TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Labor unions! Yay or nay?

Go To

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#26: Dec 13th 2012 at 3:26:50 PM

@ De Marquis:

Union leaders did not appear to have the best interests of their members at heart. The final result often resembled two large bureaucracies playing politics and seeking influence over the other, often at the expense of employment fairness.

In other words, Union Officials more interested in their Political Careers then their members? Then again, the US hasn't really had to contend with Unions that could grind the country to halt and bring down Governments. One Union leader has a surname who still known now: Scargill. Arthur Scargill.

I might cover my own personal feeling on Unions tomorrow. Like Barkey, they're mixed.

edited 13th Dec '12 3:27:48 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#27: Dec 13th 2012 at 3:54:27 PM

The main problem is that, so far as I could see, no HR negotiator is ever hired due to their skill at achieving an equitable compromise with Labor. Nor is any labor president ever elected due to their ability to get along with Management. And as long as that was true, both sides were more interested in scoring points with their constituency than in working out a rational labor contract.

The process was too political. I still say it needs serious reform.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#28: Dec 13th 2012 at 4:06:19 PM

Nor is any labor president ever elected due to their ability to get along with Management.

You mean that the unions aren't secretly colluding with management behind the scenes to ensure company profits and permanent employment for the organizers?

edited 13th Dec '12 4:07:48 PM by Ramidel

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#29: Dec 13th 2012 at 4:49:25 PM

I think I'd make a pretty good labor union official, which is why I'll never be one.

"Stop fucking whining" isn't something you say to your constituents. There's no real reason to be an asshole to the management, because as part of a union, you have the power. But when union workers might be making, say, 40 an hour. And then they want 60, that's the best response I'd have.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#30: Dec 13th 2012 at 4:50:54 PM

I am kind of in a similar boat as barkey. On one hand we have unions that have become abusive of both workers and the company and are effectively holding it hostage.

On the other hand there seriously some industries and businesses that need a union to keep the management from throwing everyone under the bus.

Other benefits of the more honest skilled labor based unions out here is every member has to meet minimum skill sets and do quality work or they get booted and fired. This is mostly in construction. We are a right to work state but there is wiggle room depending on how a business is run.

I like the construction unions because they really do make their guys train to do a good job as best as they can. They have better screening and training programs then the guys who just hire the cheap gang of illegals from the south side of town.

Then we have unions being exploitive. Our police union was seriously abusing the pension program and draining the city dry. They were deliberately not hiring more troopers so the troopers would get more overtime and had rule that they got their pension based off the highest hourly wage they worked not their standard hours worked. So you were having common troopers earning the pension of a commisioner in some cases.

There was a huge fight over it that ended in a permanent change to future pensions but letting them keep their exploited pension system. This also meant we had to start cutting funds across several areas and the fire fighters got dinged and we had another union fight.

Now on the flip side we have Walmart. They work their guys hard and pay them shit wages period. Yeah I don't think they need 10-12 dollars an hour but they need something a little better then minimum wage for the hiring requirements they have been putting out at least locally.

Security Guards are one of those industries where unions are starting to spring up. The company I work for is notorious for abusing their employee's with wages. It got so bad they had to bypass the united states office and visit the home office in Sweden.

I can see a continued need for unions but at the same time they can be easily abusive. There needs to be some reasonable checks and balances for both unions and employers. Right now a lot of it is an all or nothing game of fighting for control.

Who watches the watchmen?
DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#31: Dec 13th 2012 at 4:59:10 PM

I agree that Unions can be exploitative, but anything that trusts Corporations to care about anything other than profit margins is painfully naive. Ideally, there'd be more GOV regulation on both sides (but mostly on corporations), but, until that happens, unions are necessary.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#32: Dec 13th 2012 at 7:27:12 PM

Thing is letting a union have unlimited power is just as abusive as letting the corporation have it. Which is why I would like some form of checks and balancese for both. I can agree it would likely have to be government mandated.

Who watches the watchmen?
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#33: Dec 13th 2012 at 8:57:38 PM

That's why I think an outside arbitrator should play a more aggressive regulatory role, esp. at the local level. This isn't something that you can just let the two sides work out for themselves, it has economic implications beyond any one specific labor contract. What Best Of described Finland as having sounded like a good direction to take.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
#34: Dec 13th 2012 at 9:32:49 PM

Any individual or group in which trust may be placed has the potential to abuse that trust.Still, I'd say labor unions are necessary because corporations will on the whole, left to their own oversight, abuse and exploit their employees. As proof, I refer you to the 19th century.

GlassPistol Since: Nov, 2010
#35: Dec 13th 2012 at 9:39:25 PM

This isn't a debate whether labor unions should exist, but whether they should be allowed to force people to pay dues, even when they don't belong to the union.

Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#36: Dec 13th 2012 at 9:46:58 PM

Glass Pistol, the OP was quite explicit that the thread was about unions in general, even though the Michigan decision was the trigger.

A brighter future for a darker age.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#37: Dec 14th 2012 at 5:08:09 AM

I'd say "yes", but only if the system was reformed first.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#38: Dec 14th 2012 at 6:19:59 PM

I say we do need them to an extent but we need to adress the potential for abuse at the hands of unions.

Who watches the watchmen?
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#39: Dec 14th 2012 at 10:29:21 PM

[up]

I'd second this.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
LostAnarchist Violence Is Necessary! from Neo Arcadia Itself Since: Sep, 2011
Violence Is Necessary!
#40: Dec 15th 2012 at 9:43:40 AM

[up][up] Thirded. And Seeing what took place in Michigan (and Wisconsin in the past) sickens me to NO END...

It's bad enough I can't join a decent union toward getting a decent wage or actual healthcare to actually take care of myself in South Carolina, either (instead, I'm paying higher taxes so everyone can have something I don't and will never have that I actually need, all because of some greedy rich/corporate pandering shit-stains in power!).

In short, I know just WTF right-to-work is all about - everything for less or little to nothing just to feed the rich and corporate scumbags too greedy to work harder and more like the fucking rest of us!

edited 15th Dec '12 9:47:53 AM by LostAnarchist

This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio
Erock Proud Canadian from Toronto Since: Jul, 2009
Proud Canadian
#41: Dec 15th 2012 at 9:47:37 AM

I Take issue with equating strong unions with strong corporations. Unions are made of mostly working people, and unless they're doctors, the benefits usually end up back in the economy anyways.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.
LostAnarchist Violence Is Necessary! from Neo Arcadia Itself Since: Sep, 2011
Violence Is Necessary!
#42: Dec 15th 2012 at 9:49:08 AM

If anything, corporations need to be weakened, not the unions who protect our rights and benefits and ask for some help in return to defend said freedoms/rights given by God that We, the People, are supposed to fucking have!

Corporations haven't done shit for us but make us hard-working, law-abiding, truly innocent Americans look like country-stealing, pompous and imperialist BS worldwide!

[down] My point exactly, though not as well worded, as you can tell by my anger at this whole issue and why we Americans are even fucking having it...

edited 15th Dec '12 9:51:12 AM by LostAnarchist

This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio
Erock Proud Canadian from Toronto Since: Jul, 2009
Proud Canadian
#43: Dec 15th 2012 at 9:50:03 AM

My problem with corporations isn't in the organization, but in the bad practices of most of them when unrestricted.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#44: Dec 15th 2012 at 9:51:41 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unions tend to be organized democratically. At the very least, that makes the union leaders more accountable to the workers than the heads of the corporations.

Erock Proud Canadian from Toronto Since: Jul, 2009
Proud Canadian
#45: Dec 15th 2012 at 9:52:46 AM

Democratically sometimes means badly. A lot of unions do end up rather corrupt or inefficient.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.
LostAnarchist Violence Is Necessary! from Neo Arcadia Itself Since: Sep, 2011
Violence Is Necessary!
#46: Dec 15th 2012 at 9:53:08 AM

[up][up] And I don't want to see that disappear - but it can't stay around unless the money, physical vocal support, and actual votes are there to protect something every American in this country, young and old, should hold dear.

[up]And sadly, you have a point. But who is monitoring the corporations ruining our country and keeping people like me from having valuable resources I know we all need (good wages and benefits being prime examples!)?

edited 15th Dec '12 9:54:23 AM by LostAnarchist

This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#47: Dec 15th 2012 at 9:57:24 AM

[up][up] Democracy means more accountability. If a union leader acts in a way that doesn't benefit the workers, then the workers can put someone else in power. If a corporate acts in a way that doesn't benefit the workers, they're screwed.

That being said, sometimes corrupt leaders slip through the cracks, but I prefer a net which has a bit too large holes over no net at all.

Erock Proud Canadian from Toronto Since: Jul, 2009
Proud Canadian
#48: Dec 15th 2012 at 9:58:50 AM

[up][up]Because corporations can be an effective way of organizing a company to create wealth and hire people.

[up]I'll agree with you on that one.

edited 15th Dec '12 9:59:35 AM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#49: Dec 15th 2012 at 10:27:32 AM

And sadly, you have a point. But who is monitoring the corporations ruining our country and keeping people like me from having valuable resources I know we all need (good wages and benefits being prime examples!)?

Supply and demand, do you have any experience or credentials/training that qualify you for jobs that get good wages?

If you're essentially unskilled, then why do you deserve good wages? Good in this case meaning middle class I suppose.

That's the issue I start to take with unions at times I suppose. There is such a thing as a point where a union grabs a company by the balls, and is paying workers way more than what they are worth, especially the lazy ones who just about never get fired in some workplaces.

I've seen companies that exploit workers, and I've been an exploited worker. But for some reason I sort of expect companies to be completely sociopathic and selfish, but I always figured the point of a union was fairness in every aspect in the workplace. Not "How much can we pry out of the management?"

Ideally, a Union should be able to realize when what they have is pretty good, and to focus on protecting that standard as much as possible. It just seems like I've never seen a union that has a stance of "You know, we have it pretty good here. Good wages, good benefits, I don't really have much in the way of complaints." And I've seen Union environments where they should be saying that shit. Once again, the Longshoremen in my community. Ranges of 45-65 bucks an hour for a job that could count as 50 percent unskilled labor, 50 percent machine operator(cranes, trucks, forklifts)

So essentially, I'm pretty happy with what I have, and have my own plans in my head for my career progression over time, but here these guys are striking, when they have better benefits, make three times as much as me on average, work less hours, have massive job security, and require way less credentials and overall intelligence to perform their job? Cry me a fucking river longshoremen, this Network Administrator could give two shits.

edited 15th Dec '12 10:36:37 AM by Barkey

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#50: Dec 15th 2012 at 10:30:03 AM

[up]Enough to pay rent and get health care. Basics of the basics. A living wage isn't middle class. tongue


Total posts: 222
Top