has been and there never will be. The word "free" indicates capitals freedom to breach borders and tariffs and deregulation and easing all other public interference to free exploitation of both resources and labour. The common goal between lower management and labour is making a living, the dirt bag at the top just wants to make a killing even if the employee has to be chained in bare feet to the forge or chained to the coal truck for sixteen a day.

If you can scale your thinking down to an everyday level for a moment, you might want to consider that if you have a couple of shops making specialty soaps (for a more down to earth example), they are essentially competing against each other - in a free market. Nobody is forced to buy from either one (they have the "freedom" to do that), so that the one that offers better products and/or service at a price the consumer thinks is worth it, wins.

Companies choose their target markets (types and geographic areas) as part of their business plans...very common. All this talking of breaching borders, etc. is pretty extreme...applies to a very small piece of the total picture.

As for the "dirt bag" at the top, I think there are some cases of that for sure, just like those same types of dirt bags exist at the top of some unions. But, the vast majority of business owners don't deserve to be painted with that brush.

And I think chains went out before the horse and buggy disappeared.

 

[GreenFish66]

Well said all . Truth is ..We don't really need Labour Unions at all ..If theirs a good open door policy - There are many successful companies who have no Union

 

[darkbeaver]

Capital has no business telling a wage earner how to run his business which is earning a wage. People this battle is two hundred years old, this time arround. There are no mysteries left about the relationship between labour and capital. Collective bargaining was legislated because it was the one and only method to get balance which the community recognized as vital to growth. We have everything manufactured in China today, labour did not do that to you, capital did, by "freeing" itself of the very regulations put in place by your fathers to prevent the very thing that has happened the deindustrialization of the west so it can be crushed and fumigated with no appreciable loss to capital.

 

[countryboy]

Capital has no business telling a wage earner how to run his business which is earning a wage. People this battle is two hundred years old, this time arround. There are no mysteries left about the relationship between labour and capital. Collective bargaining was legislated because it was the one and only method to get balance which the community recognized as vital to growth. We have everything manufactured in China today, labour did not do that to you, capital did, by "freeing" itself of the very regulations put in place by your fathers to prevent the very thing that has happened the deindustrialization of the west so it can be crushed and fumigated with no appreciable loss to capital.

Actually, I think the situation is simple. Consumers are at the root of it. I'll lay out what I hope is a simple example...

Consumers want certain things at cheap prices. Certain outlets (big box stores) sprang up to fill that need. In their quest for cheaper goods, they shopped around and began to find that things produced offshore were cheaper. So they bought them. And the consumers bought them too. And that's how places like Wal-Mart became successful.

Now, why did they buy things cheaper from offshore companies? Because those manufacturers have lower costs than domestic sources. And that has an impact on the price. And labour costs are a huge part of that cost differential. Our labour costs in Canada are higher than those of certain Asian countries.

So, without getting all bent out of shape on the evils of capitalism, there you have the situation in a nutshell.

What to do about it? Probably not much, unless you can convince the average consumer to pay more for "Made in Canada" products. Because that's where it all starts...

 

[gerryh]

Since you're not willing to answer my question, I'll answer it for you. They make absurd amounts of money compared to the members they represent. Here is a small taste.

Corporate Heads Make Too Much? What About Union Leaders? » THE UNION LABEL - Exposing union corruption one post at a time

 

[darkbeaver]

If you can scale your thinking down to an everyday level for a moment, you might want to consider that if you have a couple of shops making specialty soaps (for a more down to earth example), they are essentially competing against each other - in a free market. Nobody is forced to buy from either one (they have the "freedom" to do that), so that the one that offers better products and/or service at a price the consumer thinks is worth it, wins.

Companies choose their target markets (types and geographic areas) as part of their business plans...very common. All this talking of breaching borders, etc. is pretty extreme...applies to a very small piece of the total picture.

As for the "dirt bag" at the top, I think there are some cases of that for sure, just like those same types of dirt bags exist at the top of some unions. But, the vast majority of business owners don't deserve to be painted with that brush.

And I think chains went out before the horse and buggy disappeared.

Chains have never been more popular or freer. In the big picture labour is a commodity exactly the same as the tree or the coal or the fish. The soap analogy is better for my argument than yours, those two locals compete with each other but they cannot hope to compete with the mass producers of soap and can never become competitors in any real sense. I'm all about local regional industry which is very much less than it was in the past specifically because of the competitive advantage purchased by the big capitalists from our co-opted governments, free trade sucks.

 

[darkbeaver]

Well said all . Truth is ..We don't really need Labour Unions at all ..If theirs a good open door policy - There are many successful companies who have no Union

And if there isn't a good open door policy, you can do nothing about it, because you didn't have the common sense to stick together. There are many sucessful companies who have no union. You mean certified union because in truth nothing can be done without unity, weather you get that with a whip or with fair play the capitalist dosn't care. Remind me to tell you all the "open door policy" jokes from my old days, sometime.

 

[petros]

Since you're not willing to answer my question, I'll answer it for you. They make absurd amounts of money compared to the members they represent. Here is a small taste.

Corporate Heads Make Too Much? What About Union Leaders? » THE UNION LABEL - Exposing union corruption one post at a time

That nothing compared to what the heads of NPOs make.
If I recall correct the head of MADD was pulling down $5M year at one point. Unions are a joke compared to how these NPOs scam us and our govt coffers.

 

[petros]

Labour needs a voice and it needs national self governed safety and skill standards where a member worker and contracting company can be relied upon to do the job required regardless of location of, on time and within budget.

 

[darkbeaver]

Since you're not willing to answer my question, I'll answer it for you. They make absurd amounts of money compared to the members they represent. Here is a small taste.

Corporate Heads Make Too Much? What About Union Leaders? » THE UNION LABEL - Exposing union corruption one post at a time

I am perfectly willing to answer your question now that I've seen it. I would just say this, in our world today we can find every institution of men corrupted, the unions, the banks,the churchs, and even the schools and the media. Corruption is a sign of the times gerry and there is nothing and no body not touched by it. If we eliminate all the unions the jobs still won't come back because we will always want more than they want to pay. A union, any union, any institution any human enterprise is only as good as it's members and not one dime better.

 

[missile]

I've worked in both union and non union places,and doubt I'd be retired with a decent pension without being in a union. There was more freedom in my nonunion jobs, but no real benefits to speak of and while in unionized employment--more than I ever needed.

 

[petros]

Which costs more?

An off the street words of mouth proven skills labourer hired from an agency such as Labour Ready or a proven skills and WCB safety ticketed labourer from a union hall?

If you are site manager and liable for shortfalls and defects and budget but also the profit margin, which do you go for?

 

[petros]

If it takes 99 people busting their asses to make one person hit the social class of rich, I'd say there is ****loads of room for improvement in the lives of the 99.

If you feel that is too much then there is nope hope for your soul.

 

[darkbeaver]

 

[petros]

I'm confused by the utter denial or ignorance of what is happening to the people of the world.

No clue whatsoever.

 

[darkbeaver]

Actually, I think the situation is simple. Consumers are at the root of it. I'll lay out what I hope is a simple example...

Consumers want certain things at cheap prices. Certain outlets (big box stores) sprang up to fill that need. In their quest for cheaper goods, they shopped around and began to find that things produced offshore were cheaper. So they bought them. And the consumers bought them too. And that's how places like Wal-Mart became successful.

Now, why did they buy things cheaper from offshore companies? Because those manufacturers have lower costs than domestic sources. And that has an impact on the price. And labour costs are a huge part of that cost differential. Our labour costs in Canada are higher than those of certain Asian countries.

So, without getting all bent out of shape on the evils of capitalism, there you have the situation in a nutshell.

What to do about it? Probably not much, unless you can convince the average consumer to pay more for "Made in Canada" products. Because that's where it all starts...

Todays consumer can be made to buy **** in a hamburger bun, so I don't really think there's any problem steering the twits toward the junk that WalMart imports.
WalMart is not a success it's a disgrace and a destroyer of small and medium sized businesses and a looter of towns and cities across the globe. That it exists at all is a giant crime against humanity.

 

[darkbeaver]

I'm confused by the utter denial or ignorance of what is happening to the people of the world.

No clue whatsoever.

It is especially frustrating to think what we paid to have the dullards educated, we could have gotten better in India or China, at a fraction of the cost.:lol:

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

I'm not part of the union, but my wife is. I can tell you that the working environment between the employer and the employee is hostile. It's the union mentality. Like JLM said, the unions and it's members view the employer as the enemy and that they are trying to reduce their wages and benefits. On the other hand, the employer views the union as an organization out to milk every penny from them.

It's a perpetual tug-of-war.

The problem with unions and employers (management in particular) is that they are all greedy and the fire is fueled by the incessant need by shareholders to produce a good quarterly statement.

The unions problem is that they don't know when to stop. Every time the contract is up and needs to be renegotiated, they ask for more... EVEN WHEN THE COMPANY IS NOT MAKING MONEY! Over here on the west coast, the forest industry has been wiped out. There have been many mill closures and one in particular on Vancouver Island is put on idle indefinitely. The union would not back down on concessions and the company was unable to operate in the current conditions. What pisses me off about unions is that they would rather let the company go bankrupt than reach a lesser deal and wait for a better day. So we have this massive staring contest to see if the union or the employer would blink first. In the end, the company put down their best take it or leave it offer, but the union refused. the mill still sits idle and people are out of jobs.

The thing about management is that they don't care about the health of the company. All they care about is how well they are going to do in the next quarter. Even if a company is running at a loss, they still have the balls to give themselves a bonus. Of course, the unions always catch wind of this and use it as propaganda to make the company enemy #1. The other thing is, management doesn't understand the concept that if it's employees are taking a wage cut, they in turn, should also take a salary cut. Instead, you have employees taking massive concessions in benefits and wages, and management getting a fat bonus for successfully negotiating the deal??? That would make my blood boil too.

This perpetual tug-of-war creates the hostile environment. The employee hates the company and does not, and will not, perform their best. They will actually perform below par because they know that it would take the company tremendous effort to have them fired. As an example, look at Air Canada and Westjet.... one is unionized and one is not. Can you guess which company treats the customer better?

OMG, this is turning out to be a rant, but the point is that management and the employees need to put the company first above all else. I think management salaries and employee contracts should be reviewed every year based on the company's results. If the company posts a loss for the year, nobody gets a bonus and nobody gets a raise. Period... end of story. If the company gets to the point of bankruptcy then both sides should concede on benefits and wages. When the company recovers, what was conceded should be given back. This is almost like a scale where you have management on side and employees on the other. You put something on side, you have to put something on the other. Similarly, if you take something off one side, you have to take something off the other... or the whole thing teeters and eventually tumbles.

 

[countryboy]

Chains have never been more popular or freer. In the big picture labour is a commodity exactly the same as the tree or the coal or the fish. The soap analogy is better for my argument than yours, those two locals compete with each other but they cannot hope to compete with the mass producers of soap and can never become competitors in any real sense. I'm all about local regional industry which is very much less than it was in the past specifically because of the competitive advantage purchased by the big capitalists from our co-opted governments, free trade sucks.

"The soap analogy is better for my argument than yours, those two locals compete with each other but they cannot hope to compete with the mass producers of soap and can never become competitors in any real sense."

Who says either of those two small soap producers would want to compete with mass producers? That would depend on the owners of the operations and what their long term business objectives might be. Small business still forms the backbone of our economy and collectively, they do a lot of business and employ a lot of people in Canada.

There are many examples of small companies who focus on a piece of the market (for soap, as only one example) and do a good job of serving it. Direct competition with a low-cost mass producer isn't likely part of the formula for success for most of them.

Local regional industry is alive and well, but could become a much larger piece of the total pie. Sometimes this is called going after the "niche markets" (or speciality markets), but a bunch of niche markets together could realistically become one big(ger) market. (A "market" being a group of customers)...

 

[countryboy]

OMG, this is turning out to be a rant, but the point is that management and the employees need to put the company first above all else. I think management salaries and employee contracts should be reviewed every year based on the company's results. If the company posts a loss for the year, nobody gets a bonus and nobody gets a raise. Period... end of story. If the company gets to the point of bankruptcy then both sides should concede on benefits and wages. When the company recovers, what was conceded should be given back. This is almost like a scale where you have management on side and employees on the other. You put something on side, you have to put something on the other. Similarly, if you take something off one side, you have to take something off the other... or the whole thing teeters and eventually tumbles.

Or imagine this...(it takes some imagination!)...if a company decided that everyone would be involved in some sort of incentive/profit sharing scheme, you would no longer need a union. If all the employees were paid an adequate "survival" wage (enough to take care of the basics), and could take home a share of the profits at the end of the year, there would be a huge incentive to do the best job possible for the company. I'm not saying all the jobs should be paid the same (they shouldn't), but sorting all that out fairly and equitably isn't that difficult.

Tying the company results to pay can eliminate a lot of problems and get happy employess all moving in the same direction.

Something like WestJet, where the employees are shareholders. And that shows in the performance of the company and its people.