Whats your take on Unions?

[Liberalman]

Some pretty wild generalizations there, Liberalman. I think there are situations as you describe, but there are also situations where a very skilled and honest person goes inito business and hires employees, with the honest intent of dealing with them fairly because he knows happy employees are productive and earn money not for just themselves but for the company too. Many of the problems you speak of are controlled by the market place, Produce a sh*tty product, you either won't be able to sell it or sell it at a much reduced price, so the workers will respond according, accept sh*tty pay or quit and go where they can do better. The consumer is the ultimate control. The Union is just another level of "government" - which we have to decide if we REALLY want to fund.

A friend of mine didn't believe in unions and worked hard in the trades sector got paid market rates which is good right but he had hardly no benefits and he will be getting a company pension after working there for thirty years which is a five year pension and that's it, he said to me he should have gone to a union shop.

About the labour code and firing, it takes one to two years before you get a hearing and you have to survive until then and that is if you decide not to pack it in if you know what I mean.

 

[countryboy]

The contract is a legal binding document but the employer is constantly challenging the interpretation of the contract therefore tying up lots of money in legal costs on both sides, which I feel is a way of depleting the union funds because corporations have lots of shareholder money to throw around.

Where did you read that? The people running the corporations rarely "throw shareholder money around" for any reason, or they'd be out of a job very quickly. That statement is nonsense.

The ultimate goal of any employer is to break the union.

Liberalman, your lack of experience in the real (business) world is showing. The ultimate goal of any employer is to protect the business. That includes the shareholders, employees, and customers. Your statement is not only incorrect, it is offensive to anyone running a business with employees.

The employer is better off with a union worker because they get a better quality employee that is there to do the job right sure they pay more in wages and benefits but they get better quality of products.

The employer is much better qualified than you or I to determine what kind of employees he/she should have. Your statement is far too "broad brush" to have any validity - I could accurately counter with the opposite version of that, like this:
"The employer is better off with a non-union worker because they get a better quality employee that is there to do the job right. Sure, they might (or might not) get paid more in wages (because the value of the job and the performance & pay of the employee within that job is evaluated by the employer, not some union contract) but they get better better quality of products, because the employee is not protected by their union and thus, must work effectively to create those products."

Of course, neither of those statements is true because each situation is unique.

In a non union shop the working conditions are bad and the pay is low and the worker just doesn’t care about the quality of the product.

Bullsh!t. In some cases, the opposite is true. I've seen cases where union employees deliberately sabotage the products because they're disgruntled over a labour dispute. Example? The old GM St. Therese plant where I saw an assembly person dropping tools into the fender wells of the new Monte Carlos coming down the line, and then welding them shut. The result? A permanent rattle that no dealer could ever fix. Do you think that worker cared about the quality of the product?

Inflation is a by product of a low unemployment rate where lot’s of people are getting a good wage which means they can pay more for goods and services and from that more employment opportunities spring up.

That doesn't even look good on paper. You forgot the market portion of that equation. Too often, people who don't understand business forget that someone has to buy all this wonderful output of goods and services. Your formula is crap.

The only people that complain about inflation are people that are in debt and that just a whole other subject.

Jeez, you have a narrow view of reality.

 

[JLM]

A friend of mine didn't believe in unions and worked hard in the trades sector got paid market rates which is good right but he had hardly no benefits and he will be getting a company pension after working there for thirty years which is a five year pension and that's it, he said to me he should have gone to a union shop.

About the labour code and firing, it takes one to two years before you get a hearing and you have to survive until then and that is if you decide not to pack it in if you know what I mean.

I think part of the problem is all these "benefits" that have crept in over the years. At one time the worker was satisfied with a wage where he could buy the benefits he chose. He SAVED money from his pay cheques to buy them, he prepared for retirement for holidays etc. and they mostly survived. Of course nowadays the pay cheque is badly stretched buying optional stuff like R.V.s, flatsceen T.V.s, holidays in Mexico or Hawai, second and third vehicles and people have got away from funding the things that are really important. "Benefits" have reached the point where they are a huge albatross.

 

[countryboy]

A friend of mine didn't believe in unions and worked hard in the trades sector got paid market rates which is good right but he had hardly no benefits and he will be getting a company pension after working there for thirty years which is a five year pension and that's it, he said to me he should have gone to a union shop.

About the labour code and firing, it takes one to two years before you get a hearing and you have to survive until then and that is if you decide not to pack it in if you know what I mean.

Perhaps more of our people need some training on how to think for themselves. That would prevent a lot of problems like this. Of course, we want some organization (government or union) to do our thinking for us, and that results in what we have today. Problems.

Maybe we should be setting on our sights on accountability for our personal actions, rather than blaming someone/something else for all our problems. It's called finding the root cause of the problem...Quality Management 101.

 

[countryboy]

I think part of the problem is all these "benefits" that have crept in over the years. At one time the worker was satisfied with a wage where he could buy the benefits he chose. He SAVED money from his pay cheques to buy them, he prepared for retirement for holidays etc. and they mostly survived. Of course nowadays the pay cheque is badly stretched buying optional stuff like R.V.s, flatsceen T.V.s, holidays in Mexico or Hawai, second and third vehicles and people have got away from funding the things that are really important. "Benefits" have reached the point where they are a huge albatross.

I saw a panhandler down in Vancouver a while back...sitting on his ass on the sidewalk, begging for money. And he had the latest video i-Pod plugged into his (apparently empty) head to entertain himself while he was "on duty."

Do you think there was something wrong with that picture?

 

[JLM]

I saw a panhandler down in Vancouver a while back...sitting on his ass on the sidewalk, begging for money. And he had the latest video i-Pod plugged into his (apparently empty) head to entertain himself while he was "on duty."

Do you think there was something wrong with that picture?

Yep......................:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[taxslave]

No doubt they made you feel inferior. That will happen with envious lesser intellects.:lol:

It would be hard for some worthless striker to make a real working person feel inferior.

As I once told some worthless postal striker that was trying to block me from getting my company mail: "Your right to strike ends when it interferes with my right to earn a living. Move or get walked on."
Until there is private sector competition government employees should not have the right to strike.

 

[darkbeaver]

Here's a little true common sense that is impossible to circumvent.

If the worker is not paid he cannot shop at your establishment or any other and the economy which we all depend on grinds to a halt. The more the worker is paid the more he/she will spend at your establishment. It is well known that the dumb CEOs bugger with these rules at the direct peril of their own place of employment for nothing more than very short term earnings. Every dumb bastard out there who has spoken against unions is responsible for wrecking the economies of the west. You stupid piece of wallpaper you crapped in your own nest and now you can't understand why it stinks.

 

[YukonJack]

Unions discourage - nay, punish - striving for excellence.
Unions deny a person the right to work and support his family.
Unions promote - nay, reward - mediocrity.

 

[darkbeaver]

It would be hard for some worthless striker to make a real working person feel inferior.

As I once told some worthless postal striker that was trying to block me from getting my company mail: "Your right to strike ends when it interferes with my right to earn a living. Move or get walked on."
Until there is private sector competition government employees should not have the right to strike.

The right to strike never ends. It is unfortunate that office boys are sometimes deterred from there assignments when real men take a stand.

 

[taxslave]

The contract is a legal binding document but the employer is constantly challenging the interpretation of the contract therefore tying up lots of money in legal costs on both sides, which I feel is a way of depleting the union funds because corporations have lots of shareholder money to throw around.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Union members are constantly sloughing off their responsibilities because they know it is virtually impossible to fire them.


The employer is better off with a union worker because they get a better quality employee that is there to do the job right sure they pay more in wages and benefits but they get better quality of products.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

More BS except for the pay more for less part. Same as above. Union workers can't be fired for being incompetent or even for showing up drunk for work.


In a non union shop the working conditions are bad and the pay is low and the worker just doesn’t care about the quality of the product.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
More BS . See above.

 

[countryboy]

Here's a little true common sense that is impossible to circumvent.

If the worker is not paid he cannot shop at your establishment or any other and the economy which we all depend on grinds to a halt. The more the worker is paid the more he/she will spend at your establishment. It is well known that the dumb CEOs bugger with these rules at the direct peril of their own place of employment for nothing more than very short term earnings. Every dumb bastard out there who has spoken against unions is responsible for wrecking the economies of the west. You stupid piece of wallpaper you crapped in your own nest and now you can't understand why it stinks.

Hey DB, I think that's a bit of overkill. You'd be hard pressed to find a CEO that gets involved with the details of pay rates, union or otherwise, unless you're talking about a very small company. Pay is part of the overall operating results, for which the boss is responsible, but it is generally the job of the specialists (HR) to figure these things out. The boss has to balance the whole picture of course, but the picture of a CEO sitting in his office, scheming over how to screw his employess is unrealistic, in my opinion.

As far as wrecking the economies of the west, I disagree. Any "outsourcing" of jobs to countries with cheaper labour is actually caused by consumers demanding lower prices for the products. If the "western" company can't produce a similar product for a competitive price, they won't sell it (the consumer won't buy it).

The cost of labour certainly influences those costs, but I can't see where paying employees higher wages helps the cause, generally speaking.

 

[Northboy]

What do you think about unions?

In my city USW 6500 is on strike thats hurting alot of business"s. And now the college teachers are about to go on strike, shutting down our two colleges. And screwing alot of students badely...

Last year the MTO, TD and CIBC bankers were on strike...

Local 598 reached a tentative deal with xstrata, thank god mabye they wont strike....

What the hell, it seems to me in my city at least Unions do more harm then good...

Then some of the strikers, not going to say which union is threatening people in the community and demanding a boycott of business's in sudbury to force the corporations back to the table...

Like it or lump it, we made our own bed.

Check out Article 23 of the UN Declaration of Independence written in 1948.

We made a deal.....

 

[YukonJack]

To paraphrase darkbeaver: The right to work and earn a living never ends. It is unfortunate that the bullies (who need an even bigger bully to speak for them) are able to deter the responsible men when they are trying to make living.

 

[Liberalman]

Countryboy

The people running the corporations rarely "throw shareholder money around" for any reason, or they'd be out of a job very quickly.

The corpoation is owned by the shareholders therefore it’s shareholder money

The ultimate goal of any employer is to protect the business. That includes the shareholders, employees, and customers.

The ultimate goal of any employer is to make money and big bonuses

"The employer is better off with a non-union worker because they get a better quality employee that is there to do the job right. Sure, they might (or might not) get paid more in wages (because the value of the job and the performance & pay of the employee within that job is evaluated by the employer, not some union contract) but they get better better quality of products, because the employee is not protected by their union and thus, must work effectively to create those products."

The employer wants a non-union worker because they don’t have to pay them much in hourly wage or benifets

You forgot the market portion of that equation. Too often, people who don't understand business forget that someone has to buy all this wonderful output of goods and services.

Who do you think buys the products people that are poor and don’t have that much money?
High wage earners are the market or people that can afford to buy the product or service.

 

[Johnnny]

i worked a non-union job at an exploration camp in the yukon, 25$$/hr, and we were funded by the chinesse lol

 

[JLM]

It would be hard for some worthless striker to make a real working person feel inferior.

As I once told some worthless postal striker that was trying to block me from getting my company mail: "Your right to strike ends when it interferes with my right to earn a living. Move or get walked on."
Until there is private sector competition government employees should not have the right to strike.

You said it well, Taxslave. :smile:

 

[Liberalman]

I saw a panhandler down in Vancouver a while back...sitting on his ass on the sidewalk, begging for money. And he had the latest video i-Pod plugged into his (apparently empty) head to entertain himself while he was "on duty."

Do you think there was something wrong with that picture?

Back in the 1970s an old friend talked me into panhandling on Yonge Street Toronto so he can get train fare to get home so I did it for a half hour all I said is can you spare a quarter and people gave more money than I was asking in that half hour I made sixty dollars tax free money.
I noticed that people gave because it made them feel good like they did some good in their lives.

Those panhandler are the smart ones like a old lady that was shaking at a major intersection asking for money until a reporter from a major newspaper decided to follow her to see which bridge she was sleeping under and it was a nice condo.

If you notice a lot of those panhandlers are there for a couple of hours until they get their drug or drinking money and they are gone.
So those people in Vancouver are the smart ones

 

[Northboy]

You said it well, Taxslave. :smile:

This is Just.

 

[countryboy]

Countryboy



The corpoation is owned by the shareholders therefore it’s shareholder money

You got that part right. And the shareholders elect a board of directors to oversee the company. And the board installs a management team to run things. Profitably. If shareholder money starts getting "thrown around", the people on the board and/or management get replaced. You should learn how to connect the dots before you make broad, sweeping, incorrect, and downright silly statements on how things get done in the real world.

The ultimate goal of any employer is to make money and big bonuses

Wrong. The ultimate goal of any employer is to ensure the survival of the company. Without that, there would be no money, big bonuses, employees, etc. You really should dig deeper than some headline to figure these things out. Remember, the media likes to get attention to increase their audience...facts and reality take a backseat to that much of the time.

If you are judging all employers by what you read about companies like Enron, you are fantasizing. For every Enron, there must be thousands of companies of all sizes that are trying to do the "right things" for their companies.

The employer wants a non-union worker because they don’t have to pay them much in hourly wage or benifets

Well, some do and I wouldn't blame them for that. But, there is much more to it than that rather simple statement. The employer holds the ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of the enterprise. Given that authority should be balanced with responsibility (are you familiar with the concept?), then it would make sense that an employer would not want to give up the authority (or control) of what is likely the biggest expense of the company - cost of labour. That authority includes types of jobs, output rates, measurements of productivity, and yes, PAY.

If you think an employer should give up much of this control to a union, it would be like asking a plumber to fix a toilet, but without the necessary tools like a pipe wrench, etc.

Who do you think buys the products people that are poor and don’t have that much money?
High wage earners are the market or people that can afford to buy the product or service.

I have a pretty good grasp of that concept, for sure. Unfortunately, you're being theoretical here and that's dangerous. How many union workers shop at Wal-Mart for Chinese-produced (cheap) products? My guess is "lots." Why? Well, it's human nature...now that they've "earned" their high wages, it's theirs to spend as they see fit. And I seriously doubt that they have the best interests of their union brothers in mind when they see a patio set on sale at Wal-Mart for 99 bucks vs. one for 299 bucks, made in Canada (if there still is such a thing available). Of course, the higher priced, locally-produced patio set contains the higher cost of the wages and costs of Canadian labour. Some of which could be caused by union contracts.

Is it that difficult for you to understand?