Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

I think I'm starting to dislike unions...

245678

Posts

  • MalaysianShrewMalaysianShrew Registered User
    edited December 2009
    The solution is for the workers to have ownership over the means of production.

    Basically unions need to own and operate businesses themselves. Leadership from the bottom up, voted by workers. Yeah, sometimes you need a foreman. But he should be someone you and your coworkers decided to be there. My IT company, while not owned by the workers, operates something like this. If someone is trying to get promoted or change departments, it's their coworkers who decide if they should get the position.

    Argentina got fucked when their government embraced free trade and their local manufacturing jobs dried up and suddenly you have (relatively) cheap goods but no jobs to buy the goods no matter how cheap. Since then, union groups have been forming to take ownership of the abandoned factories they once worked at and start them running with the governments blessing. So far, they are doing pretty well rebuilding their economy.

    Never trust a big butt and a smile.
  • APODionysusAPODionysus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I thought I'd share a situation where a union had pissed me off recently. I know it happened a while back, but I'm going to be rather vague about the specific details.

    I work as a server for a restaurant thats owned by a parent company that controls several other restaurant chains as well. One of the other restaurants is being built in the same general area (around a mall) as mine. Apparently, the company is contracting some of the construction out to an out of state company. This has the local union rather pissed off.

    So what do they do? The union has workers stand outside of *MY* restaurant, handing out fliers, puttign them under windshield wipers, and telling guest not to dine at MY restaurant. The fliers were ridiculous too. While they outlined the actual beef the union had, they decided to just toss a picture of rats on there... because why not make people nervous about rodent infestations where no such problem exists!

    Because they are pissed at another restaurant chain owned by the same parent company as my restaurant, they seem to think its ok to attack my restaurant. What makes it worse is that the only people they are really hurting is us, the servers. The parent company isn't gonna be affected by the loss of a bunch of guests for a day or two. However, it DIRECTLY influences the amount of money *I* make. It affects MY ability to pay rent. I'm essentially the lowest level of peon at an only tenously related establishment. Why do *I* deserve to be screwed over?

    I hope they all die in a fire.

    Baseball Arcade - A Blog of Baseball Musings and Analysis and a Companion to the MLB Thread

    steam_sig.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I don't really think that removing investment capital from the equation is really something that is desirable.

    I mean, it would be nice if Argentina's situation was replicable and infrastructure for co-ops to use just sprang from the ground, but it doesn't seem all that reasonable as a means of reform for countries t hat aren't looking at overthrowing their government in the near future.

    @Dionysus: yeah, those union members certainly shouldn't be able to mobilize activsts against that corporation icon_rolleyes.gif

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    The problem with American labor being uncompetitive has little to do with unions and everything to do with globalization an increased standards of living for Americans. If we want a laboring class that is economically competitive with southeast Asia, we as a country have to be all right with our fellow citizens living like skilled laborers in southeast Asia live. We have to be all right with our fellow citizens having the kind of job safety and working conditions as laborers in Southeast Asia.

    We aren't really okay with that as a society, and our skilled labor really isn't going to be competitive.

    Unions forcing up the salaries of unskilled or skilled labor are really just dragging out a dying way of life. I'm not really sure what will become of American workers in the future.

    You forgot robots.

    FRED-Graph1.png

    mfgjobsbls.jpeg

    Unions should offer their members plans in Old Glory Insurance.

    tea-1.jpg
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I thought I'd share a situation where a union had pissed me off recently. I know it happened a while back, but I'm going to be rather vague about the specific details.

    I work as a server for a restaurant thats owned by a parent company that controls several other restaurant chains as well. One of the other restaurants is being built in the same general area (around a mall) as mine. Apparently, the company is contracting some of the construction out to an out of state company. This has the local union rather pissed off.

    So what do they do? The union has workers stand outside of *MY* restaurant, handing out fliers, puttign them under windshield wipers, and telling guest not to dine at MY restaurant. The fliers were ridiculous too. While they outlined the actual beef the union had, they decided to just toss a picture of rats on there... because why not make people nervous about rodent infestations where no such problem exists!

    Because they are pissed at another restaurant chain owned by the same parent company as my restaurant, they seem to think its ok to attack my restaurant. What makes it worse is that the only people they are really hurting is us, the servers. The parent company isn't gonna be affected by the loss of a bunch of guests for a day or two. However, it DIRECTLY influences the amount of money *I* make. It affects MY ability to pay rent. I'm essentially the lowest level of peon at an only tenously related establishment. Why do *I* deserve to be screwed over?

    I hope they all die in a fire.
    Shot in the dark, Darden?

    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • APODionysusAPODionysus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    @Dionysus: yeah, those union members certainly shouldn't be able to mobilize activsts against that corporation icon_rolleyes.gif

    Oh come on. I'm not saying they don't have a right to protest. Just do it outside the actual restaurant being built. Or corporate headquarters. This is like driving business away from an Outback Steakhouse because you're pissed at the Carrabba's down the street. They are only related at a point so ridiculously high up the chain of command, that the unions actions are practically a waste of time. The Corp isn't gonna feel it. *I* do, and I had nothing to do with any of it.

    I ask again, why am I being denied the ability to pay my rent?

    All I'm saying is that these freaking unions should be conscious of the consequences of their actions on innocent parties. I didn't deserve to lose my guests and my tips. I did nothing to them. They, however, decided to not think sensibly about the situation. So they can go to hell.

    Baseball Arcade - A Blog of Baseball Musings and Analysis and a Companion to the MLB Thread

    steam_sig.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    @Dionysus: yeah, those union members certainly shouldn't be able to mobilize activsts against that corporation icon_rolleyes.gif

    Oh come on. I'm not saying they don't have a right to protest. Just do it outside the actual restaurant being built. Or corporate headquarters. This is like driving business away from an Outback Steakhouse because you're pissed at the Carrabba's down the street. They are only related at a point so ridiculously high up the chain of command, that the unions actions are practically a waste of time. The Corp isn't gonna feel it. *I* do, and I had nothing to do with any of it.

    I ask again, why am I being denied the ability to pay my rent?

    All I'm saying is that these freaking unions should be conscious of the consequences of their actions on innocent parties. I didn't deserve to lose my guests and my tips. I did nothing to them. They, however, decided to not think sensibly about the situation. So they can go to hell.

    guess what? the only way corporate will give a fuck is if they start losing business. They don't care if ten people are flyering outside their HQ

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    @Dionysus: yeah, those union members certainly shouldn't be able to mobilize activsts against that corporation icon_rolleyes.gif

    Oh come on. I'm not saying they don't have a right to protest. Just do it outside the actual restaurant being built. Or corporate headquarters. This is like driving business away from an Outback Steakhouse because you're pissed at the Carrabba's down the street. They are only related at a point so ridiculously high up the chain of command, that the unions actions are practically a waste of time. The Corp isn't gonna feel it. *I* do, and I had nothing to do with any of it.

    I ask again, why am I being denied the ability to pay my rent?

    All I'm saying is that these freaking unions should be conscious of the consequences of their actions on innocent parties. I didn't deserve to lose my guests and my tips. I did nothing to them. They, however, decided to not think sensibly about the situation. So they can go to hell.

    So, how does it feel to be a human shield? Because that's exactly what you've become by trying to pin all your woes on the union members (who, by the way, are making a fucking good point about the fact that the money isn't being invested in local firms) instead of the corporate asshole who decided to bring in out of state workers.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • MidshipmanMidshipman Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Distram wrote: »
    So, uh, you anti-union people would be totally cool with ownership/management being the sole policy making body in every workplace? No conflict of interest there, none at all.

    Sure, unions are sometimes ineffective or counterproductive. Why does the answer have to be to get rid of them?

    Government is sometimes ineffective and counterproductive - should it go too?

    I am an employee of a non-union corporate retail chain. I'm very happy with the way ownership/management treats us. Part-time employees get highly subsidized health-care, paid time off, retirement plan contributions, 2 merit based raises each year, and are hired above minimum wage. Obviously not every business runs things this way, but I'd loathe to be forced to join a union as a precondition for employment. Unions are fine as long as they are optional.

    midshipman.jpg
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I love how people cite great non-union shops as examples of business voluntarily treating their workers well (see: toyota), as though those conditions would exist without competition for labor from unionized companies.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    WRT to membership costs, I don't have much comment aside from to note that there's no inherent reason that a low-skill workers' union's expenses would be less than a teachers' union's, and they might be well higher.

    Well, one would hope that a union that gave a fuck about its members would ensure that the dues assessed were reasonable given the level of pay. Again, taking more out of somebody's pay than they pay in taxes is a little excessive. And the fact that their dues don't scale with pay (so, again, an employee grossing $1700 a month with full benefits pays the same as an employee grossing $700 a month with no benefits) is absurd. It's regressive as all fuck.

    Which is why the problem is with particular unions sucking rather than unions as a whole.

    There are some right bastards out there who are far worse than management which don't do anything other than line their own pockets. There are also situations like Boeing where you have cascading renegotiation deals among numerous unions which can just cripple their ability to do anything if one of them has a hiccup because a new strike begins right after an old one ends.

    On the other hand you have things like a lot of the Trades where the unions not only teach the craft as a means of entrance but provide and encourage lifelong learning in order to improve their member's skills. If you want to see what the difference is take a look at the size of construction documents for union states and non-union states, you have to add an inch of details to cover your ass and constantly go on site when the unskilled dumbasses fuck things up whereas you can generally trust a union carpenter to actually build a wall the way you're supposed to.

    So it runs the gamut. Much like anything else with a broad label applied to it. You might as well say that you are starting to hate management because of jackasses spending millions to redecorate their office while the company's pension fund burns while completely overlooking businesses where sanity reigns.

    tea-1.jpg
  • APODionysusAPODionysus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    guess what? the only way corporate will give a fuck is if they start losing business. They don't care if ten people are flyering outside their HQ

    Yes, but the amount of business these people can logically influence is so small as to be nonexistant. On top of that, I'm still getting screwed for something I wasn't involved in.

    Let me be clear. The people MOST affected by this little 'demonstration' wasn't the specific restaurants bottom line, nor its managers, nor was it the chain's bottom line, much less the parent company. They were all either barely affected or not at ALL affected.

    The servers, on the other hand, are significantly affected. That doesn't seem logical.
    So, how does it feel to be a human shield? Because that's exactly what you've become by trying to pin all your woes on the union members (who, by the way, are making a fucking good point about the fact that the money isn't being invested in local firms) instead of the corporate asshole who decided to bring in out of state workers.

    I'm hardly blaming all my woes on them. It happened, it pissed me off a ton at the time, but its been over for a while. However, there was this thread about unions here, and I thought I'd show of an example of how some unions have no problem storming over other lowrung peons for their own agendas. Just like corporations.

    Baseball Arcade - A Blog of Baseball Musings and Analysis and a Companion to the MLB Thread

    steam_sig.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    guess what? the only way corporate will give a fuck is if they start losing business. They don't care if ten people are flyering outside their HQ

    Yes, but the amount of business these people can logically influence is so small as to be nonexistant. On top of that, I'm still getting screwed for something I wasn't involved in.

    Let me be clear. The people MOST affected by this little 'demonstration' wasn't the specific restaurants bottom line, nor its managers, nor was it the chain's bottom line, much less the parent company. They were all either barely affected or not at ALL affected.

    The servers, on the other hand, are significantly affected. That doesn't seem logical.
    So, how does it feel to be a human shield? Because that's exactly what you've become by trying to pin all your woes on the union members (who, by the way, are making a fucking good point about the fact that the money isn't being invested in local firms) instead of the corporate asshole who decided to bring in out of state workers.

    I'm hardly blaming all my woes on them. It happened, it pissed me off a ton at the time, but its been over for a while. However, there was this thread about unions here, and I thought I'd show of an example of how some unions have no problem storming over other lowrung peons for their own agendas. Just like corporations.

    so how precisely can a union protest against the actions of a company without it affecting the workers at that company?

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    @Dionysus: yeah, those union members certainly shouldn't be able to mobilize activsts against that corporation icon_rolleyes.gif

    Oh come on. I'm not saying they don't have a right to protest. Just do it outside the actual restaurant being built. Or corporate headquarters. This is like driving business away from an Outback Steakhouse because you're pissed at the Carrabba's down the street. They are only related at a point so ridiculously high up the chain of command, that the unions actions are practically a waste of time. The Corp isn't gonna feel it. *I* do, and I had nothing to do with any of it.

    I ask again, why am I being denied the ability to pay my rent?

    All I'm saying is that these freaking unions should be conscious of the consequences of their actions on innocent parties. I didn't deserve to lose my guests and my tips. I did nothing to them. They, however, decided to not think sensibly about the situation. So they can go to hell.

    So, how does it feel to be a human shield? Because that's exactly what you've become by trying to pin all your woes on the union members (who, by the way, are making a fucking good point about the fact that the money isn't being invested in local firms) instead of the corporate asshole who decided to bring in out of state workers.

    Really? That's a good point about out-of-state workers? My outrageometer must be busted, because I'm not even getting a blip from that. There's an inherent cost to bringing workers from out of state, in transportation or housing or both, and if the company is willing to take on that cost it implies that there's a pretty significant difference between these out-of-state folks and the local crew. Either they're setting their prices too high or the quality of their work is less reliable. In both of these cases the locals have brought this on themselves. I know I'm appealing to market dynamics here, so I'm making the assumption that there isn't some kind of shady collusion between the corp and the contractor or other heinous fuckery. But in that case, I'm annoyed at the heinous fuckery, not the use of an out-of-state contractor.

    EDIT: and pictures of rats on flyers, presuming the absence of rats in the restaurant, is fucking libel (and I hate libel laws, but this is why they exist). I wouldn't defend a company doing this to their competitors; I'm not sure why you're defending a union doing this to a company who didn't hire them.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • APODionysusAPODionysus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    @Dionysus: yeah, those union members certainly shouldn't be able to mobilize activsts against that corporation icon_rolleyes.gif

    Oh come on. I'm not saying they don't have a right to protest. Just do it outside the actual restaurant being built. Or corporate headquarters. This is like driving business away from an Outback Steakhouse because you're pissed at the Carrabba's down the street. They are only related at a point so ridiculously high up the chain of command, that the unions actions are practically a waste of time. The Corp isn't gonna feel it. *I* do, and I had nothing to do with any of it.

    I ask again, why am I being denied the ability to pay my rent?

    All I'm saying is that these freaking unions should be conscious of the consequences of their actions on innocent parties. I didn't deserve to lose my guests and my tips. I did nothing to them. They, however, decided to not think sensibly about the situation. So they can go to hell.

    So, how does it feel to be a human shield? Because that's exactly what you've become by trying to pin all your woes on the union members (who, by the way, are making a fucking good point about the fact that the money isn't being invested in local firms) instead of the corporate asshole who decided to bring in out of state workers.

    Really? That's a good point about out-of-state workers? My outrageometer must be busted, because I'm not even getting a blip from that. There's an inherent cost to bringing workers from out of state, in transportation or housing or both, and if the company is willing to take on that cost it implies that there's a pretty significant difference between these out-of-state folks and the local crew. Either they're setting their prices too high or the quality of their work is less reliable. In both of these cases the locals have brought this on themselves. I know I'm appealing to market dynamics here, so I'm making the assumption that there isn't some kind of shady collusion between the corp and the contractor or other heinous fuckery. But in that case, I'm annoyed at the heinous fuckery, not the use of an out-of-state contractor.

    EDIT: and pictures of rats on flyers, presuming the absence of rats in the restaurant, is fucking libel (and I hate libel laws, but this is why they exist). I wouldn't defend a company doing this to their competitors, I'm not sure why you're defending a union doing this to a company who didn't hire them.

    Exactly. Odds are the Parent Company did nothing untoward and the rats thing was just bullcrap. I can personally attest that there are no rats in my restaurant. Its a pretty recognizable chain (as are the other restaurants under the PC) and that kind of stuff doesn't fly. The union knew exactly what it was doing putting those images on there. They were trying to influence the guests above and beyond the actual situation they were protesting - which tells me that even THEY didn't think their case was very strong.

    Baseball Arcade - A Blog of Baseball Musings and Analysis and a Companion to the MLB Thread

    steam_sig.png
  • MetroidZoidMetroidZoid Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So I'm kinda on the fence about Unions too. I'm a Teamster, and basically the situation is that I pay a once-a-month-fee of twice my pay-per-hour. So if I make $11, I pay $22 a month. Not a big deal. However as a part-time employee, I get no job benefits out of this. If I ever get promoted to full time, then great the Union / work offers some great benefits that accrue quite fast. However I do enjoy the Union's mandated pay-rate; I've been with this job for 3 years (in March), and I'm up to 11-something an hour ... high for people my age, with no college experience, and in a part-time retail job no less. So I'm happy for that.

    Also confusing the situation somewhat is the fact that I work in a small corporation that started as a local grange that grew into a retail business. Now there's 7 stores in the state, and all but one are Unionized. If we really really wanted to, and could become united, we could de-unionize. It's allowed. But at the same time we'd lose our pension fund ... it's complicated but in the end would suck one way or another.

    9UsHUfk.jpgSteam
    3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So I'm kinda on the fence about Unions too. I'm a Teamster, and basically the situation is that I pay a once-a-month-fee of twice my pay-per-hour. So if I make $11, I pay $22 a month. Not a big deal. However as a part-time employee, I get no job benefits out of this. If I ever get promoted to full time, then great the Union / work offers some great benefits that accrue quite fast. However I do enjoy the Union's mandated pay-rate; I've been with this job for 3 years (in March), and I'm up to 11-something an hour ... high for people my age, with no college experience, and in a part-time retail job no less. So I'm happy for that.

    Also confusing the situation somewhat is the fact that I work in a small corporation that started as a local grange that grew into a retail business. Now there's 7 stores in the state, and all but one are Unionized. If we really really wanted to, and could become united, we could de-unionize. It's allowed. But at the same time we'd lose our pension fund ... it's complicated but in the end would suck one way or another.

    That's one thing I don't quite get now. The major, industry spanning union. It made sense back in the day, but anymore it seems like union shops should basically be their own organization rather than a small part of the AFL-CIO or whomever.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    So I'm kinda on the fence about Unions too. I'm a Teamster, and basically the situation is that I pay a once-a-month-fee of twice my pay-per-hour. So if I make $11, I pay $22 a month. Not a big deal. However as a part-time employee, I get no job benefits out of this. If I ever get promoted to full time, then great the Union / work offers some great benefits that accrue quite fast. However I do enjoy the Union's mandated pay-rate; I've been with this job for 3 years (in March), and I'm up to 11-something an hour ... high for people my age, with no college experience, and in a part-time retail job no less. So I'm happy for that.

    Also confusing the situation somewhat is the fact that I work in a small corporation that started as a local grange that grew into a retail business. Now there's 7 stores in the state, and all but one are Unionized. If we really really wanted to, and could become united, we could de-unionize. It's allowed. But at the same time we'd lose our pension fund ... it's complicated but in the end would suck one way or another.

    That's one thing I don't quite get now. The major, industry spanning union. It made sense back in the day, but anymore it seems like union shops should basically be their own organization rather than a small part of the AFL-CIO or whomever.

    well, to some extent it's a matter of sharing resources (like legal services), but mostly it's a about political leverage

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • MetroidZoidMetroidZoid Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    A very specific problem we have with the local Teamsters is that they keep upping Health Insurance premiums and such, without increasing benefit. I think they've even dropped benefits or quality or something else in the past as well. Basically the head of the unions as well as the majority of the voting party are the very-well off, close to retiring folks, who are reaping the rewards of being in this for the long haul, have gotten what they want, and are squeezing our paychecks to keep funding everything they got. We can't out-vote them for change, we just don't have enough people. So until retirement and/or death knocks enough of these old folks out of the union game, we're kinda SOL. Hopefully government health care change will effect this in someway positive.

    9UsHUfk.jpgSteam
    3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    that is a really fucked up situation, but it's more of a society problem than a union problem

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    that is a really fucked up situation, but it's more of a society problem than a union problem

    Obviously our healthcare system is fucked, and that can't be placed on their shoulders, but the problem of ponzi-fied unions seems like a union problem to me.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    that is a really fucked up situation, but it's more of a society problem than a union problem

    Obviously our healthcare system is fucked, and that can't be placed on their shoulders, but the problem of ponzi-fied unions seems like a union problem to me.

    I suppose, but it's not as though anyone else has figured out how to solve a ponzi-fied society when there's a temporary majority at the top

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    that is a really fucked up situation, but it's more of a society problem than a union problem

    Obviously our healthcare system is fucked, and that can't be placed on their shoulders, but the problem of ponzi-fied unions seems like a union problem to me.

    I suppose, but it's not as though anyone else has figured out how to solve a ponzi-fied society when there's a temporary majority at the top

    SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION! For the glory of the proletariat!

    :P

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Now, don't get me wrong. I've generally been a pro-union guy. I know what working conditions were like before unions, and we're better off in the long run having had them.

    However, my wife recently became a member (or rather, was forced to become a member) of the UFCW and I'm starting to understand some of the hatred directed at unions.

    We're big union supporters. She was actually a local union rep at her school for the teacher's union. We get unions. But the UFCW is taking the same amount from her per month now, as a minimum-wage part-time worker, that her educator's union took out of her full-time salary (which was more than double what she makes now). Oh, and did I mention the $100 "initiation" fee?

    So you're going to take a minimum wage worker and take an entire week of their paycheck right off the bat, then take roughly 5% from every paycheck thereafter (the $35 fee is flat, and applies to any worker working more than 15 hours a week regardless of wage)? For a lot of workers, particularly those who are taking a minimum-wage part-time job (as either a second household job, or a second individual job) that's more than they'll be paying in taxes.

    And it seems like the only benefit she gets from this union is "harder to be fired." Which is cool, I guess, though it seems a few of the workers there do take advantage of it in the stereotypical ways that I thought were just Republican talking points. She is hired at the absolute minimum the state allows a company to pay, she gets no benefits (at least not for the first year), so what exactly is her $35 a month (plus an extra C-note, just for fun) getting her? What good is this union, really?

    The best part is when she calls to complain, or at least get some of her more obvious concerns addressed, that pretty much anybody above the lowest levels of union employees are off on paid vacation this week. Note that many of the employees whose pay they are taking up to 5% of to pay their own salary do not get paid vacation at all. Awesome, right?

    So at what point do the unions become as bad as the bosses? What can we even do to restrain them? So far all I've got, at least in the obvious "how can you argue with this" category, is that they really ought to limit how much (as a percentage of gross pay) a union can take from a worker whose membership is a condition of employment. Or force it to be as a percentage of pay in the first place; my wife, who receives little to no benefit, should not pay the same rate monthly as somebody who is pulling several dollars above minimum, full-time, with benefits. We do all agree that a Flat Tax is retarded, no? How is this different?

    Similar treatment when I was 15 and forced to join a union for my summer job has always made me feel uneasy about unions as well.

    There is definitely a net benefit to their existence, but at times it really appears like their utility is NOT properly distributed amongst their members.

    georgersig.jpg
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I actually ignore my union dues and don't pay them. I'm per diem and when census is down I sometimes get less money on a paycheck than the union wants in dues. When that happened I called them with a what the fuck, they said that the automatic "support" withdrawal (read:dues) could not be completed, and as such is disabled and asked me for a check.

    I told them to fuck off.

    They send me a bill once in a while that keeps going up, and they have some really aggressive assholes who bother me once in a while and try to act intimidating. I tell them if they want their money, they can get me full time hours.

    I once had someone in my own union give me shit because I went to work when they were on strike and try and fight with me. I was hung over and pretty enraged at the fact a lazy housekeeper was making 30$/hour with awesome benefits and still spewing filth at me. Enough so that I spent the day fantasizing about throwing him off the roof.

    If I didn't despise SEIU Local 250 before that day, I certainly did after.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    There is definitely a net benefit to their existence, but at times it really appears like their utility is NOT properly distributed amongst their members.

    this actually seems like the place where there is most room to regulate unions or otherwise change how they operate, but it's not entirely clear to me how you'd do it. If you just exempt younger people or part time workers from membership you just incentivize more hiring of those populations (see: wal-mart), but it also doesn't seem to work to include them completely in health/pension plans, because they're transient or don't contribute as much to those systems.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    that is a really fucked up situation, but it's more of a society problem than a union problem

    Obviously our healthcare system is fucked, and that can't be placed on their shoulders, but the problem of ponzi-fied unions seems like a union problem to me.

    I suppose, but it's not as though anyone else has figured out how to solve a ponzi-fied society when there's a temporary majority at the top

    SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION! For the glory of the proletariat!

    :P

    So... unions?

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    There is definitely a net benefit to their existence, but at times it really appears like their utility is NOT properly distributed amongst their members.

    this actually seems like the place where there is most room to regulate unions or otherwise change how they operate, but it's not entirely clear to me how you'd do it. If you just exempt younger people or part time workers from membership you just incentivize more hiring of those populations (see: wal-mart), but it also doesn't seem to work to include them completely in health/pension plans, because they're transient or don't contribute as much to those systems.

    well, you'd need to have a union response to the regulations for things to stay in balance.

    so exempt people under a certain wage rate, but also have the union insist that if more than a certain percentage of workers are under that wage rate, then they're striking.

    Nothing involving unions is going to be handled completely with regulations, because that is the whole reason why unions exist.

    georgersig.jpg
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    There is definitely a net benefit to their existence, but at times it really appears like their utility is NOT properly distributed amongst their members.

    this actually seems like the place where there is most room to regulate unions or otherwise change how they operate, but it's not entirely clear to me how you'd do it. If you just exempt younger people or part time workers from membership you just incentivize more hiring of those populations (see: wal-mart), but it also doesn't seem to work to include them completely in health/pension plans, because they're transient or don't contribute as much to those systems.

    Uh, how about dues as a percentage of total pay earned rather than the current system of using per-hour or just ignoring pay entirely and asking a flat rate?

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    There is definitely a net benefit to their existence, but at times it really appears like their utility is NOT properly distributed amongst their members.

    this actually seems like the place where there is most room to regulate unions or otherwise change how they operate, but it's not entirely clear to me how you'd do it. If you just exempt younger people or part time workers from membership you just incentivize more hiring of those populations (see: wal-mart), but it also doesn't seem to work to include them completely in health/pension plans, because they're transient or don't contribute as much to those systems.

    Its a similar problem to the idea of having workers accrue stock ownership in a company so as to be more invested and influential over the decisions being made by management. That would work perfectly...assuming nobody ever quits or gets fired.

    tea-1.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    There is definitely a net benefit to their existence, but at times it really appears like their utility is NOT properly distributed amongst their members.

    this actually seems like the place where there is most room to regulate unions or otherwise change how they operate, but it's not entirely clear to me how you'd do it. If you just exempt younger people or part time workers from membership you just incentivize more hiring of those populations (see: wal-mart), but it also doesn't seem to work to include them completely in health/pension plans, because they're transient or don't contribute as much to those systems.

    Uh, how about dues as a percentage of total pay earned rather than the current system of using per-hour or just ignoring pay entirely and asking a flat rate?

    even a percentage can be an undue burden at lower wage rates.

    georgersig.jpg
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    There is definitely a net benefit to their existence, but at times it really appears like their utility is NOT properly distributed amongst their members.

    this actually seems like the place where there is most room to regulate unions or otherwise change how they operate, but it's not entirely clear to me how you'd do it. If you just exempt younger people or part time workers from membership you just incentivize more hiring of those populations (see: wal-mart), but it also doesn't seem to work to include them completely in health/pension plans, because they're transient or don't contribute as much to those systems.

    Uh, how about dues as a percentage of total pay earned rather than the current system of using per-hour or just ignoring pay entirely and asking a flat rate?

    because a percentage of pay earned for a 15/hr/wk worker is still less than a full time worker's contribution, and the money that pays for benefits has to come from somewhere.

    The "X# of exempted part time workers" thing seems like it would make sense though. Is there any industry where unions do that?

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    Potential solution: Have something like anti-trust regulation for Unions. Unions can enforce mandatory unionization ("We will strike if you hire non union folks") but they cannot force them into their union.

    This exists, and it makes unions impotent. It's called 'right to work' and makes union membership strictly voluntary, which makes it impossible to unionize work places and then makes it impossible for pre-existing unionized workplaces to strike.

    I think you may be misunderstanding him?

    I think he's saying that unions could force a union-only workplace, but nothing is saying that they'd all have to join Bricklayers local 19 if some feel that Stonecutter International #256 makes a better offer.

    No, that's exactly what Right to Work laws prevent. Membership of a union or payment of their dues can't be a condition of employment in a right to work state.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
    steam / mwo: calverin
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Taranis wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    Potential solution: Have something like anti-trust regulation for Unions. Unions can enforce mandatory unionization ("We will strike if you hire non union folks") but they cannot force them into their union.

    This exists, and it makes unions impotent. It's called 'right to work' and makes union membership strictly voluntary, which makes it impossible to unionize work places and then makes it impossible for pre-existing unionized workplaces to strike.

    I think you may be misunderstanding him?

    I think he's saying that unions could force a union-only workplace, but nothing is saying that they'd all have to join Bricklayers local 19 if some feel that Stonecutter International #256 makes a better offer.

    No, that's exactly what Right to Work laws prevent. Membership of a union or payment of their dues can't be a condition of employment in a right to work state.

    no, the idea was that the union would mandate union membership generally, just not in a particular union.

    That still doesn't really change anything though, if hypothetical new workers could just join the Do Nothings Local 245

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    because a percentage of pay earned for a 15/hr/wk worker is still less than a full time worker's contribution, and the money that pays for benefits has to come from somewhere.

    Okay, take the total pay earned by your entire union, that's A.

    Take the total dues collected by your entire union, that's B.

    Now divide B by A.

    If you're still with me here, you have a decimal value. Now multiply that decimal value by one hundred.

    With the magic of mathematics, you have just generated a percentage of pay which will support the union just as effectively as whatever the old system was!

    Now, if you have a substantive complaint about the utility of this system, voice it, but "the money that pays for benefits has to come from somewhere" just doesn't pass.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    Potential solution: Have something like anti-trust regulation for Unions. Unions can enforce mandatory unionization ("We will strike if you hire non union folks") but they cannot force them into their union.

    This exists, and it makes unions impotent. It's called 'right to work' and makes union membership strictly voluntary, which makes it impossible to unionize work places and then makes it impossible for pre-existing unionized workplaces to strike.

    I think you may be misunderstanding him?

    I think he's saying that unions could force a union-only workplace, but nothing is saying that they'd all have to join Bricklayers local 19 if some feel that Stonecutter International #256 makes a better offer.

    No, that's exactly what Right to Work laws prevent. Membership of a union or payment of their dues can't be a condition of employment in a right to work state.

    no, the idea was that the union would mandate union membership generally, just not in a particular union.

    That still doesn't really change anything though, if hypothetical new workers could just join the Do Nothings Local 245
    Wikipedia wrote:
    Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the "open shop" rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he or she joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether or not he or she is a member or financial contributor to such a union.

    I don't see how that leaves a loophole that would allow an employer to fire non union employees.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
    steam / mwo: calverin
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    ed: @nescientist

    well, I was assuming that equality of dues for benefits among all members was the goal, because the original objection was to part time and short term members getting no benefits but having the pay dues anyway.

    I mean frankly, if I could get decent (or honestly, even minimal) benefits by picking up a 10 hour a week job at freddy's or something, I would be all over it. That probably isn't a sustainable model for the union though, unless the full time or higher pay workers are subsidizing me.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Taranis wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    Potential solution: Have something like anti-trust regulation for Unions. Unions can enforce mandatory unionization ("We will strike if you hire non union folks") but they cannot force them into their union.

    This exists, and it makes unions impotent. It's called 'right to work' and makes union membership strictly voluntary, which makes it impossible to unionize work places and then makes it impossible for pre-existing unionized workplaces to strike.

    I think you may be misunderstanding him?

    I think he's saying that unions could force a union-only workplace, but nothing is saying that they'd all have to join Bricklayers local 19 if some feel that Stonecutter International #256 makes a better offer.

    No, that's exactly what Right to Work laws prevent. Membership of a union or payment of their dues can't be a condition of employment in a right to work state.

    no, the idea was that the union would mandate union membership generally, just not in a particular union.

    That still doesn't really change anything though, if hypothetical new workers could just join the Do Nothings Local 245
    Wikipedia wrote:
    Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the "open shop" rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he or she joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether or not he or she is a member or financial contributor to such a union.

    I don't see how that leaves a loophole that would allow an employer to fire non union employees.

    One assumes that we're talking about amending taft-hartley to make these changes.

    Under this hypothetical framework workers could be compelled to join a union of their choice, just not obligated to join one union exclusively. This would encourage competition among unions to do a good job representing workers, I guess?

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    well, I was assuming that equality of dues for benefits among all members was the goal, because the original objection was to part time and short term members getting no benefits but having the pay dues anyway.

    I mean frankly, if I could get decent (or honestly, even minimal) benefits by picking up a 10$/hr job at freddy's or something, I would be all over it. That probably isn't a sustainable model for the union though, unless the full time or higher pay workers are subsidizing me.

    I find it much less objectionable for high-pay workers to subsidize low-pay workers than the other way around, but neither is optimal so you're right to bring up the problem. Perhaps an exception for part-time workers who don't receive benefits is a more sensible solution after all.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    One assumes that we're talking about amending taft-hartley to make these changes.

    Under this hypothetical framework workers could be compelled to join a union of their choice, just not obligated to join one union exclusively. This would encourage competition among unions to do a good job representing workers, I guess?

    The basic purpose of a union is to represent the workers collectively to management so as to embolden their bargaining power for better ___ in comparison to each member negotiating as an individual. For that to be the case how would having 8 different unions representing the same segment of workers be a good idea? If anything its worse than the conglomerated unions who don't really give a shit about the little shops because now you have a bunch of different unions vying to get a better deal out of management and getting played against each other.

    tea-1.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.