Due to a security update, you may have to reset your password. Don’t panic, nothing has gone wrong and your password is safe. If you don’t have access to that email, send Tube a message at [email protected] More info here: https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/2zdqxf3bt7mj
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.

[Unions] Time to get Fired...up?

2456774

Posts

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited June 2014
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The crappy "have to pay whether you want to or not" status of unions is kind of like the crappy "have to buy insurance whether you want it or not" status of the ACA. Yeah, it kind of sucks that you're compelled to buy something even if you don't want it, but the system fundamentally breaks down if buy-in isn't mandatory. And as much as mandated payment might suck, it sucks a lot less than the alternative, which is scrapping the system and letting everyone fend for themselves.
    The "have to pay" part is weird to focus on when you have the "have to give service for free" part.

    Here's an example from a non right to work state (Illinois). The local city maintenance crew unionized a couple of years back and the people who didn't join could pay their agency fees to a charity. The city set it up that the charity could be the local community center (gym, pool) and they would get a free year pass. So they don't lose anything and still get all the same services and the same pay as the people who join.

    rockrnger on
    CalixtusMrMisterprogramjunkieKristmas Kthulhu
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    A duck! wrote: »
    You have to pay in because you benefit from their representation, whether you're a member or not, or at least that was how it was explained to me when I had to pay in when I got my state job. I've seen both sides, the good workers being protected from bad bosses, and the bad workers hanging around. It's not that the bad workers cannot be fired, it's that our managers are too lazy to actually gather the documentation necessary and go forward with the issue. I've gotten people reprimanded and moved out, and got someone to the very end of the process whereupon they were moved to a slack manager. It can be done, and it's not honestly that hard as long as you document and follow the rules, I've found.

    Look all you have to do to get an ID to vote is gather the correct forms and turn them into the DMV. It can be done, and honestly it's not that hard...

    If you erect enough barriers in front of doing something, it becomes functionally impossible. All the manger needs to do is document all what the person is doing wrong, over extended(months) of time, and build a custom corrective action plan for them, then it's just a half dozen sit downs with union reps, maybe deal with a retributive grievance or two, the appeals process, etc and look in just a couple short years you've managed to fire the teacher who came in to work drunk. See the system works!

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    I see the NYTimes article doesn't mention that the judge is a Republican appointee

    which I guess is fair, because that's just an obvious given.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited June 2014
    I see the NYTimes article doesn't mention that the judge is a Republican appointee

    which I guess is fair, because that's just an obvious given.

    Well yeah, because democrats don't care about the failures of minority school districts as long as the tax payers money==>union employees==>democrat politicians campaign funds, Oroborus keeps on eating. Try to actually contribute something.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    Please, spare me the crocodile tears

    Its an obviously partisan, politically motivated decision because it reaches ridiculous conclusions and creates a constitutional right that is selectively enforced.

    Why not rule California's taxation system unconstitutional because it fails to properly fund education?

    It is also a decision that is going to be absolutely destroyed on appeal.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Please, spare me the crocodile tears

    Its an obviously partisan, politically motivated decision because it reaches ridiculous conclusions and creates a constitutional right that is selectively enforced.

    Why not rule California's taxation system unconstitutional because it fails to properly fund education?

    It is also a decision that is going to be absolutely destroyed on appeal.

    Serrano v. Priest?

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    PotatoNinja
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    Kind of related but not exactly on point. Ruling unions unconstitutional because they protect bad teachers and harm students adheres to a logic that is going to make aaaaall sorts of things unconstitutional. Would be funny to pursue thus rabbit hole but mostly silly.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    I believe the rules were actual CA state laws. The decision refers to them as statues. its not just that they harm students, it's that they disproportionately affected minority students.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    PotatoNinja
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited June 2014
    As far as I can tell this
    Further, Judge Treu said, the least effective teachers are disproportionately assigned to schools filled with low-income and minority students. The situation violates those students’ constitutional right to an equal education, he determined.
    is the problem. I don't see where it was demonstrated that the union caused that in any way?

    Phoenix-D on
    PotatoNinjaMrMisterMagell
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    Which is a pretty specious claim. But why not run with it? Any CA statute that can be shown to be part of a system that unfairly harms minorities is now unconstitutional. The prison reform possibilities alone would be insane.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
    HacksawGnome-InterruptusNeoTomaKristmas Kthulhu
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    Republican Judge trolls appellate court, court raises stakes, responds by making 70% of CA law unconstitutional

    Would be a funny headline. I'm ready.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
    AngelHedgieShadowenHacksawprogramjunkieKristmas Kthulhu
  • NarbusNarbus Registered User regular
    edited June 2014
    A duck! wrote: »
    You have to pay in because you benefit from their representation, whether you're a member or not, or at least that was how it was explained to me when I had to pay in when I got my state job. I've seen both sides, the good workers being protected from bad bosses, and the bad workers hanging around. It's not that the bad workers cannot be fired, it's that our managers are too lazy to actually gather the documentation necessary and go forward with the issue. I've gotten people reprimanded and moved out, and got someone to the very end of the process whereupon they were moved to a slack manager. It can be done, and it's not honestly that hard as long as you document and follow the rules, I've found.

    Look all you have to do to get an ID to vote is gather the correct forms and turn them into the DMV. It can be done, and honestly it's not that hard...

    If you erect enough barriers in front of doing something, it becomes functionally impossible. All the manger needs to do is document all what the person is doing wrong, over extended(months) of time, and build a custom corrective action plan for them, then it's just a half dozen sit downs with union reps, maybe deal with a retributive grievance or two, the appeals process, etc and look in just a couple short years you've managed to fire the teacher who came in to work drunk. See the system works!

    Managers actually having to prove that an employee did something wrong before firing them is not what's crippling the American workforce.

    If you'd like to know why unions are important, and judging by the tone of your OP I'm assuming you don't, then let's look back at history. The 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire killed 146 people and injured another 71, primarily because the employer kept all the doors locked to prevent theft. When fire broke out, there was literally no way for the employees to leave. This fire is considered one of the primary drivers of unionization among factory workers. If you honestly think that we can gut worker protections today and businesses will magically rely on their conscience instead of their profit motive to make decisions, I guide you to the 2012 Dharka Fire (over 110 dead, 200+ injured) which ended up exposing over 850 companies that all forced workers to labor under dangerous conditions, a fact that was corroborated less than six months later when another Dhaka factory caught fire. Or maybe the Savar building collapse, also in Bangladesh, where over 1,100 people died with over 2,000 injured.

    Not coincidentally, Bangladesh also has some severe anti-union stances.

    Unions, like any other form of concentrated power, do need to have some oversight, yes. But whatever you're doing in this thread isn't going to solve any problems anywhere.

    Narbus on
    PotatoNinjaShadowfireThe EnderAistanEtiowsaAngelHedgieAl_watApothe0sisCaptain MarcusshrykeArdolIncenjucarlonelyahavaShadowenHacksawDockenQuidSkeithdesciTunesIsEvilGnome-InterruptusMrMisterMan in the MistsTL DRPolaritieSicariiFiendishrabbitCorehealerForarprogramjunkieMagellhawkboxKristmas Kthulhu
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Narbus wrote: »
    A duck! wrote: »
    You have to pay in because you benefit from their representation, whether you're a member or not, or at least that was how it was explained to me when I had to pay in when I got my state job. I've seen both sides, the good workers being protected from bad bosses, and the bad workers hanging around. It's not that the bad workers cannot be fired, it's that our managers are too lazy to actually gather the documentation necessary and go forward with the issue. I've gotten people reprimanded and moved out, and got someone to the very end of the process whereupon they were moved to a slack manager. It can be done, and it's not honestly that hard as long as you document and follow the rules, I've found.

    Look all you have to do to get an ID to vote is gather the correct forms and turn them into the DMV. It can be done, and honestly it's not that hard...

    If you erect enough barriers in front of doing something, it becomes functionally impossible. All the manger needs to do is document all what the person is doing wrong, over extended(months) of time, and build a custom corrective action plan for them, then it's just a half dozen sit downs with union reps, maybe deal with a retributive grievance or two, the appeals process, etc and look in just a couple short years you've managed to fire the teacher who came in to work drunk. See the system works!

    Managers actually having to prove that an employee did something wrong before firing them is not what's crippling the American workforce.

    If you'd like to know why unions are important, and judging by the tone of your OP I'm assuming you don't, then let's look back at history. The 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire 146 people and injured another 71, primarily because the employer kept all the doors locked to prevent theft. When fire broke out, there was literally no way for the employees to leave. This fire is considered one of the primary drivers of unionization among factory workers. If you honestly think that gutting worker protections today and businesses will magically rely on their conscience instead of their profit motive to make decisions, I guide you to the 2012 Dharka Fire (over 110 dead, 200+ injured) which ended up exposed over 850 companies that all forced workers to labor under dangerous conditions, a fact that was corroborated less than six months later when another Dhaka factory caught fire. Or maybe the Savar building collapse, also in Bangladesh, where over 1,100 people died with over 2,000 injured.

    Not coincidentally, Bangladesh also has some severe anti-union stances.

    Unions, like any other form of concentrated power, do need to have some oversight, yes. But whatever you're doing in this thread isn't going to solve any problems anywhere.

    You don't even have to go to India to make the point. Here's a modern example from "right to work" North Carolina.

    Like a lot of conservative derp, the conservative hatred of unions is one half theory over reality and one half swallowed propaganda in favor of the wealthy.

    Apothe0sisNarbusShadowenHacksawiTunesIsEvilMrMisterMan in the MistsprogramjunkieKristmas Kthulhu
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Everyone thinks unions are totes bad until they're the ones being tossed out on their asses with a shrug.

    With Love and Courage
    A duck!Apothe0sisNocrenNarbusIncenjucarShadowhopeShadowenHacksawbowenJohnny Chopsockyenc0reFiendishrabbitMan in the MistsprogramjunkieMagellKristmas Kthulhu
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Everyone thinks unions are totes bad until they're the ones being tossed out on their asses with a shrug.

    My feeling, yeah.

    Though I still say that forcing an employee who is making the minimum legal wage, gets no benefits, and is still on a fucking probation period pay dues is absurd. They are getting basically no benefit from that union whatsoever. It's theft.

    The Enderprogramjunkie
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    In theory, a decent union is supposed to correct that by making sure that your wage more than compensates for your dues - but, yes, things can & will shake-out different in real life. I don't agree that it's theft anymore than I think taxes are theft; the benefit is the security of collective bargaining, even if said security never needs to be tested.

    Like medical, you don't need it until you do - and then, boy howdy, do you ever need it.


    I mean, these are (in essence) the two scenarios (if you're working for a larger company):

    1) Oversight is done by some district manager who has never seen your face before, doesn't give a shit about anything and is very likely a wealth class above yours, if not well above yours. Your job is totally & completely in this person's hands, and you can be dismissed via any fiat.

    2) Oversight is done by your peers, who work next to you. They know the job, they know you. Maybe they do or don't give a shit, but they're certainly more likely to give a shit than some DM who doesn't even step foot in the same county most months. Maybe they are or aren't all assholes, but it's more likely than at least most of them will be reasonable people even if one or two are draconian shitlords.


    Option 2 is so much better to Option 1, in my opinion, that I will absolutely pay a premium for that job security every time. I will expect them to also fight to give me a better wage, but if they don't? Fuck it. At least they'll have my back when the DM two counties over decides that the operation he knows dick shit about isn't operating the way his gut tells him it should be after drinking some sour wine.

    With Love and Courage
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I think the probationary period is the real kicker. I mean, being secure in your minimum wage, no-benefit job can arguably be touted as a perk of a union (though whether it's worth half of your first couple paychecks is questionable).

    But once you eliminate that? Like, you can be fired on a whim too until you clear probation. Any benefit from the union received at that point by the employee is...minimal.

    21stCentury
  • Squidget0Squidget0 Registered User regular
    edited June 2014
    It does seem like unions lack any particular incentive to do anything for their employees (other than those directly connected to the union management) once you legally mandate paying dues. Corruption isn't unique to corporations, and it can very easily become a situation where two apathetic institutions are screwing you over instead of one.

    Federal or state-mandated worker protections seem like a better solution overall, but I don't see that you can really get there without some kind of serious labor organization. The problem is getting the incentives set up right.

    Squidget0 on
    Arch wrote: »
    the lynch mob is a feature, not a bug in the democratic system
    LostNinja
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    I don't really have a problem with probationary periods in general (unless they're being abused) but if it's probationary I also don't think one should be having to pay dues.

  • NarbusNarbus Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    It does seem like unions lack any particular incentive to do anything for their employees (other than those directly connected to the union management) once you legally mandate paying dues. Corruption isn't unique to corporations, and it can very easily become a situation where two apathetic institutions are screwing you over instead of one.

    Federal or state-mandated worker protections seem like a better solution overall, but I don't see that you can really get there without some kind of serious labor organization. The problem is getting the incentives set up right.

    Except unions have elections for leadership. Also, it is very obvious that if the union pissed off enough members those members will go to management and demand the union stop representing them, which, historically, management would be ALL OVER.

    PantsB
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Narbus wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    It does seem like unions lack any particular incentive to do anything for their employees (other than those directly connected to the union management) once you legally mandate paying dues. Corruption isn't unique to corporations, and it can very easily become a situation where two apathetic institutions are screwing you over instead of one.

    Federal or state-mandated worker protections seem like a better solution overall, but I don't see that you can really get there without some kind of serious labor organization. The problem is getting the incentives set up right.

    Except unions have elections for leadership. Also, it is very obvious that if the union pissed off enough members those members will go to management and demand the union stop representing them, which, historically, management would be ALL OVER.

    Though it doesn't apply to all industries, there are often nonunion shops around. If the union is so useless people will go to the other employer.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • CalixtusCalixtus Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The crappy "have to pay whether you want to or not" status of unions is kind of like the crappy "have to buy insurance whether you want it or not" status of the ACA. Yeah, it kind of sucks that you're compelled to buy something even if you don't want it, but the system fundamentally breaks down if buy-in isn't mandatory. And as much as mandated payment might suck, it sucks a lot less than the alternative, which is scrapping the system and letting everyone fend for themselves.
    The "have to pay" part is weird to focus on when you have the "have to give service for free" part.

    Here's an example from a non right to work state (Illinois). The local city maintenance crew unionized a couple of years back and the people who didn't join could pay their agency fees to a charity. The city set it up that the charity could be the local community center (gym, pool) and they would get a free year pass. So they don't lose anything and still get all the same services and the same pay as the people who join.
    That's worth saying again.

    You have an intentionally implemented incentative to freeride on other peoples unionization. Anything that happends past that point - like legally mandated local labour monopolies - comes as a consequence of that incredibly effective piece of union busting.

    -This message was deviously brought to you by:
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The crappy "have to pay whether you want to or not" status of unions is kind of like the crappy "have to buy insurance whether you want it or not" status of the ACA. Yeah, it kind of sucks that you're compelled to buy something even if you don't want it, but the system fundamentally breaks down if buy-in isn't mandatory. And as much as mandated payment might suck, it sucks a lot less than the alternative, which is scrapping the system and letting everyone fend for themselves.

    What it's really like is the crappy "have to pay taxes whether you want to or not" status of being part of a functioning society. Right above/below that line on your paycheck that says "Union dues" is a bunch of other lines detailing all the other people taking a cut of "your" pay. Welcome to civilization.

    The EnderKristmas Kthulhu
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2014
    Aioua wrote: »
    I never liked the whole "it's hard to fire teachers that's why there are bad ones" argument.
    Every job I've ever worked has had those terrible bare minimum employees who skate by. Some of them even completely unfireable, not because of a union but because they won at office politics.

    People who complain about unions keeping bad employees around have either never worked a non-union job or are utterly oblivious.

    Every type of employment has the people who should be fired but aren't. All that changes is the specific way they are gaming the specific system in place to stay employed.


    A duck! wrote: »
    You have to pay in because you benefit from their representation, whether you're a member or not, or at least that was how it was explained to me when I had to pay in when I got my state job. I've seen both sides, the good workers being protected from bad bosses, and the bad workers hanging around. It's not that the bad workers cannot be fired, it's that our managers are too lazy to actually gather the documentation necessary and go forward with the issue. I've gotten people reprimanded and moved out, and got someone to the very end of the process whereupon they were moved to a slack manager. It can be done, and it's not honestly that hard as long as you document and follow the rules, I've found.

    Look all you have to do to get an ID to vote is gather the correct forms and turn them into the DMV. It can be done, and honestly it's not that hard...

    If you erect enough barriers in front of doing something, it becomes functionally impossible. All the manger needs to do is document all what the person is doing wrong, over extended(months) of time, and build a custom corrective action plan for them, then it's just a half dozen sit downs with union reps, maybe deal with a retributive grievance or two, the appeals process, etc and look in just a couple short years you've managed to fire the teacher who came in to work drunk. See the system works!

    So all they've got to do is actually show that they can prove the employee should be fired. OMG, you've got to prove shit now? The horror.

    That's totally like having to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote because voter fraud is so rampant that cases of it happening are as numerous as cases of you knowing what you are talking about in this thread.

    shryke on
    Captain Marcus
  • Squidget0Squidget0 Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The crappy "have to pay whether you want to or not" status of unions is kind of like the crappy "have to buy insurance whether you want it or not" status of the ACA. Yeah, it kind of sucks that you're compelled to buy something even if you don't want it, but the system fundamentally breaks down if buy-in isn't mandatory. And as much as mandated payment might suck, it sucks a lot less than the alternative, which is scrapping the system and letting everyone fend for themselves.

    In both cases it seems like the right answer is for the government to provide the services directly, rather than going through a privately-run middleman that is substantially more vulnerable to internal corruption and rent-seeking behavior.

    If the government tightens regulation to the point where there is actual labor demand, a lot of the need for these kinds of advocacy organizations (and the associated overhead) disappears. Ideally, workers have jobs because there is demand for workers, rather than because of power struggles between unions and management.

    Arch wrote: »
    the lynch mob is a feature, not a bug in the democratic system
  • CalixtusCalixtus Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The crappy "have to pay whether you want to or not" status of unions is kind of like the crappy "have to buy insurance whether you want it or not" status of the ACA. Yeah, it kind of sucks that you're compelled to buy something even if you don't want it, but the system fundamentally breaks down if buy-in isn't mandatory. And as much as mandated payment might suck, it sucks a lot less than the alternative, which is scrapping the system and letting everyone fend for themselves.

    What it's really like is the crappy "have to pay taxes whether you want to or not" status of being part of a functioning society. Right above/below that line on your paycheck that says "Union dues" is a bunch of other lines detailing all the other people taking a cut of "your" pay. Welcome to civilization.
    You say that, but its not like there's no examples of non-mandatory unions flourishing, both financially and in terms of societal influence.

    Which isn't really true for taxless-nations.

    -This message was deviously brought to you by:
  • NarbusNarbus Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The crappy "have to pay whether you want to or not" status of unions is kind of like the crappy "have to buy insurance whether you want it or not" status of the ACA. Yeah, it kind of sucks that you're compelled to buy something even if you don't want it, but the system fundamentally breaks down if buy-in isn't mandatory. And as much as mandated payment might suck, it sucks a lot less than the alternative, which is scrapping the system and letting everyone fend for themselves.

    In both cases it seems like the right answer is for the government to provide the services directly, rather than going through a privately-run middleman that is substantially more vulnerable to internal corruption and rent-seeking behavior.

    If the government tightens regulation to the point where there is actual labor demand, a lot of the need for these kinds of advocacy organizations (and the associated overhead) disappears. Ideally, workers have jobs because there is demand for workers, rather than because of power struggles between unions and management.

    The recently exposed collaboration between big tech industries suggests that, even if there were some way for government to regulate every industry enough to increase labor demand without somehow driving unemployment into double digits, industry would still seek to pinch one off over their employees' heads. There are clearly already too many industries for the government to monitor as well as would be required for your idea to work.

    And none of that is getting into industry just corrupting the government into looking the other way.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2014
    A bad or failed union can be obnoxious and harmful, sure. A good union can be goddamn amazing for the workers and thereby the community, AND for everyone who they work for. I've been part of a very very good carpentry union which ensures its workers are damned good at what they do while working next to the folks in a fairly meh but passable union. In the construction industry, unions often double as colleges, ensuring that their people are constantly upgrading and updating their skills and following proper safety and legal requirements to make sure buildings come out right and nobody gets a bad deal. Non-union folks are basically rolling the dice in comparison. And for the people in the union, it's often a freaking fantastic deal. You can make more as an apprentice carpenter than you can in a lot of jobs that require college degrees, and if you spend your life in the union you're going to have a very secure retirement unless you do something absolutely stupid with your money.

    Hell, with a BA and a lot of experience I barely make more than my dad did when he was a teenager in the 60s. because my industry doesn't do unions.

    Incenjucar on
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    American unions are often bad because their power is too little because they have been very effectively curtailed, and as a result the only thing they do is protect the interest of the longtime members until the system has withered and all the money has dried up.

    Unions can and absolutely do work in a modern age. For instance over here in the Netherlands they wield tremendous power. We just got off a cleaning strike that lasted nearly 3 months, affected government buildings and the railway, and ended with most of the demands being met (Mostly payment for the first 2 sickdays and a raise). It cost the unions a lot of money in strike fees, but it worked. In general the unions here are a full negotiating partner with the government and employer organisations in 'central labor agreements' which are protected wage systems that get adjusted every few years, per sector instead of company.

    However, they work because the law empowers them. There isn't much of an obvious path in the US to get this system functional again. You'd basically need a succesful 99% ish movement that pressures lawmakers into extensive worker protections.... that seems very far away.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
    Siska
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I was strongly pro-union right up until the local SEIU took hundreds of dollars from my wife's paycheck...which was not large...for dues. Including "initial" dues on hire.

    Sure, she was free not to join. But they got theirs regardless.

    They explained it was needed for them to keep advocating for her pay and benefits. She was making minimum wage, and no benefits.

    Almost feels like there need to be some caps on dues as a function of pay, and such. It really felt like a scam to fleece temporary workers and short term employees. It didn't make me hate unions entirely or anything, but it definitely eliminated the rosey tint from my glasses.

    Edit: oh, and when she wanted to talk to her rep about it, that rep was on a multi week paid vacation. Vacation my wife did not earn.

    It's entirely possible your wife's circumstances were different, but I am in SEIU, and my dues scale up with how much I make. I recently crossed over a threshold of $$/hr, and my dues went up $5 a month.

    When I joined the union, I had to pay back monthly dues for all the months between my hire date and when my boss told me I could actually go and join the union, which was about 6 months after I started (3 after I was hired full time). Is that what you're referring to?

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    This thread doesn't seem to be so much about trade unions as much as poor staff being protected to a degree that people think isn't appropriate. The trade union being the protector.

    In the UK it is a bit different in the sense that most dismissals need cause (where cause is defined by law) which usually requires time. Only the worst kinds of situation will justify summary dismissal. Combine this with compulsory (if ineffective) conciliation and specialist employment courts, an employment dispute becomes between an individual and their emplouer. A union is not necessarily required.

    Unions do still of course exist and they do act as advocates for employees in disputes, or take cases to the highest courts. But for most workplaces their role is simply occasional advocate. In some workplaces unions have been invited by employees to be formally recognised by employer under recognition law and in those places unions tend to do a lot more, negotiations over terms, work rules, and any restructuring.

    I think the over arching theory is individualisation of rights that would hopefully make unions no longer necessary for protection or the like. It isn't a bad idea but what it does mean is that employment disputes quickly escalate to legal disputes and that costs time and money. So the government regularly gets lobbied to make it harder to sue, or pressure from Treasury to reduce court running cists. The UK is currently deep into that cycle so we have a good set of employment rights, specialist courts and weak unions, but it costs several hundred pounds to file a claim and over a thousand to have a hearing. Which has had the effect of massively reducing claims, which sort of means that the government wishes the employee to have clear rights and the ability to enforce, just not if you can't afford it.

    So we are back to a situation where membership of a union may help, as their financial resources and trained staff can help resolve disputes the old fashioned way before going to court.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited June 2014
    As someone who's a member of a union and has worked on both the union and non-union side of my industry

    Unions are fucking awesome. Not having a union behind you when you're in a potentially hostile workplace is a fucking terrible feeling that wraps around your very existence a blanket of dread and anxiety. It's fucking awful.

    Hacksaw on
    The EnderlonelyahavaDockenRedTideshrykeJohnny ChopsockyAl_watenc0rePanda4YouAistaniTunesIsEvilKamarskyknytForarKristmas Kthulhu
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    SanderJK wrote:
    Unions can and absolutely do work in a modern age. For instance over here in the Netherlands they wield tremendous power. We just got off a cleaning strike that lasted nearly 3 months, affected government buildings and the railway

    Things like this are worth the price of admission alone.

    "What, nobody among your staff wants to pull kitchen or toilet duty anymore, Governor?"

    With Love and Courage
    HacksawKristmas Kthulhu
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The crappy "have to pay whether you want to or not" status of unions is kind of like the crappy "have to buy insurance whether you want it or not" status of the ACA. Yeah, it kind of sucks that you're compelled to buy something even if you don't want it, but the system fundamentally breaks down if buy-in isn't mandatory. And as much as mandated payment might suck, it sucks a lot less than the alternative, which is scrapping the system and letting everyone fend for themselves.

    What it's really like is the crappy "have to pay taxes whether you want to or not" status of being part of a functioning society. Right above/below that line on your paycheck that says "Union dues" is a bunch of other lines detailing all the other people taking a cut of "your" pay. Welcome to civilization.
    You say that, but its not like there's no examples of non-mandatory unions flourishing, both financially and in terms of societal influence.

    Which isn't really true for taxless-nations.

    And there are lots of examples of non mandatory businesses flourishing too (NPR off the top of my head) but no one is advocating "right to shop" laws where you just pay if you want to.

    shrykeKristmas Kthulhu
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    As someone who's a member of a union and has worked on both the union and non-union side of my industry

    Unions are fucking awesome. Not having a union behind you when you're in a potentially hostile workplace is a fucking terrible feeling that wraps around your very existence a blanket of dread and anxiety. It's fucking awful.

    At the same time, when another employee (rather than management) is creating a hostile workplace, the union has their back as well. We're having that issue in my shop right now, with an employee that routinely harrasses other employees (including both sexual and general harassment). That protection from the union can cut both ways. As it is, this employee has managed to get two managers shuffled off since I started (because of their inability to deal with his behavior), yet he's proven to be pretty much untouchable himself.

    Not that unions don't do more good than harm, just that it's not all blowjobs and kittens.

    It's entirely possible your wife's circumstances were different, but I am in SEIU, and my dues scale up with how much I make. I recently crossed over a threshold of $$/hr, and my dues went up $5 a month.

    When I joined the union, I had to pay back monthly dues for all the months between my hire date and when my boss told me I could actually go and join the union, which was about 6 months after I started (3 after I was hired full time). Is that what you're referring to?

    She had to pay dues from the day she was hired, because it wasn't optional. I wish I still had the numbers, but I don't, I just remember there was a significant up-front hit as well, and that all of this was levied on her as an employee who was making minimum, had no benefits, and was still probationary.

  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    Every interaction I've ever had with a union has been fuck awful.

    Currently I work in a union job, my wife works for the same employer in a non-union job. They announced a % raise for all employees. My wife will get this raise at the start of the fiscal year (next month). In October my union will slowly pull their thumb out of their ass, take a sniff and ask their members if they are OK with the raise. If i'm lucky sometime around November, they will agree to the exact same deal my wife got 6 months ago, if i'm not they'll trade away my raise for unpaid vacation days or some shit.


    Agahnim
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited June 2014
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    As someone who's a member of a union and has worked on both the union and non-union side of my industry

    Unions are fucking awesome. Not having a union behind you when you're in a potentially hostile workplace is a fucking terrible feeling that wraps around your very existence a blanket of dread and anxiety. It's fucking awful.

    At the same time, when another employee (rather than management) is creating a hostile workplace, the union has their back as well. We're having that issue in my shop right now, with an employee that routinely harrasses other employees (including both sexual and general harassment). That protection from the union can cut both ways. As it is, this employee has managed to get two managers shuffled off since I started (because of their inability to deal with his behavior), yet he's proven to be pretty much untouchable himself.

    Not that unions don't do more good than harm, just that it's not all blowjobs and kittens.

    Sure, but I'd rather deal with a problem employee than an problem employer. One of them has somewhat free reign to be an unpleasant individual, while the other has complete and total free reign to make the entire workplace actively unpleasant.

    Hacksaw on
    mcdermottbowenQuidPanda4YouAistaniTunesIsEvilKamarronzooverride367FiendishrabbitBotznoyNeoTomaKristmas Kthulhu
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited June 2014
    This person is harassing other union members. Why does the union protect this abusive employee rather than his victims?

    I have to assume there is more to the situation, for example sexism or some personal connection between this person and the union officials. Otherwise, why would the union enable member A to abuse members B, C, and D?

    I would be happy to blame these particular union officials, but like all those stories, that would never stop me from believing in unions.

    So many of the basic work freedoms we have today, e.g. two-day weekends, come from the union movement, either partly or wholly.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
    Apothe0sisGnome-Interruptus
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    I think that no matter the system, union or non union the goal, should be to make it easy to get rid of shit employees, and really hard to get rid of good employees for bullshit reasons. I don't know how to do that, but I think that is the objective.

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited June 2014
    zepherin wrote: »
    I think that no matter the system, union or non union the goal, should be to make it easy to get rid of shit employees, and really hard to get rid of good employees for bullshit reasons. I don't know how to do that, but I think that is the objective.

    I agree that that should happen, but this is like court. The union is the counsel for the defence, i.e. the employees. The management is the counsel for the prosecution. It's an innately adversarial position, because unions were created to try and collectively bargain to make up for employees' various other weaknesses.

    It's not the defence's job to make the case for the prosecution. It's their job as paid advocates to defend everyone to the best of their ability.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
    HacksawzepherinLostNinjaShadowhopeApothe0sisKamar
Sign In or Register to comment.