Labor unions! Yay or nay?

In Switzerland at least that's still the case.

I believe that not unions, but the necesity for unions is a telltale sign of an administrative failure that fails to take into account the operative levels of a company into account on certain decisions not just wages.

What I mean to say, is that in a fantasy perfect world, a Union would not be necesary because the company already pays fair wages, already takes into account the opinion of everyone, and already has benefits other than just a salary that can motivate people within.

I do not intend to describe Unions as a necesary evil either in this case. Even in the case of a company heeding everyone, people sometimes prefer statements as a group and it would certainly be way easier for a company to respond to the (assuming this is the fantasy world still) reasonable requests of the labourer's union than to do the research themselves of what they need.

Problem is the thing is so politicized nowadays (It is no longer a thing of fair wages, or anything. It is just "Us versus Them") that no one will ever be happy in this subject because no side is happy unless the other "loses".

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Not everyone is unwilling to compromise:

[1] For those few not fluent in German, the largest Labor Union and one of the top right-wing politicians and businessman compromised for longer work hours after the Swiss franc shock.

Of course. Great examples exist. As I said they are not good, or bad, but can be good or bad. Thing is not everyone is willing to go beyond "Evil" or "Good" when they hear the word "Unions" instead of checking out what they actually do.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Depends on what we mean by "yay" or "nay". I would say technically yay, as I believe unions are necessary to stop abuse by companies of their employees. Having said that, I think unions are just as capable of abusing power as businesses are. So really, I'd take it on a case-by-case basis.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

The main difference there is that a union that drives its industry out of business has failed (its members no longer have jobs), while an industry that crushes the power of its unions has succeeded (it can now dictate terms of employment to its workers). Unions are certainly capable of corruption and incompetence, but companies can — and would prefer to — exist without unions, while unions could not exist without companies to employ their members.

Given that, I'd trust unions with power much farther than I'd trust companies. Not to mention the fact that I'd rather see a company's profits go to its workers than to its executives and stockholders anyway.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Well, no, unions can subsume the company. Even if we don't want to wander into anarchism or end-stage Communism, cooperatives or the old-fashioned guilds of yore were two ways that the workers can be the institution itself. It's just that in a capitalist society, this is not well-suited to a lot of sectors.

Actually co-ops are coming back in force lately. And, as it turns out, they have a venerable history.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Heck it is hard to trust ANYONE with power, unions or not. My experience with unions, or rather, my countrys experience with unions has been absolutely nothing but negative for the last 4-5 decades or so.

So I might be biased.

Also my grandma is a Nazi so I am probably genetically wired to want to shoot them.

I am probably biased. Sorry. it is in my genes.

edited 15th Apr '15 7:31:39 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I cannot watch youtube here from the job! Not even the title :P

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Repo The Genetic Opera, song: Infected, refrain: "I'm infected by your genetics." It's a song about a girl who thinks she has an inheritable disease from her dead mother, whom she resents terribly for it.

Ah, raising children. It's a thank-less job. But somebody's got to do it!

edited 15th Apr '15 7:56:44 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

P'shaw. I do not resent my grandma for giving me her genes. She is cool.

Crazy. But cool. Totes a fascist, but cool. I mean. Not like she actually voted for a facist president or whatever she just verbally supports them.

But craaaaaaaazy.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Toys in the aaaaaattic she is craaaaaaaaaaazyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...

One of the things I find most annoying with union is luddism; disliking robotics, automatization, and liking what amounts to redundant, unsafe, unreliable busywork.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I know this is old, but I think the literal trillions of dollars being shuffled into off-shore tax shelters in the Caymans and other places argues against this. That money isn't invested, isn't spent, it's literally locked up on an island so that the owner can compare how many zeroes are on his bank account compared to other super-wealthy or corporations who do the same. At least if unions are pushing for higher wages for their members, that money is staying in the economy.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

There is a point in that, but by the same token the Industrial Revolution caused a pretty devastating drop in living standards, property ownership, and social security for the poorest in Britain. For hundreds of years the lots of smallholding sheep farmers had made a living making and selling their own woolen clothes. With the Enclosure of Acts and large-scale famring, those people found the common land they used to graze their sheep sold off to industrialists, who then forced them to work in woolen mills. That's the origin of Luddism: it was a reaction to the reorganization of society in a way that empowered a new class of wealthy industrialists and technocrats at the expense of ways of living that were more equitable, though less advanced.

It's a myth that technological progress means the betterment of all. A lot of Britons would have been much better off - in absolute terms - in 1750 than their descendants would be in 1850. Even today, "development" in the third world has meant a feeding frenzy for urban capitalists at the expense of historical rural socio-economic networks. Just ask the Amazon Indians.

edited 16th Apr '15 3:03:57 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

That's when it's badly-done and badly-planned.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

More specifically, that is why socialism arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as a reaction to the observation that unchecked capitalism is terribly destructive to living standards for all but the ones who own the industries.

In the early days of unions, any attempt to organize labor or strike was met with brutal suppression, both from businesses and from government. It wasn't until the 1920s that the political environment began to turn sympathetic.

edited 16th Apr '15 6:36:28 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Which was funnily enough when the political arms of Unions (Parties) started to enter Parliaments and form Governments.

Keep Rolling On

Pretty sure it started with Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal trust busting progressiveness in the 1900's. It's also around that time that The Jungle came out.

Sure, but up until the 20s and 30s, it was still commonplace for businesses to hire police to beat up strikers. Federal protection for unions didn't really come into being until the FDR era.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

So I have been pretty outspoken against syndicates in the past...some more info has been unveiled so you guys can get an idea of just how abusive this sorta stuff can get.

To comprehend the context, understand my country has minimum salary, and every increase here detailed is based upon them. The details on the following post are based on the collective conventions between the government and the JAPDEVA-SINTRAJAP, which is the syndicate people and the group that is given the management of the Ports. Costa Rica is ranked 128 out of 148 in port quality according to World Data

• 80% of total money is reserved for salaries
• There is permission to study all day long. No certificate that proves they are currently studying is needed
• Secretary General of the Syndicate can only do that job
• Other members of the Syndicate get up to 100 days they can work for the Syndicate
• Syndicate meetings can take a person's entire day, even if the meeting itself is only scheduled for 1 hour
• Licences for sickness are paid back 100% (TBH I actually agree with this one. problem is that people abuse it)
• There are workers that are paid 8 hours of work a day whereas they only work 3.
• No minimum requirements for job posts at all. SINTRAJAP reserves the right to reccomend people for posts.
• 10 days licence for matrimony. 5 days for birth of child. (For men)
• Annual increase to their salary besides from the one dictated by central government
• 30% raw salary increase to professionals, so that they do not emigrate
• 25% raw salary increase to accountants, for guaranteeing no loss of cheques
• 30% raw salary increase for job height (starting from 8 meters, and increasing thereafter)
• Unempployment payment is increased by an additional month for each year labored, up to 20 years maximum
• 5% to 25% incentive raw salary increase to people who decide to make a "porturary career" (that is...they decide to work at the port)
• 12% incentive to all members of security. Because. Just because.
• 100% subsidies to restaurant and soda work
• 100% salary subsidy to attend medical dates (Their own. Their children, or their spouses')
• Payment of up to 100% of prosthetics, glasses, or hearing aids for worker, parents, spouse, and children
• 60% of scholarships are not reimbursed (without justification needed)
• Additional incentive plans include: Christmas gifts. uniforms for children. Vacation plans. And...country club.
• 40% raw salary increase for "being willing to do extra hours"
• Various bonuses for "doing their job right" (check the rankings)
• Those workers who are 55 years or older and who have worked for a minimum of 20 years and who think (No medical checkup needed) they have a difficulty, either mental or physical, may solicit the recognition of their salary until they can retire without working.

All of these subsidies come out of taxpayer money, to run one of the most inneficient ports in the world.

You can understand then, how I am a bit against labor unions when these are the examples I have in my country. Notice that is only ONE synicate. There is also a syndicate for the power and telephone company, the teachers, the refinery (that last refined oil 10 years ago. Once.) and many others.

Also bear in mind for example that there are 1300 employees assigned to the port alone, yet, when they went on strike and other people were hired to run it, 200 people sufficed to run.

You wanna see labor union corruption? This is the prime example of what they are capable of.

Any threat of removing any of these "collective conventions" are retaliated with general strikes that paralyze the transit in the entire country.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes