• Tennessee car plant workers vote to not receive union representation
    64 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BrownTown;43937894]Good for them. I wish I could leave my union and keep the $10 they take out of my paycheck each week.[/QUOTE] $20/paycheque is less than the difference between the average non-unionized and unionized paycheques [url=http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf]This[/url] seems to indicate $3-4/hour more for unionized employees Statistically, you're making more money than you would otherwise be, even if you got that $10/wk back
The fact that unions came to be in the first place should tell people that they are needed. If and when business owners and managers can screw over workers for an extra dollar, they gladly will. Unfortunately, unions have become corrupt with power, as most people do. This makes it easy for business to paint the big bad unions as the reason for the worker's plight. Combine that with the general scarcity of jobs the average person(ie non specialized skilled) can earn a living at and there's not a lot of sympathy for union members now. The 'government' is composed of politicians, who collect the campaign funding from the wealthy, so the average worker is kidding himself if he or she thinks the government is going to protect them.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43929892]to be honest unless your employers are absolutely rock bottom with corporate responsibility, there is little need to be in a union these days. I'm not in a union because my employers give me a fair wage with regular raises. I put in heaps of effort which they acknowledge and in return I get offered to do the hours I want (some days they tell me to come in whenever I want in a reasonable timeframe haha) and they work around uni for me. packing shelves part time and bringing home $500 every week is pretty sick. employers are not automatically evil.[/QUOTE] yet everyone supports people when they go on strike you can't do that without a union
If they believe the disadvantages of unionization outweigh the benefits, I see no reason not to support them. They've made their decision. Whatever consequences may result are theirs to bear.
The need for Unions in a workplace is circumstantial to the ethic and how the company treats its employees. For some people getting a Union just means getting caught up with an organization that you don't want to be affiliated with.
[QUOTE=Saxon;43940147]The need for Unions in a workplace is circumstantial to the ethic and how the company treats its employees. For some people getting a Union just means getting caught up with an organization that you don't want to be affiliated with.[/QUOTE] If the employees trust the management to treat them fairly, then an Union is redundant. Granted, shifts in management may result in a change to the situation, but they've made their choice, however wise or unwise it may be.
Is maxspeed a union rep? I think that unions had their place once upon a time, but that has passed. The big things they cheer on about how you wouldn't have it if it weren't for them, are almost all law now. They've become redundant. And the UAW, especially, is a corrupt organization. I wouldn't want to be affiliated with them if at all possible.
From what I've heard, unions are like everything else in this country, driven by greed with an agenda that doesn't consider the working man. If you want someone to get your back, you aren't gonna find it here.
[QUOTE=smurfy;43928739][t]http://imgkk.com/i/lv77.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] this is NOT the way you get people to join up in unions. turning unionization into a party political issue is an awful, awful idea because so many of the people who actually need unions are opposed to liberal ideology. the us has the most piss poor unionization rates in the private sector - 7%. that's AWFUL. unionizers need to do whatever they can to make their cause seem as bipartisan as possible, because in reality it should be. strengthening the rights of workers shouldn't be seen as a partisan issue, that's ridiculous.
too bad politics and unions have gone hand in hand for some 70 years, the top 15 political donors are all unions, and they all donate democrat... the argument the republicans used was effective but built on false ideals, ya in the 80s and 90s the unions were so tough that they were putting factories out of buisness, but today the unions have started understanding that they are global and they cannot just threaten to shutdown everything or make things uncompeditive with the pensions and wage demands else they could see a factory move to mexico, china, brazil, or just be outsourced to another company. i doubt the UAW would have directly caused there to be less jobs in the VW plant, they used scare tactics to win this round, the right to worker protections in the form of unions should not be denied just based on the fear of retribution, thats the whole reason why worker's rights exist in the first place. also VW and most manufacturers today use so much automation that there really isn't any way to cut any more positions or add many more positions without adding an entire new line, each worker now has one very specialized task and it generally involves either inspecting machine work or manipulating something with machines or installing components with machines.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43940695]this is NOT the way you get people to join up in unions. turning unionization into a party political issue is an awful, awful idea because so many of the people who actually need unions are opposed to liberal ideology. the us has the most piss poor unionization rates in the private sector - 7%. that's AWFUL. unionizers need to do whatever they can to make their cause seem as bipartisan as possible, because in reality it should be. strengthening the rights of workers shouldn't be seen as a partisan issue, that's ridiculous.[/QUOTE] That's a billboard aimed at getting people to vote [i]against[/i] unionization, because as you know Obama is literally SatanHitler
[QUOTE=Zeke129;43940723]That's a billboard aimed at getting people to vote [i]against[/i] unionization, because as you know Obama is literally [B]SatanHitler[/B][/QUOTE] To doctors he actually is.
[QUOTE=Sableye;43940712]too bad politics and unions have gone hand in hand for some 70 years, the top 15 political donors are all unions, and they all donate democrat...[/QUOTE] Everything is about politics in this country. Everything.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;43938155]$20/paycheque is less than the difference between the average non-unionized and unionized paycheques [url=http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf]This[/url] seems to indicate $3-4/hour more for unionized employees Statistically, you're making more money than you would otherwise be, even if you got that $10/wk back[/QUOTE] I would love to see the average age of a unionised worker as opposed to non unionised worker. My bet is that workers in unions are much older on average and that the age difference probably plays a pretty big role in the statistical difference of wages. My personal example is interning at a Chrysler PDC warehouse. The average age of the unionised warehouse workers was probably around 50-60 years old and they made about $28/hr, not including benefits. The very few (about 3 out of 70 total workers) new union workers only made around $14/hr with no possibility to get to that $28/hr. There's no way the average age of warehouse workers in a non-unionised warehouse would be 50-60 years old.
The unions in Ontario literally run partisan political ads, I'm pretty sure that kinda shit is illegal for corporations (and if it isn't, it should be), so why isn't it also illegal for Unions?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;43928776]Well to be fair UAW administration is comprised entirely of fatcats[/QUOTE] Don't they own a fairly large share of GM, giving a HUGE conflict of interests there
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;43941440]The unions in Ontario literally run partisan political ads, I'm pretty sure that kinda shit is illegal for corporations (and if it isn't, it should be), so why isn't it also illegal for Unions?[/QUOTE] Labour cartels is a more accurate and better name imo.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;43941440]The unions in Ontario literally run partisan political ads, I'm pretty sure that kinda shit is illegal for corporations (and if it isn't, it should be), so why isn't it also illegal for Unions?[/QUOTE] yeah, seeing all these people thinking unions are god's gift to humans here is making me laugh since I live near hamilton
[QUOTE=Untouch;43941675]yeah, seeing all these people thinking unions are god's gift to humans here is making me laugh since I live near hamilton[/QUOTE] I'm so, so sorry you have to live there... Look on the bright side, at least it's not Scarborough.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;43941440]The unions in Ontario literally run partisan political ads, I'm pretty sure that kinda shit is illegal for corporations (and if it isn't, it should be), so why isn't it also illegal for Unions?[/QUOTE] The teacher's union is often the single largest political contributor in the state of California. They spend more than every corporation and wealthy individual in the state by quite a bit.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43942178]The teacher's union is often the single largest political contributor in the state of California. They spend more than every corporation and wealthy individual in the state by quite a bit.[/QUOTE] That's largely in response to the ridiculous ballot initiative process California has. IIRC 90+% of their campaign donations have gone towards initiatives the last few years, and not actual candidates.
[QUOTE=Heeples;43942287]That's largely in response to the ridiculous ballot initiative process California has. IIRC 90+% of their campaign donations have gone towards initiatives the last few years, and not actual candidates.[/QUOTE] Are ballot measures somehow not political?
[QUOTE=viperfan7;43941631]Don't they own a fairly large share of GM, giving a HUGE conflict of interests there[/QUOTE] They got it from the feds after they ran GM into the ground and forced it into bankruptcy. Same with Chrysler.
[QUOTE=sgman91;43942310]Are ballot measures somehow not political?[/QUOTE] Some more so than others. The point that I managed to leave out was; I don't think the CTA would burn as much cash as it does if there weren't multiple education/budget related issues almost every election cycle. There is a current court battle over pensions that is going to put a serious drain on every Public Unions coffers.
[QUOTE=Heeples;43942401]Some more so than others. The point that I managed to leave out was; I don't think the CTA would burn as much cash as it does if there weren't multiple education/budget related issues almost every election cycle. There is a current court battle over pensions that is going to put a serious drain on every Public Unions coffers.[/QUOTE] The very fact that any ballot measure doesn't have a 100% chance to pass means that it's political in nature. Even if the bill directly effects the CTA it can still be very political. The point is that unions are there to help the worker deal with the employer, not lobby the government to help them, but that's what many unions have become: nothing more than massive lobbying firms that help get democrats elected and liberal bills get passed.
[QUOTE=Sableye;43940712]too bad politics and unions have gone hand in hand for some 70 years, the top 15 political donors are all unions, and they all donate democrat... [/QUOTE] Well, of course they do, why would they donate against their interests? (not that Democrats really have the unions interests in mind) [editline]17th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;43942433]The very fact that any ballot measure doesn't have a 100% chance to pass means that it's political in nature. Even if the bill directly effects the CTA it can still be very political. The point is that unions are there to help the worker deal with the employer, not lobby the government to help them, but that's what many unions have become: nothing more than massive lobbying firms that help get democrats elected and liberal bills get passed.[/QUOTE] Assisting workers often involves going beyond the simple tête-à-tête with the employers to indirect measures, such as lobbying to get worker-favorable regulations passed by governments. To say the line ends (or should end) at the negotiations with employers is fanciful.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;43942544]Assisting workers often involves going beyond the simple tête-à-tête with the employers to indirect measures, such as lobbying to get worker-favorable regulations passed by governments. To say the line ends (or should end) at the negotiations with employers is fanciful.[/QUOTE] That's the point though. The modern unions is a completely different type of entity than the original unions. The original point was to give a stronger voice to the oppressed worker who had no chance at any bargaining on their own, but by coming together they gained massive power and were able to stand toe to toe with even the most massive corporations. It wasn't to get more money for the workers in any way possible. That's fine if one wants to argue that political lobbying is a legitimate purpose for unions, but at the same time you can't argue that modern unions fill the same place that they originally did. The modern union is a new thing that needs to be judged separately. I, personally, think it's wrong to force people to pay for political lobbying that they disagree with.
I'm skeptical that the basic function of unions has somehow changed, making them a worse version of what they were beforehand. It's not like unions didn't support political candidates or lobby for unionists to be elected before the 1950s or something. The fact that they forced a lot of concessions doesn't mean they no longer function as a strengthened intermediary between employees and employers either. And if there were any difference between today's unions and their predecessors, I'd chalk it up to a change in the way capital can operate and what must be done to pressure concessions. In a globalised world, where capital can move with relative ease around the world, negotiations with employers are a less effective tool. Political lobbying can assist to a point with this, but essentially it doesn't matter since union participation has been on the decline for ages.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;43929267]Yes, the people in that plant are retarded children that don't know what's best for themselves and need you to make decisions for them. Wait, no they aren't and no they don't. Unions are becoming increasingly redundant and parasitic as time moves on. The original unions that were created 100+ years ago existed to improve workers rights, workplace safety and fair compensation. All three of these things are almost completely covered by government regulation, and have been for decades now. Modern unions almost completely concentrate on the third thing, fair compensation. Except most of the time they get so deluded with how much they deem "fair" that they end up causing the business to fail and the employees that worked for the business to be up shit creek without a paddle. Greedy unions were a large portion of the problem in the GM debt fiasco and one of the main reasons Hostess failed. Unions still have a place in less developed areas of the world, but not much anywhere else.[/QUOTE] Unions are hardly redundant. Wages are lower than they were 35 years ago when the unions were successfully crushed by employers, there are less benefits, more workplace injuries, and a lower quality of living for the lowest classes. Income equality is lowering. All of the benefits that come about out of union power are slowly being diminished. This isn't the first time that it's happened where unions have done their job and gotten us improved conditions, and in response the people see less reason for them and then stop supporting unions, only to have general quality of living lower. Equivalently this is like saying that because the doctor cured your sickness you no longer need a doctor, medical checkups and having something to keep you healthy is nothing, you're not sick anymore. Not yet. Here's the simple fact. Richard B. Freeman finds this: -less educated and younger workers are more likely to see wage increases in a unionized industry -Unionized workplaces increase fringe benefits, like pension and life, accident, and health insurance. -Unions tend to raise wages of blue-collar workers relative to unorganized blue collar workers, and raise blue-collar wages in general. -Unionized workforces are more stable than non-unionized, decrease the likelihood that workers will quit, and make it more likely that workers will be recalled from temporary layoffs rather than firings -Unionized workplaces are more "by-the-book", less flexible, but also more professional and less authoritarian. In concerns with Hostess, the union had little to do with it, it was majorly the bad spending, terrible management, and horrible fiscal responsibility of management that saw to its demise. If you think a union has any interest in creating less jobs, less workplaces to organize in, and less workers to represent, then you're being silly. Unions are not some parasite designed to destroy workplaces, that would be counter-productive. Statistically this isn't the case, there's even evidence to suggest that unionized workplaces bring in more money than non because individual labor productivity is increased due to increased pay and benefits. Then again, there's also evidence to suggest that certain high-profit industries do have lower rates of return. [editline]17th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=BrownTown;43937894]Good for them. I wish I could leave my union and keep the $10 they take out of my paycheck each week.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/NO3y8WG.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ke4dwZx.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/aJtNnxa.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/MeS1xy6.png[/IMG] And this doesn't even go over the other benefits that come out of a unionized workplace.
Can you source those charts?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.