Regarding unions

[gnome]

Recently I've been contemplating the politics of unions, and one contentious issue comes to the forefront--mandatory union membership.

Florida is a "Right to work" state which means, I am given to understand, that you cannot be required to join a union in order to work in any profession here.

On the surface that sounds like a pretty good idea, but I can't help but wonder if I'm missing one side of the issue.

In Florida the public school teacher's union negotiates the salaries for all teachers, union or non-union--this could naturally lead to calls that non-union members are spurning the organization that gets them raises. It seems the simplest solution is to allow voluntary union membership still, but those that are not union members must negotiate their own contract.

Before I make up my mind on this issue, I'd like to hear how mandatory union membership came about and what justification was used to supersede what seems a natural right to choose whether to be a member.

[Upchurch]

Slightly off topic, I've always considered unions to be like medicine. They're great if you have a legitimate reason to need them. If you don't need them, you have a recipe for abuse.

Saint Louis is having a big grocery workers strike going on for the last week or so. While I support their right to strike and protest, I do not feel obligated to go to either more expensive or lower quality stores just to support their cause. I resent the pressure I feel that I must do so.

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome
Recently I've been contemplating the politics of unions, and one contentious issue comes to the forefront--mandatory union membership.

Florida is a "Right to work" state which means, I am given to understand, that you cannot be required to join a union in order to work in any profession here.

On the surface that sounds like a pretty good idea, but I can't help but wonder if I'm missing one side of the issue.

In Florida the public school teacher's union negotiates the salaries for all teachers, union or non-union--this could naturally lead to calls that non-union members are spurning the organization that gets them raises. It seems the simplest solution is to allow voluntary union membership still, but those that are not union members must negotiate their own contract.

Before I make up my mind on this issue, I'd like to hear how mandatory union membership came about and what justification was used to supersede what seems a natural right to choose whether to be a member.

More or less, mandantory union membership (Closed Shop arrangement) is an agreement bargained for between labor and management that management will not employ anyone not in the union. Without this, management could simply only hire people that didn't want to join the union, thus hampering the union's effectiveness. In essence, it is a bargained for empolyment policy. Sometimes, it goes a bit farther where the union does the hiring and firing. This is a "Union Shop."

"Right to Work" laws are a cleverly titled act to make the above arrangement illegal, requiring the choice not to join a union (Open Shop).

Federal labor laws make the above relationship so frightfully complicated that I took Advanced Scientific Evidence in law school rather than Labor Law, so I can't be too precise, even though I have dealt with those laws in real life.

In my opinion, the "right to work" laws have less to do with rights than they do with harming unions. Big companies do not like unions, and big companies also hire good people for marketing, media relations, and lobbying. Thus the don't call these laws "Lets Bust the Union Laws." These laws aim to strike at the core power source of a union, the ability to strike.

One irony is the use of "rights" as rhetoric to prevent a private business from making a particular agreement with its workers, where as those favoring these "Right" to work laws are the loudest complainers if the government affects other employee -employer relationships, like establishing a reasonable minimmum wage. The "right" to work somewhere while not in the union when company policy requires union membership is similar to saying someone has the "right" to work on a job and not follow a dress code set by company policy.

It is quite curious.

[Segnosaur]

I have problems with unions from both a theoretical and a practical standpoint.

From the theoretical side, unions are a form of collusion, or price fixing. People complain when (for example) gas stations all raise their prices at the same time, suggesting cooperation between the various companies. But with unions, the same thing is happening; the employees agree to 'fix' the price of their labour, instead of letting the idea of supply and demand take over. (The result being that wages, and ultimately the cost of a product to a consumer, end up being higher than they would be otherwise.)

On the practical side of things, the trouble with unions is that they tend to protect the weaker employees at the expense of the better ones. (Incompetent employees cannot be fired, good employees cannot get promotions and/or wages that are not offered to all.) An additional problem is that union activities often get diverted into areas that they really have no mandate in. (A union member pays their dues to the union so that they may represent him in collective bargining; yet unions are very happy to get involved in social issues, like feeding the poor, the environment, etc. While these may be important issues, a union member shouldn't have to pay for these programs, especially in cases where he disagrees with the union's position.)

I've had 3 main jobs since I entered the work force... 2 were unionized, 1 was not. I never technically joined the union out of principle, but they had a rule that said everyone had to pay union dues if they were covered under the collective agreement, regardless if they were a full member or not. The best of the 3 jobs was actually the one that was not unionized. (Best pay, best benefits, best group of coworkers.) That should tell you something.

Quote:

Originally posted by Segnosaur


I've had 3 main jobs since I entered the work force... 2 were unionized, 1 was not. I never technically joined the union out of principle, but they had a rule that said everyone had to pay union dues if they were covered under the collective agreement, regardless if they were a full member or not. The best of the 3 jobs was actually the one that was not unionized. (Best pay, best benefits, best group of coworkers.) That should tell you something.

That the job without a union was with a company that actually treated its workers well?

[DavidJames]

"unions are a form of collusion, or price fixing."

Am I missing something, do the companies and unions not agree on the wages during contract negotiations?

You comparison to gas stations is not valid as the other party, namely the consumers, are not part of the process.

"Incompetent employees cannot be fired, good employees cannot get promotions and/or wages that are not offered to all."

"cannot" is a pretty strong and final word, you wouldn't be exaggerating would you If that happens it's the result of a poor agreement between the parties and not the fault of the union, per say.

[Drooper]

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidJames
"unions are a form of collusion, or price fixing."

Am I missing something, do the companies and unions not agree on the wages during contract negotiations?

You comparison to gas stations is not valid as the other party, namely the consumers, are not part of the process.

No you are not missing anything here. Restricting supply to force up price. It is about buyers and sellers; the "consumers" in this case are the companies. Net result is analogous to a classic monopoly situation - less labour (goods) employed (consumed) at a hirer wage (price). Too bad if you are unemployed and just want more jobs.

Unions get away with practices that would land company directors large fines and/or prison sentences.

Quote:

"Incompetent employees cannot be fired, good employees cannot get promotions and/or wages that are not offered to all."

"cannot" is a pretty strong and final word, you wouldn't be exaggerating would you If that happens it's the result of a poor agreement between the parties and not the fault of the union, per say.

It probably is the fault of the union. Unions are political constructs. Any labour reaction to discip[linary action against a union official will always far exceed any reaction from something involving a regular employee.

Also, a substantial (somteimes a majority) of labour disputes centre around demarcation or or inter-union squabbles. That is a complete dead loss.

[Segnosaur]

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidJames
"unions are a form of collusion, or price fixing."

Am I missing something, do the companies and unions not agree on the wages during contract negotiations?

You comparison to gas stations is not valid as the other party, namely the consumers, are not part of the process.

While it is true that the unions and companies do negotiate wages and benefits, the unions still have the ability to have workers strike, which makes things a little more different than a straight negotiation process. There also tends to be more restrictions on what companies can do (ability to hire outside labour) than there are on the employees themselves (they can search for other jobs if they so desire).

And while it is not identical to the gas station example, note that I did say its a 'form' of collusion.

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Incompetent employees cannot be fired, good employees cannot get promotions and/or wages that are not offered to all."

"cannot" is a pretty strong and final word, you wouldn't be exaggerating would you If that happens it's the result of a poor agreement between the parties and not the fault of the union, per say.

Yes, saying an employee 'cannot' ever be fired is a bit of an exageration, but any place I've seen unions, there were so many rules (allowed appeals, seniority rules, etc.) that simply firing for incompetince was virtually impossible. (And trust me, I've seen some incompetent people at places I've worked.)

As for it being simply a 'poor agreement', there may be good agreements between unions and management, that do allow managers the flexibility to eliminate poor employees and reward good ones, but I haven't seen any. (All the wonderful theories of 'wonderful' union deals mean nothing if, at the end of the day, most negotiated deals end up sucking.)

[Segnosaur]

Quote:

Originally posted by Suddenly


That the job without a union was with a company that actually treated its workers well?

Yes, and the company did not need a union to force it to treat its workers well, they simply offered a decent benefits to those that deserve it, lesser benefits to those that don't, and eliminated the 'dead wood' when necessary.

[Thanz]

My own experience with unions has been somewhat mixed. I was a member of a union when I worked in a grocery store, and was less than impressed. While I did receive high wages, the seniority focus of the union was a pain in the butt. We had some long time employees who did nothing all day, leaving the work for the part timers at night. But with seniority, there was nothing you could do.

They also left negotiations on a new contract to the last minute, which resluted in a fairly lengthy strike and a decrease in pay as well in the new contract. The strike itself didn't affect me (I was away at school) but the less pay certainly did.

The other union I belonged to was the Teamsters when I worked in a small industrial shop for 3 summers. The conditions sucked, the relations between management and the employees sucked, but the pay was okay. Not great, but okay. In that shop, I think that the union was required to keep a check on some parts of management.

Finally, I was working for a couple of summers at a chemical plant. At the end of one summer I was promised a certain job the next year. When I came back, however, one of the VP's sons had taken my position, and was being paid a lot more for it. Further, they actually found him asleep in box on the job - and he wasn't fired or disciplined at all. I guess it just goes to show you that some people will take advantage however they can - whether it is through seniority in a union shop or other factors in a non-union shop.

Quote:

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Yes, and the company did not need a union to force it to treat its workers well, they simply offered a decent benefits to those that deserve it, lesser benefits to those that don't, and eliminated the 'dead wood' when necessary.

Yeah, but you gotta admit a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" problem here. There is every possibility that the union companies would be worse without the union, and that no union exists at the non-union company simply because it is not needed.

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by Suddenly


Yeah, but you gotta admit a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" problem here. There is every possibility that the union companies would be worse without the union, and that no union exists at the non-union company simply because it is not needed.

Both of these statements are probably true. The union is successful at organizing in companies that do not treat their workers especially well, and the union probably does improve the workers' lot at that company.

At other companies, however, the workers are treated well so that the union cannot make any strides in organization efforts. Unions will not organize where there is no worker dissatisfaction problem. The easiest way for management to keep the union away from its doors is to treat the workers fairly.

The problem, of course, is that once the union gets in it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to get them out, even if they are not needed anymore. The prime example (in my mind) are the autoworkers unions. The autoworkers in the big three get paid far too much for the tasks that they have to perform. That doesn't stop the union, however, from demanding more each time around. And they usually get it due to the large costs of shutting down an outo plant for even a short period of time.

[Segnosaur]

Quote:

Originally posted by Suddenly


Yeah, but you gotta admit a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" problem here. There is every possibility that the union companies would be worse without the union, and that no union exists at the non-union company simply because it is not needed.

And there is the possibility that the workers would be better off if unions at union shops suddently disbanded. Just saying "there's a possibility things would be worse without the union" doesn't really prove anything.

And of course, it depends on what you mean when you say 'worse'. There are 2 things to keep in mind:
- As I mentioned before, unions tend to protect the incompetent. So, the 'bad' people would be worse off if the union was dispanded, but the 'good' people may end up being better off
- A union may indeed make things better for its employees; however, the end result is often an increase in the price of the companie's products. This means that the end consumer (who are often members of other unions) end up paying more than they should for a product. Some union people benefit, everyone else suffers to some degree

[Malachi151]

Modern unions in America are pretty lame and don't serve the purpose that the once did. Once they came under state control they were no longer organization that wroked for the workers and became organization that work for the state, and thus ultimately the employeers, hence my paper in the Germany thread about the rise of fascism in America.

So, modern unions are tools of the state and thus the establishment, not expressions of democratic employee organization, thus they suck.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=2303

Now, as for the fundamental idea behind unions, that is good, its just no longer in effect anymore.

Back when unions were really making progress busines itself was much less regulated so unions were just workers to banded together to press for chane and improvement in the workplace, like better safety, shorter working hours, and better pay.

Basically people just got together and said "this sucks, let's all refusee to work until they stop making us work 12 hours in the mine which no safety equipment for 10 cents a day."

That's back when the owners of businesses like railroads or mines were among the richest people in the world and weren't even paying their workers enough money to live on even with 12 hours a day of work.

Quote:

Originally posted by Segnosaur


And there is the possibility that the workers would be better off if unions at union shops suddently disbanded. Just saying "there's a possibility things would be worse without the union" doesn't really prove anything.

Not seeking to prove anything. It is just another conclusion from the finding that a non union job is better from the one with the union.

Quote:

And of course, it depends on what you mean when you say 'worse'. There are 2 things to keep in mind:
- As I mentioned before, unions tend to protect the incompetent. So, the 'bad' people would be worse off if the union was dispanded, but the 'good' people may end up being better off

Sounds true, at least to a point. Unions will police some incompetence because at some point this hurts other workers. One of those things where extreme examples may attract more attention than their effect merits. This is cost of having a union. Unions do not seek to serve the concept of meritocracy. They exist to promote the interests of the laborer, being more in line with socialist ideas of the right to make a decent living then about maximizing weath.

Quote:

- A union may indeed make things better for its employees; however, the end result is often an increase in the price of the companie's products. This means that the end consumer (who are often members of other unions) end up paying more than they should for a product. Some union people benefit, everyone else suffers to some degree

That or perhaps the business owners just do not profit as much as before. Price is not a function of cost, rather the free market.
Claiming harmful effects of a union presuppose that the pre-union price for labor was proper to begin with. This is where you drew your baseline for "pay more than they should."

A practical example comes from your own story. The non-union company paid more for your labor than the union company. This would be contrary to the union companies having higher labor costs, as they paid less for the same labor.

[Segnosaur]

Quote:

Originally posted by Suddenly

That or perhaps the business owners just do not profit as much as before.

That is another possibility. So, even if people aren't paying more for products, the company is earning less profit.

But remember, many people (union and non union) earn some of their income through profits, such as mutual funds used for retirement. So a decrease in profits can still affect the end consumer, even if prices don't change. Also, if profits fall, businesses will be less likely to reinvest, reducing job growth, etc.

Quote:

Originally posted by Suddenly
Price is not a function of cost, rather the free market.
Claiming harmful effects of a union presuppose that the pre-union price for labor was proper to begin with. This is where you drew your baseline for "pay more than they should."

But the cost is part of the free market. If the cost of manufacturing a product goes up (because of higher labour costs), then prices will go up, according the supply and demand curves, because the supply curve will shift.

Therefore, price is a function of cost (at least in part).

Quote:

Originally posted by Suddenly

Claiming harmful effects of a union presuppose that the pre-union price for labor was proper to begin with. This is where you drew your baseline for "pay more than they should."

I do realize that establishing a 'real' baseline is probably impossible, for both the pro and the anti union side.

Quote:

Originally posted by Suddenly

A practical example comes from your own story. The non-union company paid more for your labor than the union company. This would be contrary to the union companies having higher labor costs, as they paid less for the same labor.

But there are other reasons why a non-union company might be able to afford higher wages and better benefits
- Since they can be more flexible with highering and firing, they can get the best employees, who are likely going to be more productive
- Less time/money lost due to work stoppages (strikes/lockouts)
- Promotions based on merit (rather than seniority in some union jobs) could mean better leadership and better decision making
- Remember, part of the reason I liked the non-union job wasn't because of wages/benefits, but because of the working environment; its more enjoyable to work for a company when I don't have idiots for managers.

[Malachi151]

Price of goods = cost of materials + cost of labor + cost to bring to market + profits

Profits = demand - (cost of materials + cost of labor + cost to bring to market)


Thus the cost of labor is only one part of the equation, changing any of the other parts of the equation can result in the same exact price of goods.

If the cost of labor goes up but cost to bring to market and profits go down then the price is the same.

Prices are effected by all of the above factors, demand, plus all the various costs, plus profit motive.

Keep in mind also that in many cases demand is shown to go down when prices go down. This was true of linolium (sp?) which was once expensive, so everyone wanted it, then it became cheap so people didn't want it in their homes anymore.

The same would happen with diamons for example, which is why DeBeers hoards them to keep the prices up, which also keeps demand up. If they did not hoard them diamonds would become almost as cheap as glass, and no one would want them anymore.

Quote:

Originally posted by Segnosaur


That is another possibility. So, even if people aren't paying more for products, the company is earning less profit.

But remember, many people (union and non union) earn some of their income through profits, such as mutual funds used for retirement. So a decrease in profits can still affect the end consumer, even if prices don't change. Also, if profits fall, businesses will be less likely to reinvest, reducing job growth, etc.

There are considerations other then the obvious, but a person making a higher wage helps rather than harms that person overall. The principle that because the higher wage (maybe) harms third parties that it is somehow wrong seems a curious point in support of a free market position.

Quote:

But the cost is part of the free market. If the cost of manufacturing a product goes up (because of higher labour costs), then prices will go up, according the supply and demand curves, because the supply curve will shift.

Therefore, price is a function of cost (at least in part).

Yes, in a macroeconomic sense this is absolutely true. However, there will be times where ownership is simply stiffing the workforce and pocketing money. Unions are admittedly not a plus in the macroeconomic ledger, rather they are an instument of social justice, and are not really necessary where wages and worker treatment are reasonable given economic conditions. However, there are some long, long, memories in some union halls. The labor/mine wars weren't that long ago.

I grew up in a heavy union area (steel workers and coal miners), and the sophistication of most of the "rank and file" members when it comes to market economics suprises me when the subject of "business" comes up. They aren't always the greedy wage grabbers as portrayed, but they do not buy the idea that company survival trumps their well being, and know darn well that the purpose of management is to "maximize shareholder wealth." They also have (or claim) a relative that was in some sort of cataclysmic strike in the past. For many, union activity is a heritige, somthing their ancestors fought, bled and died for. Being jerked around by management isn't just an economic issue for them, although when convinced in the past workers have made concessions to keep companies viable. It goes beyond money sometimes.

Quote:

But there are other reasons why a non-union company might be able to afford higher wages and better benefits
- Since they can be more flexible with highering and firing, they can get the best employees, who are likely going to be more productive
- Less time/money lost due to work stoppages (strikes/lockouts)
- Promotions based on merit (rather than seniority in some union jobs) could mean better leadership and better decision making
- Remember, part of the reason I liked the non-union job wasn't because of wages/benefits, but because of the working environment; its more enjoyable to work for a company when I don't have idiots for managers.

Maybe, but this doesn't really contradict what I am saying. Some companies manage to not end up with unions as they treat people well. The lack of unions allows some flexibility and maybe higher wages. This is all fine until someone gets the bright idea and squeezes labor to increase profits. Then, whack! Union time, and the whole thing gets serious. As long as that squeeze never happens, no union. Management will get canned if they cause a union to come in. Thus, no squeeze.

So ironically, the unions are indirectly responsible for the positive conditions. Without the threat of labor unrest why wouldn't wages on labor (especially unskilled) be sought to be minimized? A company that takes care of the workers just for the heck of it, or maybe to be nice is (if it is a corporation) violating its duty to shareholders to maximize profit. Threat of a union creates a nice counterpoint to the temptation to squeeze every last penny out of labor costs.

And this is completely ignoring the whole "union labor is better labor" argument that is sometimes true depending on context and area of the country.

[WildCat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Suddenly


That the job without a union was with a company that actually treated its workers well?

In business school, we were taught that bad management creates unions. Employees have no incentive to unionize w/ good management.

[Jessica Blue]

Quote:

Originaly posted by Suddenly
In my opinion, the "right to work" laws have less to do with rights than they do with harming unions. Big companies do not like unions, and big companies also hire good people for marketing, media relations, and lobbying. Thus they don't call these laws "Lets Bust the Union Laws." These laws aim to strike at the core power source of a union, the ability to strike.

Yes. In Australia trade unionism and collective bargaining have declined in recent years because governments and employers have worked hard to erode unions and push enterprise bargaining[business is the enterprise, the workers are the bargain!]. We still need unions...employers are hostile to collective bargaining because it's effective.

It's worth remembering that many of the benefits workers just take for granted today could only have come about through union action.The following benefits were strongly resisted by employers:

Occupational Health and Safety Laws
Workers' Compensation
Annual Holidays
Superannuation
Medicare
The award system, which ensures that at least minimum conditions are met
Types of Leave including long service, parental, sick, bereavement or carers’
Paid Public Holidays
38 hour week
Penalty rates for overtime and weekend work
Workplace amenities such as lunch rooms, showers, change rooms, lockers and hot and cold running water depending on the industry

We need to hang on to collective bargaining because there are no guarantees that benefits we currently enjoy woudn't be wound back if conditions permitted it.


In business school, we were taught that bad management creates unions. Employees have no incentive to unionize w/ good management.

In an ideal world there would be no need for unions.

[Malachi151]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat

In business school, we were taught that bad management creates unions. Employees have no incentive to unionize w/ good management.

Yep, I would agree with that. As long as your workers are satisfied they have no reason to unionize.

[Richard G]

I have lost two very good jobs because of stubborn unions pushing the employer over the edge, to the point of just saying the hell with it, and closing the doors....going out of buisness, and costing everyone their jobs. That left a bitter taste in my mouth regarding unions.

That being said, I am now a member of the IAFF, International Association of Firefighters. While I don't agree with every little niggle they endorse, if they weren't looking out for my interest in what is a gravely dangerous, and DEADLY profession, many safety measures, and safetey equipment in service today would be completely ignored by municipalities, cities, and townships that employ us today.

I am a minority however, being employed by the goverment. The goverment always requires a heavy hand to keep it in line.

[corplinx]

I'm not sure anyone disagrees with the concept that workers should be able to organize and try to collectively bargain.

Personally, I think its high time that computer tech workers unionized. However, the union would have strict entrance requirements so that Joe MCSE probably wouldn't be able to join. The idea is that employers would want your union's workers because they actually know what they are doing.

[Mr Manifesto]

I guess now might be a good as time as any to clarify what a union actually is.

A union isn't some orgainsation with a 'workers-only' membership that exist solely to get on managers' tits. Similarly, a union isn't supposed to be an organisation that only looks after its own, or develops ultra-bureaucratic rules to the detriment of its membership.

A union is a collective voice of the workers, so that the workers' rights can be heard.

A union is also only as strong as its workers. Union too weak? It needs more members, so you aren't helping by not joining a union because it's not strong enough. Don't like the way the union is run? Have a meeting, forward a motion, send the motion to the highers-up in the union. Presumably, the union heads are elected- don't forget to vote. Are the unions vetting employees? Tell them this is not on. Again, meetings and motions get the message through.

What I'm tired of seeing are the endless numbers of people who sh!tcan the unions at every chance they get, who suddenly want to join as soon as their butt's on the line. In my job, I was on probation for a year, and joined the union the first day I started work. No one else on probation did this because they were afraid of loosing their jobs. Out of thirty people, only five kept their jobs. Guess who one of them was?

[Tmy]

Im in a union. In fact i was part of our last contract negotiations. That was quite an experience. Its obvious that management would walk all over us if there was no union.

Many people here have told stories about being downsized and laid off, Unions help protect from that.

The biggest gripe seems to be the whole "protecting the dead wood" argument. While this is somewhat true I think management blows this out of proportion. If someone sucks you can get them fired, but management is usually too lazy to go thru the process.

[Mr Manifesto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
Im in a union. In fact i was part of our last contract negotiations. That was quite an experience. Its obvious that management would walk all over us if there was no union.

Many people here have told stories about being downsized and laid off, Unions help protect from that.

The biggest gripe seems to be the whole "protecting the dead wood" argument. While this is somewhat true I think management blows this out of proportion. If someone sucks you can get them fired, but management is usually too lazy to go thru the process.

Amen. In our company we have three simple steps to getting rid of deadwood.

• 'informal' warning (which has to be in writing so that, should it go to court, you can say that you warned the employee informally in the first instance- basically it just means that you brought the issue up, you expect it to improve, but you don't think anything else will come of it at this stage).
• formal warning- clean up your act or else.
• final warning- clean up your act within eight weeks or it's the chop.

No-one has ever gotten a final warning and not had the sack. Although quite a few people have gotten their jobs back or significant compensation because the bosses were too stupid or lazy to go through the first two steps.

edit: tag fixin'

[Segnosaur]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
Im in a union. In fact i was part of our last contract negotiations. That was quite an experience. Its obvious that management would walk all over us if there was no union.

Strange, here in Canada, we have a rule that allows people unhappy with their jobs to actually find other work if they are unhappy with management. I guess where you are, you are forced to work for that one company only.

By the way, there is protection from many of the worst excesses; for example, minimum wage laws, work place safety rules, etc.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
Many people here have told stories about being downsized and laid off, Unions help protect from that.

People do get layed off from Union jobs. Of course, when layoffs occur, they are often done on the basis of seniority rather than ability.

Plus, as I have mentioned before, unions can cut into profits, which may prevent companies from hiring on new people.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
The biggest gripe seems to be the whole "protecting the dead wood" argument. While this is somewhat true I think management blows this out of proportion. If someone sucks you can get them fired, but management is usually too lazy to go thru the process.

First of all, that was only one of several complaints I had about unions. (Increased prices/decreased profits, reduced flexibility, and involvement in non-bargaining activities were also important.)

People keep saying "But you can still fire incompetent people in a union! (but management is lazy)." My experience has been different. (Not only do the rules make it difficult to fire someone, after a certain amount of time the 'incompetent' people get promoted, which makes them unwilling to take action against similar minded individuals.)

[Segnosaur]

I have so many problems with your description as an example of how 'easy' it is to fire someone...

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

informal' warning (which has to be in writing so that, should it go to court, you can say that you warned the employee informally in the first instance- basically it just means that you brought the issue up, you expect it to improve, but you don't think anything else will come of it at this stage).

Sorry, but there are sometimes mistakes so great that the person should be fired, without any warning at all. Gross misconduct, leaking company secrets, etc.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

formal warning- clean up your act or else.
final warning- clean up your act within eight weeks or it's the chop.

So, after putting up with someone's incompetence for who knows how long, they get a final warning, where they are still guaranteed 8 weeks!!!!! of further screwups, lies, etc. (And just how long has to go between first and second warnings? This whole process can drag over years.)

And just who decides whether the person has 'cleaned up their act'?

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

No-one has ever gotten a final warning and not had the sack.

So what does that tell us? It says that the 3rd warning (with its extra 8 weeks) never results in an employee who 'turns things around', so in effect those 8 weeks end up being a loss for the company.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Although quite a few people have gotten their jobs back or significant compensation because the bosses were too stupid or lazy to go through the first two steps.

Or maybe in some cases the person screwed up so badly that they felt the person was unredeemable. Or maybe the management did warn the person, but wanted to do so in a less threating, more informal verbal manner, and got burned because they didn't give hardcopy letters.

[Mr Manifesto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Segnosaur
I have so many problems with your description as an example of how 'easy' it is to fire someone...

Watch me lose sleep over it.

Quote:

Sorry, but there are sometimes mistakes so great that the person should be fired, without any warning at all. Gross misconduct, leaking company secrets, etc.

Well, I forgot to mention that there is also a code of conduct which you can get sacked for if you violate it (things like being caught stealing, leaking commerical information, etc). This only occurs after an investigation from an independant party, and there are several avenues of appeal.

Quote:

So, after putting up with someone's incompetence for who knows how long, they get a final warning, where they are still guaranteed 8 weeks!!!!! of further screwups, lies, etc. (And just how long has to go between first and second warnings? This whole process can drag over years.)

Yes, life sure is tough for the ol' company. I think that if you're a supervisor, and you let one of your workers act incompetantly over years, it says more about your staff management skills then the staff member's competence. Most of the time, competence issues in our workplace could be resolved by identifying training needs. What usually happens instead is that it goes ignored until someone pops a gasket, then it's straight to step 3 without worrying about steps 1 and 2.

Oh, and whine as much as you like about the 8 weeks, but it's in our agreement... signed by workers and management. If the company didn't like it, they shouldn't have signed off on it (and there's plenty they didn't sign off on).

Quote:

And just who decides whether the person has 'cleaned up their act'?

The supervisor, following the parameters of the agreement. Duh.

Quote:

So what does that tell us? It says that the 3rd warning (with its extra 8 weeks) never results in an employee who 'turns things around', so in effect those 8 weeks end up being a loss for the company.

Not neccessarily. Remember, I said a lot of employees got their jobs back or got compensation because the process wasn't followed properly. It really shows how often management abuse a process to get rid of people they think are a pain in the neck, without being fair to the person in question. It's a tool for people to use to throw their weight around.

Quote:

Or maybe in some cases the person screwed up so badly that they felt the person was unredeemable. Or maybe the management did warn the person, but wanted to do so in a less threating, more informal verbal manner, and got burned because they didn't give hardcopy letters.

I'm glad you have so much faith in human nature. Alas, legally, if it wasn't written, it wasn't said. You can't make accusations without evidence.

[Tmy]

Another benefit of the union. Underlings are able to question management stupidity wh/o fear of being fired just cause you pissed off the wrong guy.

You dont have to be a yesman out of fear of losing a job to office politics.

Yknow sometimes management cant got rid of people thru the process not because its impossible, but because the person doesnt deserve to be fored.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
You dont have to be a yesman out of fear of losing a job to office politics.

Sometimes you have to be a yes man to the union boss to avoid having your legs broken. Of course you're unlikely to be working in an office if you're in that situation.

The Longshoremen (in the eastern USA) under "Tough Tony" Scotto was a case in point. But that was a long time ago.

[Segnosaur]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Well, I forgot to mention that there is also a code of conduct which you can get sacked for if you violate it (things like being caught stealing, leaking commerical information, etc). This only occurs after an investigation from an independant party, and there are several avenues of appeal.

So, someone gets caught stealing, leaking information, doing illegal or immoral things on company time, and it requires independant investigation, and the decision can be tied up in appeals for who knows how long. Excuse me if I don't jump up and down and cheer for the ability to 'get rid of' problem employees from union shops.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Yes, life sure is tough for the ol' company. I think that if you're a supervisor, and you let one of your workers act incompetantly over years, it says more about your staff management skills then the staff member's competence. Most of the time, competence issues in our workplace could be resolved by identifying training needs. What usually happens instead is that it goes ignored until someone pops a gasket, then it's straight to step 3 without worrying about steps 1 and 2.

That's right... all will be well if people send the bad employees for more training. That works. Sleeping on the job? Send them to class. Spending all day playing video games on the computer? Send them to training.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Oh, and whine as much as you like about the 8 weeks, but it's in our agreement... signed by workers and management. If the company didn't like it, they shouldn't have signed off on it (and there's plenty they didn't sign off on).

And if the management didn't want to sign the agreement, they'd be subject to a strike which might force them out of business (or at least greatly harm their productivity.) Good set of options.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The supervisor, following the parameters of the agreement. Duh.

So, in other words, if the supervisor wants to get rid of the union person for no reason at all (even if they are the best worker in the company), they can still do so; they just have to wait longer. And the 'good' employee ends up with the exact same job protection that the 'bad' employee has.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Not neccessarily. Remember, I said a lot of employees got their jobs back or got compensation because the process wasn't followed properly. It really shows how often management abuse a process to get rid of people they think are a pain in the neck, without being fair to the person in question. It's a tool for people to use to throw their weight around.

Yes, you claimed that it was a case of people being treated unfairly by management. Excuse me if I don't accept your word on this matter.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

I'm glad you have so much faith in human nature. Alas, legally, if it wasn't written, it wasn't said. You can't make accusations without evidence.

Me have faith in human nature? You're the one who claims that bad employees can be fixed by sending them on training. Hello, magical fairly land in the gum drop forest, Mr. Manifesto wants to visit!

[Mr Manifesto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Segnosaur


So, someone gets caught stealing, leaking information, doing illegal or immoral things on company time, and it requires independant investigation, and the decision can be tied up in appeals for who knows how long. Excuse me if I don't jump up and down and cheer for the ability to 'get rid of' problem employees from union shops.

It's either that, or you can get sacked without due process and have to go through the horror of the Industrial Relations Court. Believe it or not, this way saves time, because all the evidence is there, and it's possible for the IRC to take one look at your case, with all the evidence, and say 'you have no case for the IRC: don't waste our time'.

If you're happy with being sacked without due process, mull on this: I served with Hal in the Broom Closet Wars. I think you're a troll because someone told me so, and you should be banned. Hal bans you. See the problem?

Quote:

That's right... all will be well if people send the bad employees for more training. That works. Sleeping on the job? Send them to class. Spending all day playing video games on the computer? Send them to training.

You're just trying to derail the argument with daft arguments now. Obviously you don't get sent to training if you're deliberately idling on the job. Though we do have one employee who has severe sleep apnoea who does nod off on the job. Otherwise he's a model employee. This simply shows that your assertion that those who sleep on the job are useless to a company. This person isn't. He has a health issue: just like someone with RSI can't be in the typing pool all day. We try to work around the issue until the health issues are cleared up: something you wouldn't get in a union.

Quote:

And if the management didn't want to sign the agreement, they'd be subject to a strike which might force them out of business (or at least greatly harm their productivity.) Good set of options.

Once again, you're blathering about things you don't know anything about. The union can only strike if the workforce agrees to it. They can't 'order' anyone to strike. So if management say, 'we want in the agreement something that says you can't play videogames on work time', you're not going to get a strike because most of the workforce would agree to that- being reasonable people who want to get on with the job, whatever you might think.

Quote:

So, in other words, if the supervisor wants to get rid of the union person for no reason at all (even if they are the best worker in the company), they can still do so; they just have to wait longer. And the 'good' employee ends up with the exact same job protection that the 'bad' employee has.

Now you're really on drugs. Tell me how this is so. It isn't apparent from this paragraph.

Quote:

Yes, you claimed that it was a case of people being treated unfairly by management. Excuse me if I don't accept your word on this matter.

How about the person who was sacked because a workplace-appointed psychaitrist, who didn't examine the worker in question, who was only going off reports provided by his supervisor, diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia? Do you think that's unfair? How about the person who was sacked for poor work performance who was never told that they even had a work performance issue, informally or otherwise? This was a case of the boss seizing on the legislation that says you can sack someone for poor performance: really he had a grudge with the person asking questions. What about the person who was sacked for using his email to ask his union delegate a question about a workplace issue, and email which was subsequently intercepted by his boss (this, BTW, is in breach of the Workplace Relations Act (1996), specifically s298K (1) (2) and (3) and s298L (1) (l)... I suppose the law is unfair on the poor companies as well?)

Quote:

Me have faith in human nature? You're the one who claims that bad employees can be fixed by sending them on training. Hello, magical fairly land in the gum drop forest, Mr. Manifesto wants to visit!

Already rebutted that one. You'll pardon me if your amatuer opinion in my personal self doesn't interest me.

[Luke T.]

The very first political speech I ever gave before my state's senate was on a "right to work" bill in Connecticut. The union showed up in force. About 500 guys, all on the clock, paid for with dues money. When my steward saw me there, he thought I was there to speak as opposed to the bill. He turned white when I told him I was speaking in favor of it.

Two fat goons were assigned to follow me around. I was 16 years old. I decided to climb every set of stairs in the place, including all the way up to the capitol dome and back. They were huffing and puffing and looked like they were about to die from heart attacks. It was fun. The curious phone calls I received a couple weeks later weren't so funny.

Anyway, there were only 7 of us there to speak in favor of the bill. It was a workday morning.

Our point was that a part-time or summer worker had nothing to gain from joining a union and paying the dues. One fellow brought his first paycheck he received from his job after paying his dues. 73 cents.

The committee members were very hostile toward us. Their questions were very biased. But when a union man spoke, they fell over themselves trying to make them out to be great guys. One committee member asked the vice president of my union (a branch of the AFL-CIO) about all the voluntary work the union did and monies it gave to charities. On and on. It was sickening.

I had a prepared speech. But when I saw what was going on, I made a show of tearing it up as soon as it was my turn to speak. And then I let the committee know that it was obvious to everyone whose pocket they were in. I expressed a great deal of anger that the fix was in. Then I stood, looked to the balcony into the V.P.'s eyes, and gave the union power salute.

You ever hear 500 men all boo at the same time at you?

After I left the committee room, the two goons started following me again. I saw a local news team nearby and walked directly up to the newswoman and told her what was happening. The camera man swung his camera and bright light onto the goons behind me. They faded like vampires. Then she interviewed me.

That night on the news, just by coincidence, my points exactly countered the points made by the union V.P. in his interview.

Needless to say, the bill was squashed, and I absolutely detest unions.

Unions are putting their members out of work. There is a school principal here who wants to be given the power to fire the teachers who are worthless in his school. His school is on the firing line for being shut down if the kids don't start scoring better. I won't bore you with details of just how bad some of his teachers are. A couple of them are practically illiterates. The union won't let him fire them. So all the teachers, good and bad, will soon be out of jobs when the school is shut down.

I just heard at work today that a major aircraft company (I work for a company that writes the tech manuals for that aircraft company) is leaving Wichita, Kansas because of the unions. They are moving their operations to Canada.

[edited to add] Within an hour after giving my speech at the capitol, I reported to work. My boss was standing out front waiting for me. He was angry. He had received a phone call about me. And he was management.

[tedly]

Luke T said

I just heard at work today that a major aircraft company (I work for a company that writes the tech manuals for that aircraft company) is leaving Wichita, Kansas because of the unions. They are moving their operations to Canada.


And I just say good luck. The unions in Canada enrol a larger portion of the labour force (nearly double as i recall) than in the States. Heck we nearly unionized a Wal-Mart. There might be other reasons for an aircraft manufacturer to prefer Canada, like the fact that they'd have to be sued for liability in a Canadian court.

[bpesta22]

Cool thread.

I'm one class away from a master's degree in labor relations, and I wanted to clear up some inaccuracies mentioned above.

The closed shop requires you be a union member before being hired.

The closed shop is illegal, except in construction.

The union / agency shop says you must join the union within 30 days of being hired.

"join the union" though means you just have to pay dues (or fair share costs, if you decide not to join the union).

In fact, the only way a union can get an employee fired is for failure to pay dues. Anything else would be a ULP.

Right to work states were made legal by the taft hartley act, 1947 (it lets each state decide for itself what rules to impose with regard to union security provisions).

All right to work means is that the union security provision (i.e., the requirement that union members pay dues to keep their job) is removed.

So, you can still unionize and charge dues in right to work states, but if you don't want to pay dues, you can't be fired for it.

Even in non-right-to work states, though, the employees can file a petition to vote on throwing out the dues provision. If the vote wins, the union is still certified as the bargaining agent for the employees, but the employees don't have to pay dues!

Also just some trivia, for those interested:

Only about 10% of the private sector is unionized.

But, 37% of government jobs are unionized (in fact, the teacher's U is the biggest U in the country.)

Studies showing the effects of U's in terms of better wages and benefits are hard to conduct, because many non-u firms (i.e., the control group) are forced to offer better wages and benefits to keep unions out.

IIRC, U shops make about 10% more in base pay than comparable non U shops, but do considerably better in the benefits department (20-30% more)

Benefits constitute about 40 percent of payroll costs, so the difference here is meaningful.

You can pretty much thank Unions for all types of benefits. During WWII the stabilization act put a cap on wage increases, so U's pursued-- and got-- better benefits.

The reason it's relatively harder to fire a U member is because almost every collective bargaining agreement has a provision for arbitration (i.e., a neutral third party hears the case and makes a decision) as the last step in the grievance procedure.

In other words, the ultimate decision behind whether the employee gets fired or not rests with the arbitrator, and not the company.

The reason employers agree to this is because of a trade off. The union agrees not to strike during the life of the CBA so that the employer will agree to arbitration as the final step in the grievance procedure.

Also interesting, employers have the right to permanently replace striking emlpoyees. The minute you go on strike (over wages or working conditions) the employer can give someone else your job.

Even when the strike is over, you just get put on a waiting list, and are called back based on seniority, if and when a position opens.

So, the biggest weapon the U has-- the strike-- has pretty much lost all its punch.

[Mr Manifesto]

Luke T: As has been pointed out by bpesta, it looks like the US has low union membership. If militant elements have control of the union, you aren't helping by not joining it. If a lot more people joined the union, the militant elements wouldn't have control. If it's completely hopeless, a new union should be organised. But you don't make things better for the workers by simply refusing to join because you got dissed once when you were 16.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Quote:

originally posted by Segnosaur
The best of the 3 jobs was actually the one that was not unionized. (Best pay, best benefits, best group of coworkers.) That should tell you something.

Is that a big enough sample?

[Segnosaur]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

It's either that, or you can get sacked without due process and have to go through the horror of the Industrial Relations Court. Believe it or not, this way saves time, because all the evidence is there, and it's possible for the IRC to take one look at your case, with all the evidence, and say 'you have no case for the IRC: don't waste our time'.

Here's a better idea... screw the unions, screw the Industrial relations court, how about we create an environment that actually, I don't know, actually encourages job growth. Any decent employee removed from his position will have other opportunities, and any company that makes a habit of firing their best people with no reason will soon find themselves out of business.

Its called the free market. It can be applied to the labour market just as it can be applied to other goods and services. I suggest you look into it some time.

You seen to make a big case out of people being fired 'unfairly', like its some major epidemic. Sorry, companies are in business to make money, and I doubt most would be willing to make a habit of getting rid of their best and brightest.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

If you're happy with being sacked without due process, mull on this: I served with Hal in the Broom Closet Wars. I think you're a troll because someone told me so, and you should be banned. Hal bans you. See the problem?

Again, if a free market is established, I would find other places to go. If Hal makes a habit of getting rid of the best posters, content quality will drop and the board will eventually disappear.

So no, I don't see a problem with that. It's Hal's board (or more appropriately the JREFs), and being a success means keeping the best posters around. Just as a company will have its best success keeping its best people around, and 'firing' them will not improve the companie's prospects.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

You're just trying to derail the argument with daft arguments now. Obviously you don't get sent to training if you're deliberately idling on the job. Though we do have one employee who has severe sleep apnoea who does nod off on the job.

Ironic that you would accuse me of trying to derail the issue when:
- It was you, who originally claimed that 'most' worker problems were the fault of management, and could be solved by 'training'
- You drag out some isolated, extremely rare case which probably applies to 0.0001% of cases. (And frankly, if there were no unions, the persion with sleep Apnea still probably wouldn't be fired, if his productivity made him an asset to the company.) I suspect that the vast majority of people who are not productive at work do not have an underlying medical condition.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Once again, you're blathering about things you don't know anything about.

Maybe I'm trying to be just like you

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The union can only strike if the workforce agrees to it. They can't 'order' anyone to strike. So if management say, 'we want in the agreement something that says you can't play videogames on work time', you're not going to get a strike because most of the workforce would agree to that- being reasonable people who want to get on with the job, whatever you might think.

First of all, although strikes are voted on by union members, guess what the union members are part of the union.

Secondly, even though managers themselves can't order strikes, their recommendations and other activities carry significant weight.

Thirdly, the decision to strike does not have to be unanamous... if 51% of people want to strike, the remaining 49% are effectivly forced to go along.

Lastly, although unions probably wouldnt' care if there were things in the agreement about playing video games, they will have concerns about things like monitoring computer usage, internet activity, phone conversations.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Now you're really on drugs. Tell me how this is so. It isn't apparent from this paragraph.

When I asked who would make the decision about whether an employee had 'cleaned up their act', you said 'the supervisor'.

You made that statement yourself.

So, the supervisor, who you don't trust to fire incompetent people, still has the final call on who to fire because they get the final call. (Only now, they have their flexibility severely limited by union rules when they want to get rid of bad employees.)

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

How about the person who was sacked because a workplace-appointed psychaitrist, who didn't examine the worker in question, who was only going off reports provided by his supervisor, diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia? Do you think that's unfair? How about the person who was sacked for poor work performance who was never told that they even had a work performance issue, informally or otherwise? This was a case of the boss seizing on the legislation that says you can sack someone for poor performance: really he had a grudge with the person asking questions. What about the person who was sacked for using his email to ask his union delegate a question about a workplace issue, and email which was subsequently intercepted by his boss (this, BTW, is in breach of the Workplace Relations Act (1996), specifically s298K (1) (2) and (3) and s298L (1) (l)... I suppose the law is unfair on the poor companies as well?)

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Once again, you are pointing to isolated incidents where users have perhaps been treated unfairly, or perhaps not. I could play the same game, dragging up individual cases where the union has protected incompetent people to the detriment of all other people. Like the person who was given a promotion because union rules didn't allow her application for promotion to be rejected based on personal suitability, even though she was abusive to coworkers. Or the person, again in a union job, who did not have the ability to complete certain tasks assigned to him (despite having training), yet the union rules would force the company to keep him working.

As for your workplace regulations act, guess what? Not every country in the world follows the same rules. Quoting regulations from your country means nothing in my country.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Already rebutted that one. You'll pardon me if your amatuer opinion in my personal self doesn't interest me.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't consider your word as gospel.

[Mr Manifesto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Here's a better idea... screw the unions, screw the Industrial relations court, how about we create an environment that actually, I don't know, actually encourages job growth. Any decent employee removed from his position will have other opportunities, and any company that makes a habit of firing their best people with no reason will soon find themselves out of business.

Its called the free market. It can be applied to the labour market just as it can be applied to other goods and services. I suggest you look into it some time.

So, unable to deal with the reality of the modern workplace, you turn to the utopic fantasy of the free market. How, pray, will the free market keep people from abusing their positions of power?

Quote:

You seen to make a big case out of people being fired 'unfairly', like its some major epidemic. Sorry, companies are in business to make money, and I doubt most would be willing to make a habit of getting rid of their best and brightest.

I don't doubt that companies aren't in the habit of getting rid of their 'best' and 'brightest' (which, in some cases, is merely the biggest kowtowers or those who can write the most florid essays on their applications). The problem is when companies want to get rid of those they precieve as 'troublemakers', which can be as simple as asking questions or refusing to do something against an agreement or something which is illegal.

My workplace had a problem with a previous manager who branded those who refused to work beyond thier standard hours without being paid overtime rates. They were 'troublemakers' for refusing to do so. Again, as enshrined in our agreement, and probably in the Workplace Relations Act, you cannot be compelled to do overtime for any reason and not be paid overtime rates. These people were not the companies best and brightest: obviously those people were happy to work for less than award(at the standard rate instead of the overtime rate), and good for them for doing so. But it isn't fair to persecute people who want what they are rightly entitled to.

Quote:

Again, if a free market is established, I would find other places to go. If Hal makes a habit of getting rid of the best posters, content quality will drop and the board will eventually disappear.

Well, that's nice. However, you seem to be a social misfit. People who work for a company, especially over a number of years, develop friendships and routines that they get attached to. Being sacked is awful, and finding a new job (should you even be lucky enough to do so: in times of high unemployment, those who were sacked are the last to be hired) only goes part way to removing the stigma.

Quote:

So no, I don't see a problem with that. It's Hal's board (or more appropriately the JREFs), and being a success means keeping the best posters around. Just as a company will have its best success keeping its best people around, and 'firing' them will not improve the companie's prospects.

With regards to keeping the best people around, see above. You can't have 100% of your staff as the 'best', that doesn't mean that those who aren't the best should have their rights chucked out the door.

Quote:

Ironic that you would accuse me of trying to derail the issue when:
- It was you, who originally claimed that 'most' worker problems were the fault of management, and could be solved by 'training'
- You drag out some isolated, extremely rare case which probably applies to 0.0001% of cases. (And frankly, if there were no unions, the persion with sleep Apnea still probably wouldn't be fired, if his productivity made him an asset to the company.) I suspect that the vast majority of people who are not productive at work do not have an underlying medical condition.

With the probationary system in place in my company (which puts a person on probation for one year, during which time they can be sacked for not cleaning the floor properly or having a dirty coffee cup... sorry, 'poor attitude'), it's rare that an employee because unproductive for no reason whatsoever. In fact, I can only recall one case of it happening, and ironically the person in question was in no danger of being sacked because she was friends with my supervisor. Fortunately, she got pregnant and hasn't been heard from since.

It isn't always due to medical conditions. One employee, who was sacked, and did not go to unfair dismissal, had ongoing problems involving her children, problems that were horiffic and involved an attempted murder. The manager was too cold to try and help her, it was easier to sack her. She did get help from the union, but the union can only do so much, especially under the new and improved Workplace Relations Act which favours the employer over the employee (and yet it still protects the right to form a union... interesting, no? Obviously not everyone agrees with your 'screw the unions' mentality).

The point being, although poor productivity isn't always linked to medical reasons, there usually is a reason for it. Contrary to your cynical point of view, people aren't inherently lazy.

Quote:

Maybe I'm trying to be just like you

You can tell when you're winning an argument on JREF when someone resorts to a rolleyes.

Quote:

First of all, although strikes are voted on by union members, guess what the union members are part of the union.

You still don't understand how a union works. A union is the collective voice of the workers, it is not a body that orders what workers do for their own political ends. That's a manager's job. If a union is doing that, the union is not doing it's job properly. If workers vote to strike, it is because they are dissatisfied and management aren't listening. Try to understand it this time around: if you bring up this chestnut again, I'll simply write you off as thick.

Quote:

Secondly, even though managers themselves can't order strikes, their recommendations and other activities carry significant weight.

You're going to have to expand on this point. What are you trying to say, exactly? That if the workers present a good enough case to management, that management will listen to them out of the goodness of their hearts? You might not be trying to say this, but I can't tell from your statement.

Quote:

Thirdly, the decision to strike does not have to be unanamous... if 51% of people want to strike, the remaining 49% are effectivly forced to go along.

You still know nothing about industrial relations. It doesn't work like a California recall election. The purpose of a strike is to get the message home to management that the workers are dissatisfied by disrupting productivity. If 49% of the unionised workers don't want to strike, there won't be enough people to strike to affect productivity. Subsequently calling these 49% scabs doesn't do the union any good, since they only risk losing membership (becoming weaker), and the majority of the workforce will actually be working, when you take into account the non-unionised workers who will be working as usual... so those who choose to work will have the satisfaction of knowing the majority of their colleagues support them. You need more than 51% to go to strike- 80% is the bare minimum, 90% or more is ideal.

Quote:

Lastly, although unions probably wouldnt' care if there were things in the agreement about playing video games, they will have concerns about things like monitoring computer usage, internet activity, phone conversations.

So what? The union orgainsers had concerns about internet and computer usage in our workplace. They asked the workers if they wanted to see this in our agreement. The workers, who felt that management had the right to see if we were using our tools properly, said it was OK. That was the last we heard of the issue from our organisers. Our agreement allows for management to monitor computer and internet usage without notice, for whatever reason.

Once again: the union is the voice of the workers, it doesn't tell workers what to think.

Private phone conversations can't be monitored due to federal legislation which calls for a court order before a call can be monitored. Not much the unions could do about that even if they wanted to.

Customer/worker phone conversations can be monitored, but only on notice. That is what the workers wanted, and management didn't. Productivity doesn't appear to have dived down the hole since this implementation, in fact productivity has increased every year (though I won't pretend that's down to phone conversations being monitored or not).

Quote:

When I asked who would make the decision about whether an employee had 'cleaned up their act', you said 'the supervisor'.

You made that statement yourself.

So, the supervisor, who you don't trust to fire incompetent people, still has the final call on who to fire because they get the final call. (Only now, they have their flexibility severely limited by union rules when they want to get rid of bad employees.)

One thing you seem to have trouble understanding is that there is no such thing as 'union rules'. There is an agreement which is exactly that: an agreement between the workers (represented with consent of the workers by the union) and management. There is comprimise on both sides. If the unions got everything they want, the workplace would be comprised of bludgers with six hour lunch breaks and no right to sack... in your opinion, apparently, anyway. If management had their way, we'd have no right to privacy in the workplace, no overtime rates for overtime worked, no maternity leave... well, see Jessica Blue's list above.

Yes, the supervisor does not have free reign to sack who they want when they want. Once upon a time, supervisors had this power. But, hard as it may be for you to believe, people felt that supervisors were abusing this power and formed unions to put checks and balances in place so that supervisors would have to dismiss employees fairly and reasonably. Interesting link for you to read from the New South Wales government. Of interest:

Quote:

Case Study Three
A plant operator lost his unfair dismissal application when he failed to notify his employer about a serious valve malfunction. The employer told the Commission that the employee had been shifted around to various jobs within the company because his disenchantment with his job meant he could not integrate with the various work teams within the business.

He had been counselled but had been given a final warning after the valve malfunction incident. The employer was commended for his perseverance.


By following a proper counselling and disciplinary system the employer avoided a finding against him.

This isn't from a union... It is from the government, who can hardly be accused of being pro-union.

Quote:

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Once again, you are pointing to isolated incidents where users have perhaps been treated unfairly, or perhaps not. I could play the same game, dragging up individual cases where the union has protected incompetent people to the detriment of all other people. Like the person who was given a promotion because union rules didn't allow her application for promotion to be rejected based on personal suitability, even though she was abusive to coworkers. Or the person, again in a union job, who did not have the ability to complete certain tasks assigned to him (despite having training), yet the union rules would force the company to keep him working.

The difference being is that I have quoted my workplace agreement and the Workplace Relations Act, where as you have come up with some farty concept called 'union rules'. I suspect, as I have detailed above, you are getting 'union rules' mixed up with a workplace agreement. I note with interest you have quoted nothing. Why is that, do you suppose?

Quote:

As for your workplace regulations act, guess what? Not every country in the world follows the same rules. Quoting regulations from your country means nothing in my country.

Well, alas for you, I was born in Canada, and I happen to know that the unions work in a similar way to in Australia: we're both socialist leaning countries (compared to the US, which I admit isn't saying much).

Furthermore, according to this link, you have the right to belong to a union in Canada. There are also laws preventing employers from allowing the formation or selection of a union. While I cannot find the exact legislation, I think it also stands to reason that there will be legislation protecting those who are in a union who express that they are dissatisfied with their work conditions.

I also don't think you know anything about regulations in your own country, seeing as how you have a profound ignorance about the basic mechanics of industrial relations and unions. It pains me to see a fellow Canadian so ignorant, so please prove me wrong by quote Canadian industrial relations law, and some of the 'union rules' you go on about so much.

Quote:

You'll have to excuse me if I don't consider your word as gospel.

You don't have to. This is a debate. It would be boring if you took what I said on faith.