I've never scabbed (as in I never crossed lines to work) but I have crossed picket lines to shop. Having lived in SoCal during the four months or so of supermarket striking back in 2003-04, any call for solidarity eventually fell by the wayside when the alternative was having to find rides and driving miles so as to avoid crossing a picket line.
I felt bad for both workers and employers, but the costs involved in tracking down other options were out of the question for me.
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
We're talking about Walmart and target and such... I work for -big-national-grocery-chain- and some of the stores in Maryland and Virginia may be involved in a strike soon. They're looking for volunteers to sign up to go down and work to fill in should negotiations go to shit.
I live in Vermont and they're asking my coworkers and I.
Seems like an awful lot of travel pay, mileage, accommodations, training... It's amazing this is the length the company is going to in an effort to squash this negotiation, and it seems common. This happened last year in California as well, and has been brought up elsewhere. Also, after the number of people just laid off in California and Nevada.
Just... weird.
Who'd just volunteer to scab? I assume they are offering a handsome bonus. Out of curiosity, how much? 150% of normal pay? 200%?
If you aren't part of a union, why should you care? I would do it, no question. I cross picket lines all the time, and sometimes even choose to patronize a store because there is a strike going on, and I feel bad for the store owner.
What the fuck. You should care out of solidarity for workers. Why in the world would you cross picket lines? You make more than enough money to claim you have to or your family would go hungry.
I cross picket lines because, as some said earlier, we don't know the whole story. Despite this, people tend to side with labor, hurting the store owner. I'm just doing my part to keep the strike from hurting the owner too much. If I actually do know the situation and agree with the workers, then I would not cross their line. But so far, that has never happened.
What small stores have massive lines of picketers out front?
It's very strange to say you're going to "cross picket lines" to help store owners.
The image this creates is the people at the local mom and pop hardware store on strike, which, something tells me there's no union there.
What are some examples of strikes which were unfair to the owners?
Well, its really hard to say, because you generally don't get information on the strike. I find it interesting that everyone's immediate reaction is that the strikers are probably in the right, since my initial reaction really is to feel bad for the store owners who are losing out on business because of the strike. I think there is a disconnect in the way I see the world vs a lot of people here, since I really do accept that the owner has the right to run his business as he sees fit (subject to government regulation, which I am fine with), but I don't like the idea that an owner can't fire an employee they aren't happy with or that work rules set out the number of people you need for a job, even if that number is really inefficient and reflect an archaic way of doing things. I also can't stand seniority, as a firm believer in meritocracy. It's just funny what an outsider all of these views make me here. . .
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's very strange to say you're going to "cross picket lines" to help store owners.
The image this creates is the people at the local mom and pop hardware store on strike, which, something tells me there's no union there.
What are some examples of strikes which were unfair to the owners?
Well, its really hard to say, because you generally don't get information on the strike. I find it interesting that everyone's immediate reaction is that the strikers are probably in the right, since my initial reaction really is to feel bad for the store owners who are losing out on business because of the strike. I think there is a disconnect in the way I see the world vs a lot of people here, since I really do accept that the owner has the right to run his business as he sees fit (subject to government regulation, which I am fine with), but I don't like the idea that an owner can't fire an employee they aren't happy with or that work rules set out the number of people you need for a job, even if that number is really inefficient and reflect an archaic way of doing things. I also can't stand seniority, as a firm believer in meritocracy. It's just funny what an outsider all of these views make me here. . .
Well the thing is what are the stores?
Wal Mart? Big Box Stores?
I'm not sure what kind of "small businesses" would be bothered by union strikes. I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm honestly asking.
It's very strange to say you're going to "cross picket lines" to help store owners.
The image this creates is the people at the local mom and pop hardware store on strike, which, something tells me there's no union there.
What are some examples of strikes which were unfair to the owners?
Well, its really hard to say, because you generally don't get information on the strike.
? Every time I come by a picket I ask for a flier. The picketers always have one outlining the issue. If I was going to patronize the business, I go in and ask one of the managers for a response to the flyer. So far said response has always resulted in me taking my business elsewhere.
Have you ever bothered to ask the picketers for a flyer?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's very strange to say you're going to "cross picket lines" to help store owners.
The image this creates is the people at the local mom and pop hardware store on strike, which, something tells me there's no union there.
What are some examples of strikes which were unfair to the owners?
Well, its really hard to say, because you generally don't get information on the strike.
? Every time I come by a picket I ask for a flier. The picketers always have one outlining the issue. If I was going to patronize the business, I go in and ask one of the managers for a response to the flyer. So far said response has always resulted in me taking my business elsewhere.
Have you ever bothered to ask the picketers for a flyer?
I know this is not going to go over well, but I don't trust the material either side would hand out. I have a union leader in my family, and he tells me about how everything he writes is propaganda to get the members fired up and none of it is true. I only trust info on strikes that I read about in the paper.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well, we've gone over how you can't trust everything you read in the papers...
But you should get all the information you can before making a call. I do think it's a little odd that, given the history of labor relations in our country, you would automatically side with management.
Well, we've gone over how you can't trust everything you read in the papers...
But you should get all the information you can before making a call. I do think it's a little odd that, given the history of labor relations in our country, you would automatically side with management.
I have always been anti-union, even when I was a really little kid. Something about taking away the bosses ability to fire people just didn't sit right with me. Then all of the experiences I have had with a union (my wife was in one, I had a gf in one, my dad was in one, I've had friends in lots of types of unions, I have a relative who ran a union, and of course, in my professional life where I see them run companies into bankruptcy) have just reinforced my feelings. I fully support better rights for workers, I just want to see them be imposed by statute, and applied universally.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well to paraphrase Lincoln, if I could secure worker's rights by destroying unions, I would do so.
But history tells us that this is not possible, look at the results of current anti-union movements.
We can have the discussion on how to move beyond the current setup, I would love to have that discussion, but in today's world we don't have that option on an operational level.
Well, we've gone over how you can't trust everything you read in the papers...
But you should get all the information you can before making a call. I do think it's a little odd that, given the history of labor relations in our country, you would automatically side with management.
I have always been anti-union, even when I was a really little kid. Something about taking away the bosses ability to fire people just didn't sit right with me. Then all of the experiences I have had with a union (my wife was in one, I had a gf in one, my dad was in one, I've had friends in lots of types of unions, I have a relative who ran a union, and of course, in my professional life where I see them run companies into bankruptcy) have just reinforced my feelings. I fully support better rights for workers, I just want to see them be imposed by statute, and applied universally.
Now we come to the heart of it. So when you said that labor should give up the NLRA to get a better FLSA, you weren't talking about a bargaining chip. You're simply anti-union. If you see the working man fighting for better conditions in the street, you'd go out of your way to undermine his struggle. As you mentioned that you'd frequent a business because it was being picketed, even if you wouldn't shop there otherwise.
I'd heard of people like you. I didn't think I'd ever be talking to one.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
To be fair to him he isn't saying "fuck workers" he's saying "fuck unions".
In a perfect world this would be a workable stance.
That's why I was careful to say he's anti-union. I could have said that he's anti-labor. But that's a question of intent. The real-life result of someone fucking unions is that they fuck labor. Because the working class has no power without them.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
That's why I was careful to say he's anti-union. I could have said that he's anti-labor. But that's a question of intent. The real-life result of someone fucking unions is that they fuck labor. Because the working class has no power without them.
Agreed.
I wouldn't classify myself as anti-union for the same reason I'm not anti-seatbelt.
I know why we need them.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Well to paraphrase Lincoln, if I could secure worker's rights by destroying unions, I would do so.
But history tells us that this is not possible, look at the results of current anti-union movements.
We can have the discussion on how to move beyond the current setup, I would love to have that discussion, but in today's world we don't have that option on an operational level.
Except of course that unions cover such a small percentage of the workforce that the current setup really only helps a tiny sliver of US workers. If we got rid of unions in exchange for a modest gain to all other workers, then even though the union workers would lose out a lot, it would probably be a net positive for the American worker. Of course, getting that exchange to happen is a big if.
I wonder if part of it is who you are in the trenches with. Most people on this board seem to have a pretty negative view of executives, but I'd wager that these people don't know many of them, or see what they actually do for companies. Despite my familial connections to unions, my knowledge of them is second hand, or comes from direct confrontation with them. I think it is generally a lot easier to hold a firm negative opinion about something amorphous like "executives" or "unions" then it is to think that harshly of people you know and are familiar with. Like I said in the economy thread, I am literally the author of the largest retention bonus in history (mid 9 figures for one person). I'll bet that everyone thinks that is horrible. If I negotiated the most powerful collective bargaining agreement in history, I'll bet that people on this board would think that was great. But the reality of either situation could easily run contrary to people's knee jerk reactions, and in either situation, I'm sure there would be good and bad aspects.
I mean goddamnit SKM: you've said yourself that in executive compensation cases with distributed ownership, managers have way too much power. That you prefer it if there's a strong shareholder to drive a fairer bargain. That you prefer even more if there's a single owner negotiating on behalf of all of his capital.
But if labor wants that? A strong negotiator to represent their interests? To represent the majority or maybe all of labor? Fuck them I guess.
enc0re on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well to paraphrase Lincoln, if I could secure worker's rights by destroying unions, I would do so.
But history tells us that this is not possible, look at the results of current anti-union movements.
We can have the discussion on how to move beyond the current setup, I would love to have that discussion, but in today's world we don't have that option on an operational level.
Except of course that unions cover such a small percentage of the workforce that the current setup really only helps a tiny sliver of US workers. If we got rid of unions in exchange for a modest gain to all other workers, then even though the union workers would lose out a lot, it would probably be a net positive for the American worker. Of course, getting that exchange to happen is a big if.
I wonder if part of it is who you are in the trenches with. Most people on this board seem to have a pretty negative view of executives, but I'd wager that these people don't know many of them, or see what they actually do for companies. Despite my familial connections to unions, my knowledge of them is second hand, or comes from direct confrontation with them. I think it is generally a lot easier to hold a firm negative opinion about something amorphous like "executives" or "unions" then it is to think that harshly of people you know and are familiar with. Like I said in the economy thread, I am literally the author of the largest retention bonus in history (mid 9 figures for one person). I'll bet that everyone thinks that is horrible. If I negotiated the most powerful collective bargaining agreement in history, I'll bet that people on this board would think that was great. But the reality of either situation could easily run contrary to people's knee jerk reactions, and in either situation, I'm sure there would be good and bad aspects.
Before we had unions workers had nothing.
Union protections and the progressive movement created the middle class. Union power has waned greatly and the Middle Class has waned right along with it.
Well to paraphrase Lincoln, if I could secure worker's rights by destroying unions, I would do so.
But history tells us that this is not possible, look at the results of current anti-union movements.
We can have the discussion on how to move beyond the current setup, I would love to have that discussion, but in today's world we don't have that option on an operational level.
Except of course that unions cover such a small percentage of the workforce that the current setup really only helps a tiny sliver of US workers. If we got rid of unions in exchange for a modest gain to all other workers, then even though the union workers would lose out a lot, it would probably be a net positive for the American worker. Of course, getting that exchange to happen is a big if.
I wonder if part of it is who you are in the trenches with. Most people on this board seem to have a pretty negative view of executives, but I'd wager that these people don't know many of them, or see what they actually do for companies. Despite my familial connections to unions, my knowledge of them is second hand, or comes from direct confrontation with them. I think it is generally a lot easier to hold a firm negative opinion about something amorphous like "executives" or "unions" then it is to think that harshly of people you know and are familiar with. Like I said in the economy thread, I am literally the author of the largest retention bonus in history (mid 9 figures for one person). I'll bet that everyone thinks that is horrible. If I negotiated the most powerful collective bargaining agreement in history, I'll bet that people on this board would think that was great. But the reality of either situation could easily run contrary to people's knee jerk reactions, and in either situation, I'm sure there would be good and bad aspects.
Explain to me slowly and carefully, like I was a complete idiot, how my knee-jerk reaction to a ~$500MM retention bonus could easily run contrary to the reality of the situation. That fucker better personally developed a cure for cancer for that kind of money. I do know several small and even one mid-size business owner. Nice people the lot of them, but I know nothing about how they treat their workers.
I do agree with you that unions cover far too few in the workforce. If membership was above 50%, would you be less hostile to organized labor?
It's very strange to say you're going to "cross picket lines" to help store owners.
The image this creates is the people at the local mom and pop hardware store on strike, which, something tells me there's no union there.
What are some examples of strikes which were unfair to the owners?
Well, its really hard to say, because you generally don't get information on the strike.
? Every time I come by a picket I ask for a flier. The picketers always have one outlining the issue. If I was going to patronize the business, I go in and ask one of the managers for a response to the flyer. So far said response has always resulted in me taking my business elsewhere.
Have you ever bothered to ask the picketers for a flyer?
I know this is not going to go over well, but I don't trust the material either side would hand out. I have a union leader in my family, and he tells me about how everything he writes is propaganda to get the members fired up and none of it is true. I only trust info on strikes that I read about in the paper.
You're generalizing all unions based on one bad example? Really?
Well, we've gone over how you can't trust everything you read in the papers...
But you should get all the information you can before making a call. I do think it's a little odd that, given the history of labor relations in our country, you would automatically side with management.
I have always been anti-union, even when I was a really little kid. Something about taking away the bosses ability to fire people just didn't sit right with me. Then all of the experiences I have had with a union (my wife was in one, I had a gf in one, my dad was in one, I've had friends in lots of types of unions, I have a relative who ran a union, and of course, in my professional life where I see them run companies into bankruptcy) have just reinforced my feelings. I fully support better rights for workers, I just want to see them be imposed by statute, and applied universally.
Workers won't get better rights without unions. Without unions workers have less leverage over their bosses or their companies. Sometimes it sucks that bosses can't fire workers easily anymore I'd take that over companies doing whatever they want with their employees any day. I suggest you start trying to sympathize with what workers have to put up with (from good sources not bad ones like the ones in your family). Expand beyond your horizons, there's more to the world than people you interact with in your life.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
What does an executive do that is worth six figures+ that is more important to our society than teachers?
Well, we've gone over how you can't trust everything you read in the papers...
But you should get all the information you can before making a call. I do think it's a little odd that, given the history of labor relations in our country, you would automatically side with management.
I have always been anti-union, even when I was a really little kid. Something about taking away the bosses ability to fire people just didn't sit right with me. Then all of the experiences I have had with a union (my wife was in one, I had a gf in one, my dad was in one, I've had friends in lots of types of unions, I have a relative who ran a union, and of course, in my professional life where I see them run companies into bankruptcy) have just reinforced my feelings. I fully support better rights for workers, I just want to see them be imposed by statute, and applied universally.
Now we come to the heart of it. So when you said that labor should give up the NLRA to get a better FLSA, you weren't talking about a bargaining chip. You're simply anti-union. If you see the working man fighting for better conditions in the street, you'd go out of your way to undermine his struggle. As you mentioned that you'd frequent a business because it was being picketed, even if you wouldn't shop there otherwise.
I'd heard of people like you. I didn't think I'd ever be talking to one.
Like I said in another thread, he's a fascinating study in many areas of "Why would anyone actually think that way?".
It's also a great example of the source of much anti-union bias. It's based in twisted anecdotes and strange philosophies about "fairness" and such.
And hey now, workers can have rights without unions. They just have to organize into militias and uprisings instead.
Hey now, Im sure if they just like, work harder and forgo some benefits the boss will see their potential and give them a raise and maybe even a promotion!
i live in a right to work state.
you're basically fired immediately on the soonest available pretense if you try to form a collective bargaining body.
or pretty much mention one, or anything like it.
this state has the highest unemployment rate in the nation.
i feel the US is basically being ruined by its lack of reasonable labor policies.
Lucedes on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The rise of Right to Work curiously mirrors the fall of the middle class.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
i live in a right to work state.
or pretty much mention one, or anything like it.
i feel the US is basically being ruined by its lack of reasonable labor policies.
at one point in my life I did tech support in a call center in a right to work state
We couldn't get management to the center for issues of safety, issues of worker concern like benefits or wage rates, or to take suggestions on how to fix their terrible, terrible computer and shipping systems
but someone stood up in a shift wide benefits meeting and said (I'm paraphrasing because she was both inarticulate and emotional, and the long running issue with our benefits was complex) "You offer this insurance, and it's a joke. My portion of it is only 10 dollars less than I can buy this policy for on my own. I think you're structuring your benefits so no one takes them, and I don't agree with it, you should either drop it entirely and pay us more an hour, or actually get us something we can use. (end paraphrasing) it makes me understand why my dad was in a union in west virginia.
Management was there by the following friday, to have a big meeting about how they'd have to close the center if we unionized.
And it wasn't, btw, an inferential meeting. It was literal, unhidden unionbusting: "We will move this business out of state if you unionize"
Sadly these tactics are both legal and in no way restricted to Right to Work states. RTW means that even if you pull off organizing, workers who don't want to don't have to pay dues. Good luck keeping your union on those terms.
Well to paraphrase Lincoln, if I could secure worker's rights by destroying unions, I would do so.
But history tells us that this is not possible, look at the results of current anti-union movements.
We can have the discussion on how to move beyond the current setup, I would love to have that discussion, but in today's world we don't have that option on an operational level.
Except of course that unions cover such a small percentage of the workforce that the current setup really only helps a tiny sliver of US workers. If we got rid of unions in exchange for a modest gain to all other workers, then even though the union workers would lose out a lot, it would probably be a net positive for the American worker. Of course, getting that exchange to happen is a big if.
I wonder if part of it is who you are in the trenches with. Most people on this board seem to have a pretty negative view of executives, but I'd wager that these people don't know many of them, or see what they actually do for companies. Despite my familial connections to unions, my knowledge of them is second hand, or comes from direct confrontation with them. I think it is generally a lot easier to hold a firm negative opinion about something amorphous like "executives" or "unions" then it is to think that harshly of people you know and are familiar with. Like I said in the economy thread, I am literally the author of the largest retention bonus in history (mid 9 figures for one person). I'll bet that everyone thinks that is horrible. If I negotiated the most powerful collective bargaining agreement in history, I'll bet that people on this board would think that was great. But the reality of either situation could easily run contrary to people's knee jerk reactions, and in either situation, I'm sure there would be good and bad aspects.
Explain to me slowly and carefully, like I was a complete idiot, how my knee-jerk reaction to a ~$500MM retention bonus could easily run contrary to the reality of the situation. That fucker better personally developed a cure for cancer for that kind of money. I do know several small and even one mid-size business owner. Nice people the lot of them, but I know nothing about how they treat their workers.
I do agree with you that unions cover far too few in the workforce. If membership was above 50%, would you be less hostile to organized labor?
Even I will admit the pay package was really really generous. The executive is one of the extremely rare people who really defines his industry, and who grew a smallish company into a global empire. Because of the structure of the company, he wasn't able to get the type of equity awards someone of his stature normally would, and this arrangement (which was so complex it required specialists from four separate law firms to draft) was basically a way of transferring some of the value he created to him. That said, I don't really think a retention bonus like this was needed in this case because he wasn't going to go to another company, and they probably could have persuaded him to stay on a few more years before retiring for less. also, it was more like $300MM, for what its worth. Was it justified? No, I don't think so. But it was less egregious (despite the size) than a lot of awards I see and write.
Yes, greater penetration would greatly lessen my issues with unions. If they were ubiquitous, I would hardly have a problem with them (I still wouldn't like seniority, restrictions on being able to fire people, or work rules, which are my three main issues with unions). I know you may not believe me, but I am really committed to better working conditions for the average worker. As I have said in this and other threads, I would love to see a massive expansion of the FLSA to provide EU style protections to American workers, and I would love to see viable, unbiased third party arbitrators as a means of dispute resolution between employees and employers. I know this is not easy to achieve, and with the current political climate, it is probably impossible, but I absolutely think that American workers deserve more protections and job security. In my labor utopia, unions could even exist as bargaining agents on things like salary, I just want them out of the dispute resolution process, I don't want work rules imposed (we should have more rigorous statutory rules on hours instead) and I don't want seniority to be the way that promotions and raises are determined.
Posts
I've never scabbed (as in I never crossed lines to work) but I have crossed picket lines to shop. Having lived in SoCal during the four months or so of supermarket striking back in 2003-04, any call for solidarity eventually fell by the wayside when the alternative was having to find rides and driving miles so as to avoid crossing a picket line.
I felt bad for both workers and employers, but the costs involved in tracking down other options were out of the question for me.
How often do you investigate before siding with the workers?
What small stores have massive lines of picketers out front?
I think your assumptions are rather telling about your attitude.
Fuck, every post you make it rather telling about your attitude.
Also, not crossing picket lines is not taking sides.
The image this creates is the people at the local mom and pop hardware store on strike, which, something tells me there's no union there.
What are some examples of strikes which were unfair to the owners?
pretty sure thats illegal as hell in the states tho
Well, its really hard to say, because you generally don't get information on the strike. I find it interesting that everyone's immediate reaction is that the strikers are probably in the right, since my initial reaction really is to feel bad for the store owners who are losing out on business because of the strike. I think there is a disconnect in the way I see the world vs a lot of people here, since I really do accept that the owner has the right to run his business as he sees fit (subject to government regulation, which I am fine with), but I don't like the idea that an owner can't fire an employee they aren't happy with or that work rules set out the number of people you need for a job, even if that number is really inefficient and reflect an archaic way of doing things. I also can't stand seniority, as a firm believer in meritocracy. It's just funny what an outsider all of these views make me here. . .
Well the thing is what are the stores?
Wal Mart? Big Box Stores?
I'm not sure what kind of "small businesses" would be bothered by union strikes. I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm honestly asking.
gerontocracy within political parties is often regarded with suspicion, at that
Taft-Hartley makes secondary strikes illegal. It even makes secondary boycotts and secondary picketing illegal, which is insane IMHO.
? Every time I come by a picket I ask for a flier. The picketers always have one outlining the issue. If I was going to patronize the business, I go in and ask one of the managers for a response to the flyer. So far said response has always resulted in me taking my business elsewhere.
Have you ever bothered to ask the picketers for a flyer?
This would explain why it's crazy unheard of then.
I know this is not going to go over well, but I don't trust the material either side would hand out. I have a union leader in my family, and he tells me about how everything he writes is propaganda to get the members fired up and none of it is true. I only trust info on strikes that I read about in the paper.
But you should get all the information you can before making a call. I do think it's a little odd that, given the history of labor relations in our country, you would automatically side with management.
I have always been anti-union, even when I was a really little kid. Something about taking away the bosses ability to fire people just didn't sit right with me. Then all of the experiences I have had with a union (my wife was in one, I had a gf in one, my dad was in one, I've had friends in lots of types of unions, I have a relative who ran a union, and of course, in my professional life where I see them run companies into bankruptcy) have just reinforced my feelings. I fully support better rights for workers, I just want to see them be imposed by statute, and applied universally.
But history tells us that this is not possible, look at the results of current anti-union movements.
We can have the discussion on how to move beyond the current setup, I would love to have that discussion, but in today's world we don't have that option on an operational level.
Now we come to the heart of it. So when you said that labor should give up the NLRA to get a better FLSA, you weren't talking about a bargaining chip. You're simply anti-union. If you see the working man fighting for better conditions in the street, you'd go out of your way to undermine his struggle. As you mentioned that you'd frequent a business because it was being picketed, even if you wouldn't shop there otherwise.
I'd heard of people like you. I didn't think I'd ever be talking to one.
In a perfect world this would be a workable stance.
We do not live in a perfect world though.
Pragmatic Idealism is a thing more people need.
Agreed.
I wouldn't classify myself as anti-union for the same reason I'm not anti-seatbelt.
I know why we need them.
Except of course that unions cover such a small percentage of the workforce that the current setup really only helps a tiny sliver of US workers. If we got rid of unions in exchange for a modest gain to all other workers, then even though the union workers would lose out a lot, it would probably be a net positive for the American worker. Of course, getting that exchange to happen is a big if.
I wonder if part of it is who you are in the trenches with. Most people on this board seem to have a pretty negative view of executives, but I'd wager that these people don't know many of them, or see what they actually do for companies. Despite my familial connections to unions, my knowledge of them is second hand, or comes from direct confrontation with them. I think it is generally a lot easier to hold a firm negative opinion about something amorphous like "executives" or "unions" then it is to think that harshly of people you know and are familiar with. Like I said in the economy thread, I am literally the author of the largest retention bonus in history (mid 9 figures for one person). I'll bet that everyone thinks that is horrible. If I negotiated the most powerful collective bargaining agreement in history, I'll bet that people on this board would think that was great. But the reality of either situation could easily run contrary to people's knee jerk reactions, and in either situation, I'm sure there would be good and bad aspects.
But if labor wants that? A strong negotiator to represent their interests? To represent the majority or maybe all of labor? Fuck them I guess.
Before we had unions workers had nothing.
Union protections and the progressive movement created the middle class. Union power has waned greatly and the Middle Class has waned right along with it.
Explain to me slowly and carefully, like I was a complete idiot, how my knee-jerk reaction to a ~$500MM retention bonus could easily run contrary to the reality of the situation. That fucker better personally developed a cure for cancer for that kind of money. I do know several small and even one mid-size business owner. Nice people the lot of them, but I know nothing about how they treat their workers.
I do agree with you that unions cover far too few in the workforce. If membership was above 50%, would you be less hostile to organized labor?
You're generalizing all unions based on one bad example? Really?
Workers won't get better rights without unions. Without unions workers have less leverage over their bosses or their companies. Sometimes it sucks that bosses can't fire workers easily anymore I'd take that over companies doing whatever they want with their employees any day. I suggest you start trying to sympathize with what workers have to put up with (from good sources not bad ones like the ones in your family). Expand beyond your horizons, there's more to the world than people you interact with in your life.
Like I said in another thread, he's a fascinating study in many areas of "Why would anyone actually think that way?".
It's also a great example of the source of much anti-union bias. It's based in twisted anecdotes and strange philosophies about "fairness" and such.
Because his salary depends on one of them?
I'm here to tell you
the miners unions would have to pretty much convince their managers to invest in derivatives to "drive them into bankruptcy"
They ain't doin' it a piece at a time by asking for enough money an hour to live decent.
I host a podcast about movies.
Hey now, Im sure if they just like, work harder and forgo some benefits the boss will see their potential and give them a raise and maybe even a promotion!
you're basically fired immediately on the soonest available pretense if you try to form a collective bargaining body.
or pretty much mention one, or anything like it.
this state has the highest unemployment rate in the nation.
i feel the US is basically being ruined by its lack of reasonable labor policies.
at one point in my life I did tech support in a call center in a right to work state
We couldn't get management to the center for issues of safety, issues of worker concern like benefits or wage rates, or to take suggestions on how to fix their terrible, terrible computer and shipping systems
but someone stood up in a shift wide benefits meeting and said (I'm paraphrasing because she was both inarticulate and emotional, and the long running issue with our benefits was complex) "You offer this insurance, and it's a joke. My portion of it is only 10 dollars less than I can buy this policy for on my own. I think you're structuring your benefits so no one takes them, and I don't agree with it, you should either drop it entirely and pay us more an hour, or actually get us something we can use. (end paraphrasing) it makes me understand why my dad was in a union in west virginia.
Management was there by the following friday, to have a big meeting about how they'd have to close the center if we unionized.
And it wasn't, btw, an inferential meeting. It was literal, unhidden unionbusting: "We will move this business out of state if you unionize"
I host a podcast about movies.
Even I will admit the pay package was really really generous. The executive is one of the extremely rare people who really defines his industry, and who grew a smallish company into a global empire. Because of the structure of the company, he wasn't able to get the type of equity awards someone of his stature normally would, and this arrangement (which was so complex it required specialists from four separate law firms to draft) was basically a way of transferring some of the value he created to him. That said, I don't really think a retention bonus like this was needed in this case because he wasn't going to go to another company, and they probably could have persuaded him to stay on a few more years before retiring for less. also, it was more like $300MM, for what its worth. Was it justified? No, I don't think so. But it was less egregious (despite the size) than a lot of awards I see and write.
Yes, greater penetration would greatly lessen my issues with unions. If they were ubiquitous, I would hardly have a problem with them (I still wouldn't like seniority, restrictions on being able to fire people, or work rules, which are my three main issues with unions). I know you may not believe me, but I am really committed to better working conditions for the average worker. As I have said in this and other threads, I would love to see a massive expansion of the FLSA to provide EU style protections to American workers, and I would love to see viable, unbiased third party arbitrators as a means of dispute resolution between employees and employers. I know this is not easy to achieve, and with the current political climate, it is probably impossible, but I absolutely think that American workers deserve more protections and job security. In my labor utopia, unions could even exist as bargaining agents on things like salary, I just want them out of the dispute resolution process, I don't want work rules imposed (we should have more rigorous statutory rules on hours instead) and I don't want seniority to be the way that promotions and raises are determined.