Labor Unions - Do we need them anymore?

[Motokid]

I'm also having trouble trying to figure out who people think Unions are supposed to benefit.

Carpenters and plumbers make good money compared to janitors and stockroom people don't they? I know they charge a pretty hefty wage when they come to my house.

If you are arguing that it's the unions that help the poor and impoverished, I might beg to differ. I see the unions as being more the middle class employeers around my parts.

 

[SFG75]

The union is first and foremost, to represent the interests of the members. As a teacher, I'm a member of the NEA, which represents over 2 million teachers nationwide. Why am I member? Let me give you a few scenarios that I have personally witnessed.

**You are teacher "A" who teaches home economics. You have a new building principal who just recently has started giving you bad evaluations. Principal Pain has a daughter who guess what?.....is majoring in home economics education!!. Wow, guess what is going on?

**You sign your contract and the payment contract part is blank. You are told they will you $30,000, but when you get the contract two months later, you find out that you'll be getting $23,000 instead.

When it comes to dealing with your boss, you are not on equal footing. In both examples above, a person on their own cannot rectify what is going on. You need someone in your corner and you need some parameters in the workplace to make sure that your boss doesn't violate your rights when they develop a Napoleon complex. That is all that union does, in particular for teachers. It doesn't guarantee that you'll have lifetime employment, it just guarantees that you have due process rights.

 

[novella]

Most of the people I know, and see where I live, do not now, nor have they ever worked for a union, and they have benefits, retirement packages, decent wages, health care options.....people do not need unions to have these things. My company has education reimbursement (spelling?)....We have well over 3000 employees worldwide and none of them are Union.
Dupont is, for the most part, not Union and they employ 10's of thousands...

PACE International Union represents approximately 2,000 workers at DuPont and over 270,000 workers in the paper, oil, chemical, atomic energy, auto parts, grain milling, cement, and industrial minerals industries. They've been engaged in loads of recent disputes with DuPont, who has a reputation for union busting.

I think people don't wear their union affiliations on their sleeves, but they are 1/5 of the US workforce. They are really all around you, you just don't see it.

 

[Motokid]

Who says a boss/owner should be on equal footing with the employees, and why shouldn't a boss/owner have the right to have whoever they want working for them?

You want a good job with good pay, work for it and do a good job.

I can be replaced at any time for any reason. That pretty much goes for anyone union or not.

If you sign a contract without the salary blank filled in it's your own fault. Quit if you don't like the pay and find another job.

 

[novella]

DuPont also was found guilty in 2002 for violating the National Labor Relations Act in their dealing with the Neoprene Craftmen's Union and the Chemical Workers Association, two other unions with a lot of employees at DuPont.

DuPont employs load of other members of other unions. Do they want this to be part of their image? Of course not.

 

[novella]

I can be replaced at any time for any reason. That pretty much goes for anyone union or not.

.

That's not true. In most cases, in order to fire a union member, you have to show a lot of cause or face legal proceedings.

 

[Motokid]

Let me ask you this then....you start your own company...making widgets, do you hire union labor or non-union labor?

 

[novella]

The point is that corporate managers don't drive the union movement, the workers do. To ask whether entrepreneurial management will support a union movement is like asking the Mets whether they want to give the Yankees a 5 run lead. There's no incentive for that. That doesn't make unionizing wrong, though.

I start my own company, I do most of the work. I employ as few people as possible. If the company grows and wants to unionize, it will give the employees more bargaining power against me. That's just how it goes. If I need those particular workers, then I will employ union workers. Just because it doesn't directly benefit me doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Motokid]

I never asked if Unions were right or wrong....(that sounds kinda wierd....) I simply asked if they were needed in 2005.

A good carpenter is a good carpenter regardless of Union or not. The ability of that carpenter to make a living rests solely in his hands. If he's good he'll do fine. If not, he should not be protected by anybody.

Again, are we talking about the very poorest of the poor that need protection through Unions, or the skilled trades people, or the educated teachers.....

 

[Motokid]

To be honest this is a subject with quite a lot of personal resonance for me, and I suspect if I stay in this thread much longer I’ll say something that gets me banned; so I’ll just make one last statement.
There will always be a need for people to be doing un-skilled work. I don’t expect these people to be paid similar salaries to those who have the ability to undertake more highly skilled work. But I’m not comfortable with the thought that products I buy are partly subsidised by wages for workers that keep them trapped in poverty. We don’t need a society were everyone is paid the same, there is no incentive, but I do want those who are at the bottom to have the opportunity for their children to have a decent enough start in life that if they have drive, and ability, and all the other aspects that make up success, they can achieve that. I have a limited understanding of “the American Dream” but I would have imagined that that fits into it somehow.

I would wish that you not drop out of this Kenny. I'm not feeling things getting out of hand. I, for one am finding this thread extreamly enjoyable and interesting. I'm not taking anything personal, and I hope you're not either.

Based on what you said here it makes total sense, and I believe I said almost the exact same thing somewhere along the lines too. The best we can do is offer the widest range of possibility for the broadest range of people. My question is simply do we need Unions to offer that? If you think yes, that's fine by me. I'm just trying to understand why.

Come back and help out this thread. Please.

 

[novella]

Yeah, Kenny. You won't say anything I'll regret!

Moto,

If the profession or trade you're in started organizing a union in your place of business, would you join? If all the other people who do your job supported the union, would you also? Or would you decide to be the odd man out?

I opted out of a union once because I was working a high school job and didn't see the benefit for myself, as it was only for a couple of months. But they did ask me to join because I worked a lot of hours.

Being in a union saved my friend's life a few years ago. He'd gone to college for architecture but couldn't finish because of a load of unfortunate circumstances in his family, so he wound up in the electricians union. After about 10 years working with them he had some personal trouble with his family that they helped him through, with medical benefits and counselling and paid time off. We were best friends in high school, and he was a really smart guy who just had a lot of bad things in his life. If it wasn't for the union, he would have lost everything.

 

[Motokid]

I have no doubt that there are some who have benefitted from unions....I also have no doubt that some have been screwed....corruption, nepotism, strong-arm tactics, threats, blackmail......

 

[Kenny Shovel]

...I'm not feeling things getting out of hand. I, for one am finding this thread extreamly enjoyable and interesting. I'm not taking anything personal, and I hope you're not either...

I'm not taking anything being said personally, and I agree that the thread is not getting out of hand. However this subject brings back a lot of memories that are going to lead to me expressing myself in a way I don't particularly want too.

Based on what you said here it makes total sense, and I believe I said almost the exact same thing somewhere along the lines too.

I think what I said was fairly self explanatory, and it may or may not but what you're trying to say. We both seem to be talking from personal experience, but it seems experiences that differ somewhat.

. The best we can do is offer the widest range of possibility for the broadest range of people. My question is simply do we need Unions to offer that? If you think yes, that's fine by me. I'm just trying to understand why.

Did unions help my family when it needed help the most? No, it wasn’t an option available to us. Has union membership ever helped me? Apart from negotiating slightly better yearly pay increases, not particularly. Do my friends and I need union representation? No, we have careers, that we can self manage. But can I understand that not everyone is in that position, and that some people need an organisation to help them in times when they feel powerless to help themselves? Yes, I can, I’d hope we all could, what kind of ‘I’m alright Jack’ society would we live in without the ability to put ourselves in the shoes of others?

Come back and help out this thread. Please.

I’ve had my say on this one thanks.

 

[novella]

I have no doubt that there are some who have benefitted from unions....I also have no doubt that some have been screwed....corruption, nepotism, strong-arm tactics, threats, blackmail......

The costs, both financial and social, of union corruption and nepotism are NOTHING compared with the costs of corporate corruption and nepotism. Have you been following the Tom Delay developments? Just today the PAC connected to Delay received a felony indictment for 'massive amounts of illegal corporate donations.' Enron, World.com? Halliburton? The teamsters are small potatoes compared with the billions of dollars floating around those scandals. If corruption and nepotism are endemic to large social organizations with money and power, then look to the corporate fat cats first.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

Yes, I do believe unions are needed.

In the case of being fired for instance it is not always a question of doing your job satisfactory. If you don't do what you've been hired to do even the union can't help you. But if the bossman finds himself amorously interested in a female employee and she rejects him and subsequently gets fired(even though she did her job admirably), she will need the help of a union to be compensated for an unfair dismissal.

If someone gets run over by a car and has to spend 3 months reconvalescing because of a damaged back and gets fired without 3 months pay(or however much it'll be according to the contract) to cover for the unemployed period, because they've become an "unstable worker", this too is a case for the union.

Even if one's rights are in one's contract it doesn't mean one has the power to do something about it if they're violated. It costs money to sue - usually a lot more than anyone can amass on short notice.

Also, as a woman I see the necessity of having a place to go in case of sexual harassment on the job. Go to the police first, report whoever did it, and if it gets out to the media you can wave your job goodbye for giving the company a bad reputation. Then it is especially important to have a union who can supply you with a lawyer, who is actually good at what he does (they usually have 'house-lawyers') instead of having to find someone on your own who may turn out to not beworth half of what you have to pay him.

My dad needed his union some years back.

He's an organist. So he's on duty every Sunday morning in his church - that's the job and it's all fine and good and he likes it. Then it just so happened that the organist in the neighbouring parish quit her job, so that position was vacant. Then the Congregation Council is to announce the position to find someone new. But alas, the bishop had told everyone to save money, so they announced the position, but not very thoroughly in the hopes that there would be no applicants.

The reason they did this is simple. In the law regarding certain functions in society (priests, organists, police inspectors) it says that if a position cannot be filled the person holding the similar position in the neighbouring district/parish must take over the duties for the pay relevant for the position until another employee can be found. This is of course to make sure that masses can be held, and the law and order can be upheld etc etc. My dad was the neighbouring organist in question and his Congregation Council wanted to make him fill that other position - so they took this law and tried to force him.

There were two problems in that. My dad's own job is called an 85% job meaning it's 85% of what's normally considered full-time. The neighbouring position was also an 85% Added up that gives us 170% That's a lot of work, but that's fair enough and dad might've been able to take it on BUT they only wanted to pay him for a 100% job done. Which means the last 70% he'd be doing for free.

So he said no, and then they took the above-mentioned law and hit him over the head with it. They just forgot one thing. There were 7 (SEVEN!!!!) applicants to that neighbouring position. The only reason they wanted my dad there was to save those 70% on his payroll. That's when dad called his union, because he couldn't deal with on his own. The union sic'ed their house-lawyer on it and of course my dad won. Of course all the trouble and bad atmosphere caused him to actually get ill from stress, which a doctor attested, but the Council wanted a report from a physio-therapist because it manifested in back problems, but physio-therapists are not entitled to write such reports and they're worthless should they do it, only doctors have that right.

All in all my dad had a horrible time over the course of 5 or more months. I'm very interested in law so dad allowed me to read the communication back and forth between lawyer, Council and himself, hence I know what's been said and done. And truly it was a horrible horrible time, and it's for sure that he could never have handled this on his own. Never. His union was very needed in this situation, so while I believe it should be up to the individual whether they want to be part of a union, I also believe that the unions are still needed in our society.

My dad sought a different position soon after this whole mess, and since he's good at what he does, he could almost pick and choose, so he's now in a place where he's happy to be and has a great relationship with the other people working there.

I hope these examples could help you understand why unions are still needed, Moto. To put it simply: anywhere there's a rule there'll also be a greedy person willing to bend it and screw people over to save money or earn a little more. The unions are there to help ensure that it's not the workers getting screwed over.

 

[Motokid]

So how often do you think the workers screw the owners? How often might the Unions actually be helping unqualified people keep jobs, or people who have tenure, but don't produce? What about the employees who fake injuries and steal from employeers? Are the Unions possibly protecting them? Many cases are "your word against mine" type things.

Sure there are cases where Unions help people, but as Novella pointed out....if 1/5 Americans are Union members, that means the other 4 are not....

 

[Jemima Aslana]

So how often do you think the workers screw the owners?

Honestly, I have no idea, but my guess would be not half as often as the owners try to screw the workers. I do have an example of a worker screwing the owners, but that wasn't through unions - she did that through our unemployment system - which is something else.

How often might the Unions actually be helping unqualified people keep jobs, or people who have tenure, but don't produce?

As I believe someone else said: If someone does not live up to the expectations voiced in the contract, the employer has every right to let people go. As long as the dismissal happens according to the rules the unions can't help them. At least not here in DK. If people suck at what they do it's their own problem. As for tenure... there are very few jobs left in DK where you can't fire people for any reason whatsoever, there are probably some but I can't think of any atm, I'll adress it if I remember something. For everyone else there is always the principle that if one party does not live up to the terms in the contract the other party won't have to either - simple as that.

What about the employees who fake injuries

That's why the employer doesn't have to do anything until there's a written and signed report/attest from a qualified doctor, and the employer can always have another doctor review said report and examinate the patient/employee in question. If the patient/employee won't accept such an examimantion there's nothing more the union can do.

and steal from employeers?

Steal as in getting undeserved reimbursement for something? Or as in physically steal from the register?

Are the Unions possibly protecting them?

Sometimes people can fool their unions too, because obviously the unions won't support unfair demands and claims - they too have a reputation to worry about, and we have quite a few competing unions here in DK - being a largely socialistic country, we have a lot of unions and it also reflects in the majority of our work-force being union members. Sometimes unions have been involved in dodgy cases, and very often such things caused member migration, for the simple reason that if a union has a bad rep its member are less likely to get good contracts out there on the market.

A year or two ago the chairman of one of our unions committed suicide because the police was finally on to him about some major fraud going on in the union he led, as the case rolled it turned out the man had had work done on his private house for union money and the like, so he has now left his wife and children with a HUGE debt to pay back to the members of that union. Of course there'll be some bad apples in the unions - there always will be as long as money is involved, but generally there's such a strict control with things (especially after that chairman incident) here that it seldom happens.

Sure there are cases where Unions help people, but as Novella pointed out....if 1/5 Americans are Union members, that means the other 4 are not....

True, but as I just mentioned I live in a country where socialistic ideas have been the basis for our politics and society structure for many many years, whereas the US was built on capitalism and the principle of getting exactly what you deserve and working for it, and don't expect any help - ever. It's a rough generalisation, I know, but overall that *is* the case. Our nations are widely different. US has never had a union tradition like especially the Scandinavian countries have, in US unions have been illegal during certain time-periods, whereas in DK union membership has been compulsory during certain periods. So the spread of membership may only reflect the political past of our nations and not necessarily how needed the unions are

And now I think I should be careful not to get too close to a political discussion.

There is another aspect of difference in our nations: The lawyers and courts. US is (in)famous for the ridiculous amount of civil lawsuits, and especially for some of the results of those cases. If you have the right lawyer you can win even the most outrageous trials in the US. This is not so in most of Europe (I'll say most because I am obviously not aware of the exact situation in all countries) Many of the cases taken to court in the US would've been rejected in the door in DK. Many of the cases that are won and pays off millions on the US might also be rejected in DK, if the case was accepted in court the injured party would get their expenses covered if they won, but shouldn't expect half as big amounts as the US winners rake in. Your society is incredibly based on a 'may the best man win' mentality in the courtroom, and DK doesn't even begin to come close to that.

I hope I didn't manage to offend anyone with this, I'm trying to make some observations and they are in no way meant to insult. If I got something wrong somewhere, do correct me, I've never been to the US and thus only know it from studying US History last semester, the news and my different online connections 'over there'.

 

[novella]

So how often do you think the workers screw the owners? How often might the Unions actually be helping unqualified people keep jobs, or people who have tenure, but don't produce? What about the employees who fake injuries and steal from employeers? Are the Unions possibly protecting them? Many cases are "your word against mine" type things.

.

These scenarios can happen whether a person is with a union or not--except perhaps for the person with tenure. Unions, as a rule, help people to become qualified and stay qualified for jobs, not protect unqualified people. They are constantly doing retraining and education programs for members. Standard procedure.

Because we live in such an age-ist society, I personally feel that people with tenure need protection, because they are often 'undesirable' because they earn more, suck up more health benefits, and are less ambitious. Does that mean they should be put out to pasture at 50 or 55 or 60? Especially these days, when Social Security will probably be delayed to late 60s and people are EXPECTED to work until they simply can't.

The post-WWII generation who came of age in the 60s enjoyed job security, pensions, GI bill benefits, a huge rise in productivity and the standard of living--because of that their kids (like me) were brought up to expect that pattern. Unfortunately, those days are over and in the future people will need to be much more vigilant about protecting their rights and ensuring an old age that's at all tolerable. The generation who are kids now will be woefully inequipped to support their parents.

 

[Robert]

If the goal is to provide people with long term security and retirement, the entire educational system of America needs to be revisied. American's do not save money, they spend it. You give most people more money the first thing they do is buy new cars, or bigger houses, or boats, or clothes or whatever. The problems we will face with retirement will result entirely from the inability for the average American to be able to do without. We are a society of material possessions. Nobody thinks about retirement until it's usually to late.

How many people earning well over the average salary are neck deep in debt and just managing to survive from paycheck to paycheck? American's do not understand how to prepair for the future and their own retirement. I don't think additional unions will solve that issue.....

You got that right. They spend all their money then blame the government because they don't have enough to live on when they retire.

 

[Robert]

Retail employment illustrates exactly what I'm talking about, and all of these strategies I've cited are absolutely standard for a place like Wal-Mart, which is why their employees are now struggling to unionize.

Working for a retailer should be a stepping stone, not a career. If people want to earn a thick salary and live the American dream, then they need to get an education and into a line of work that pays well. It's wrong to pay people large salaries that have no skills.