• Tennessee car plant workers vote to not receive union representation
    64 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;43929288]congratulations, you're gullible[/QUOTE] Theres no doubt about it that hostess had issues because hostess was simply a company ran by shitty people who weren't operating in the best interests of the company, but it is true that a lot of the financial bleeding the company had was because of its union The union required completely retarded things to happen, i.e. hostess was forced to send two completely different trucks to the same store - one with bread products and the other with snack cakes, even though its a waste of gas, resources, and time and even though most of the time both could fit on a single truck easily. They also forced their drivers to not do any of the unloading themselves, a specific person hired to unload was forced to do the job. All this was forced by the bloated union that hostess had and it was all done only so hostess had to "provide more jobs" even though its incredibly wasteful on payroll and time.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43945099']*Massive post with lots of tables*[/QUOTE] Like I stated earlier: Any comparison without taking age into consideration is impossible to make conclusions with. The average age of high paid union workers is going to be much much higher than the average age of non-union workers simply because of the higher numbers of unions shops in the past.
[QUOTE=KorJax;43946918]Theres no doubt about it that hostess had issues because hostess was simply a company ran by shitty people who weren't operating in the best interests of the company, but it is true that a lot of the financial bleeding the company had was because of its union The union required completely retarded things to happen, i.e. hostess was forced to send two completely different trucks to the same store - one with bread products and the other with snack cakes, even though its a waste of gas, resources, and time and even though most of the time both could fit on a single truck easily. They also forced their drivers to not do any of the unloading themselves, a specific person hired to unload was forced to do the job. All this was forced by the bloated union that hostess had and it was all done only so hostess had to "provide more jobs" even though its incredibly wasteful on payroll and time.[/QUOTE] No, The executives in Hostess decided to run the company into the ground while siphoning cash out of the company into their own pockets. The shit stirred by the unions were smalltime compared to the executive backroom deals and actions. They used the Unions as scapecoats for why the company were trashed by their own selfish actions.
Regarding those graphs and shit posted above, even if unionised workers did receive a higher wage than non-unionised workers (which I haven't heard of in any of the workplaces I've been in), high enough that it more than covers the regular union fees, I don't think non-unionised workers would consider joining a union anyways because it can imply being liable to the union. For example, if the union organises a strike which a unionised worker may not agree with, that worker could be punished by the union for not taking part in the action. When you consider that throughout history, possible even today, that many unions have been militant then you can understand why some people would not like to be liable to them.
[QUOTE=darunner;43946288]Can you source those charts?[/QUOTE] Self compiled for an article I wrote for a class. All info is from the BLS union reports years 1994-2012. [editline]17th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;43947251]Like I stated earlier: Any comparison without taking age into consideration is impossible to make conclusions with. The average age of high paid union workers is going to be much much higher than the average age of non-union workers simply because of the higher numbers of unions shops in the past.[/QUOTE] They actually have that data in the BLS's annual reports, based on age, iirc. [editline]17th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Antdawg;43951912]Regarding those graphs and shit posted above, even if unionised workers did receive a higher wage than non-unionised workers (which I haven't heard of in any of the workplaces I've been in), high enough that it more than covers the regular union fees, I don't think non-unionised workers would consider joining a union anyways because it can imply being liable to the union. For example, if the union organises a strike which a unionised worker may not agree with, that worker could be punished by the union for not taking part in the action. When you consider that throughout history, possible even today, that many unions have been militant then you can understand why some people would not like to be liable to them.[/QUOTE] It's technically called a union wage differential or union premium, and it's a very real thing, as I've posted above. In many places the wages for unionized and non-unionized workers within the same workplace are the same because all workers in a represented workplace receive benefits regardless, including increased wages. The data presented above refers directly to workers represented by a union, freeloaders included. The other chart shows wage differentials in specific industries, showing that across workplaces there is a difference. I understand the resentment towards unions because I'm currently trying to organize a union or workers' council in my workplace. Most workers don't want to pay the dues and are afraid of attacks by management of losing their jobs. There really are no militant unions left in the US, only really the IWW which while growing again is very tiny, representing probably less than 30,000 workers. People aren't afraid of militant unions- in fact I've found it to be a positive for many of my coworkers when I compare the IWW with the alternative SEIU- but there is worry about them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.