One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
I believe the term you're looking for is "golden parachute". They get one, while the actual workers get the shaft.
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
No, they really can't and don't.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Fuck all the way off with your jab against public sector unions until you know what those jobs entail. We get paid less than private sector and what is supposed to make up for that are our benefits. The only reason we keep our benefits is because the union is the one who goes against the state when they try taking them. Even here in California.
There's a bit of difference between the possibility of an employer ending up on the ropes if they refuse to budge in a protracted labour dispute - and it is generally the employer refusing to say anything other than "no" that drags those out to that extent - and a union actively destroying companies its members work for because, uh, reasons, or something.
Come on. It's obvious you think they're intrinsically bad, but we're not exactly talking about the medieval guild system here.
Fuck all the way off with your jab against public sector unions until you know what those jobs entail. We get paid less than private sector and what is supposed to make up for that are our benefits. The only reason we keep our benefits is because the union is the one who goes against the state when they try taking them. Even here in California.
The "public sector unions"/"citizenry" dichotomy was pretty gross too.
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Unions negatively affecting other people? That's bad.
Employers spending decades dangling healthcare and starvation over employee's heads to extract as much wealth as possible and force a race to the bottom eroding wages and benefits? *crickets*
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Multinational corporations can put pressure on a citizenry that a public sector union could only dream of.
Also the public needs pressure put on them or you get things like firefighters dying penniless due to work related diseases or teachers being paid poverty level wages because Spool Q. Taxpayer will cheat them when it comes time for cost of living raises every single time
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Unions negatively affecting other people? That's bad.
Employers spending decades dangling healthcare and starvation over employee's heads to extract as much wealth as possible and force a race to the bottom eroding wages and benefits? *crickets*
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Fuck all the way off with your jab against public sector unions until you know what those jobs entail. We get paid less than private sector and what is supposed to make up for that are our benefits. The only reason we keep our benefits is because the union is the one who goes against the state when they try taking them. Even here in California.
God damn, I thought the thread didn't like police unions. I guess I should fuck all the way off!
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Fuck all the way off with your jab against public sector unions until you know what those jobs entail. We get paid less than private sector and what is supposed to make up for that are our benefits. The only reason we keep our benefits is because the union is the one who goes against the state when they try taking them. Even here in California.
God damn, I thought the thread didn't like police unions. I guess I should fuck all the way off!
I feel differently then the majority of this thread about police unions in general, but it's almost like I'm honest enough to not lump them in with the other public sector unions when discussing these things.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
In my experience it's never just some sort of obtuse demand that employees get more money.
It's usually that their wages have stagnated or hiring has stopped and they're overworked. Upper management refuses to fix the problem because of compensation packages that require they keep costs down.
We're currently in the middle of a staffing negotiation at my employer, we make dozens of requests for a budget and they just keep declining. We're simply supposed to take their word we're "overstaffed" when we routinely have patient care issues and mandated overtime. They recently killed the 5 positions we had open for over a year because the place is a revolving door so not only are we understaffed even if we had all of our FTE's full, we're not GOING to fill them because the positions have been closed.
Budget requests? Met with total silence.
Someone somewhere is getting a bonus by hurting us and probably sacrificing patient care. It makes me furious.
Even WITH a union things aren't looking great because ultimately they don't give a shit if things go to arbitration if it saves them money in the long run and they're still the employer, they have every legal right to simply not hire people.
Yeah, my union was a few hours away from a strike last fall because management was refusing to budge from 0.5% yearly COLAs (in a major metropolitan area), drastic increases in health share costs, and cuts to leave time and merit raises, despite a budget surplus. We're not exactly asking for the moon here.
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Fuck all the way off with your jab against public sector unions until you know what those jobs entail. We get paid less than private sector and what is supposed to make up for that are our benefits. The only reason we keep our benefits is because the union is the one who goes against the state when they try taking them. Even here in California.
God damn, I thought the thread didn't like police unions. I guess I should fuck all the way off!
I think police unions are OK. I think the main problem is that police have too much power legally and having a union exacerbates that. You reduce the power police have and make them actually liable for their actions, police unions end up making sure they have fair representation instead of perpetuating a system of unchecked violence and criminality.
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Unions negatively affecting other people? That's bad.
Employers spending decades dangling healthcare and starvation over employee's heads to extract as much wealth as possible and force a race to the bottom eroding wages and benefits? *crickets*
I’m guessing folks think that last part is awful too but is controlled by market forces, e.g. if a company is exceedingly shitty people will stop working there
I absolutely don’t agree with that, especially because the government stopped enforcing anti-trust provisions generations ago
Most police unions are bullshit because too many police officers have been and continue to be bullshit (not to mention where the lynchers from the turn of the 20th century ended up), not because they’re unions
My primary issue with police unions is that police do not fullfill the same role in society as labor and often serve as an intentional barrier to worker liberation.
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Fuck all the way off with your jab against public sector unions until you know what those jobs entail. We get paid less than private sector and what is supposed to make up for that are our benefits. The only reason we keep our benefits is because the union is the one who goes against the state when they try taking them. Even here in California.
God damn, I thought the thread didn't like police unions. I guess I should fuck all the way off!
That is not what you meant and you fucking know it.
+13
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Unions negatively affecting other people? That's bad.
Employers spending decades dangling healthcare and starvation over employee's heads to extract as much wealth as possible and force a race to the bottom eroding wages and benefits? *crickets*
I’m guessing folks think that last part is awful too but is controlled by market forces, e.g. if a company is exceedingly shitty people will stop working there
If only that were true, but people often find that having a job and a paycheck is better to them than no job and no paycheck. Or when they need a job, a shit job is better than no job.
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Unions negatively affecting other people? That's bad.
Employers spending decades dangling healthcare and starvation over employee's heads to extract as much wealth as possible and force a race to the bottom eroding wages and benefits? *crickets*
I’m guessing folks think that last part is awful too but is controlled by market forces, e.g. if a company is exceedingly shitty people will stop working there
If only that were true, but people often find that having a job and a paycheck is better to them than no job and no paycheck. Or when they need a job, a shit job is better than no job.
The least shitty company in an area is still a shitty company.
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Unions negatively affecting other people? That's bad.
Employers spending decades dangling healthcare and starvation over employee's heads to extract as much wealth as possible and force a race to the bottom eroding wages and benefits? *crickets*
Y'all got that covered I think.
Just pointing out you're repeatedly more concerned for the wealthy than, well, literally anyone else.
This crosses the threads, but incredibly low rates of unionization are definitely going to contribute to our upcoming pandemic. The median time alotted for sick leave in the US is none.
My previous workplace nearly had a pneumonia death from the common fucking cold thanks to a horrible sick leave policy that encouraged the person to work through it.
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Unions negatively affecting other people? That's bad.
Employers spending decades dangling healthcare and starvation over employee's heads to extract as much wealth as possible and force a race to the bottom eroding wages and benefits? *crickets*
I’m guessing folks think that last part is awful too but is controlled by market forces, e.g. if a company is exceedingly shitty people will stop working there
If only that were true, but people often find that having a job and a paycheck is better to them than no job and no paycheck. Or when they need a job, a shit job is better than no job.
The least shitty company in an area is still a shitty company.
Right. My point was deflating the fallacious argument, 'well if a company is so shitty, everyone would leave and it'd go out of business, m i rite?' Sure, if it was just one company...
This crosses the threads, but incredibly low rates of unionization are definitely going to contribute to our upcoming pandemic. The median time alotted for sick leave in the US is none.
My previous workplace nearly had a pneumonia death from the common fucking cold thanks to a horrible sick leave policy that encouraged the person to work through it.
Which is just stupid, from a business perspective.
One worker performing at 70%, but getting a quarter of the 20 people he works with sick to a similar level, is an efficiency drop of 1.5 people. So, them staying home instead, is actually better for the company.
Even with abuse being a factor, that's a ridiculous policy.
This crosses the threads, but incredibly low rates of unionization are definitely going to contribute to our upcoming pandemic. The median time alotted for sick leave in the US is none.
My previous workplace nearly had a pneumonia death from the common fucking cold thanks to a horrible sick leave policy that encouraged the person to work through it.
Which is just stupid, from a business perspective.
One worker performing at 70%, but getting a quarter of the 20 people he works with sick to a similar level, is an efficiency drop of 1.5 people. So, them staying home instead, is actually better for the company.
Even with abuse being a factor, that's a ridiculous policy.
Most management practices are stupid from a business perspective. And also basically any other perspective.
This crosses the threads, but incredibly low rates of unionization are definitely going to contribute to our upcoming pandemic. The median time alotted for sick leave in the US is none.
My previous workplace nearly had a pneumonia death from the common fucking cold thanks to a horrible sick leave policy that encouraged the person to work through it.
Which is just stupid, from a business perspective.
One worker performing at 70%, but getting a quarter of the 20 people he works with sick to a similar level, is an efficiency drop of 1.5 people. So, them staying home instead, is actually better for the company.
Even with abuse being a factor, that's a ridiculous policy.
Most management practices are stupid from a business perspective. And also basically any other perspective.
But they make perfect sense if you are the auThOriTY
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
This crosses the threads, but incredibly low rates of unionization are definitely going to contribute to our upcoming pandemic. The median time alotted for sick leave in the US is none.
My previous workplace nearly had a pneumonia death from the common fucking cold thanks to a horrible sick leave policy that encouraged the person to work through it.
Which is just stupid, from a business perspective.
One worker performing at 70%, but getting a quarter of the 20 people he works with sick to a similar level, is an efficiency drop of 1.5 people. So, them staying home instead, is actually better for the company.
Even with abuse being a factor, that's a ridiculous policy.
Most management practices are stupid from a business perspective. And also basically any other perspective.
But they make perfect sense if you are the auThOriTY
It's more just a monkey-see/monkey-do situation. It's the endless thoughtless repetition of patterns of behaviour.
+3
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
In what way are you imagining a group of people doing the same job for multiple companies that isn't either itself a company or a professional organization?
like if a union can 'lose' a business it is not compromised of just all employees of that business. A union is specifically an organization of employees of a company. It is self-evidently in the interests of the union for the company to be successful because the members of the union don't want to lose their job. Some employees may have the power to walk away from their job with no risk, but it's never all employees who have that privilege.
+6
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited February 2020
As someone who works for multiple companies represented by the same union: it is a thing that happens, it is more common than you think, and at no point do any of us want the business to fail and our jobs to disappear.
One thing that always bears repeating is that if any antagonistic relationship exists with a union, it's not between the union and the company. It's between the union and management. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the union for the company to be successful. The union would obviously much prefer that the CEO's millions of dollars in stock options, bonuses, etc. be divided among the workers, however.
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
They could sustain the loss of business from one employer, but many employers gives the union a stronger bargaining position for its members. Hence the incredibly spread of professions represented by such unions as IBEW, IBT, United Steelworkers, and the UBC.
Hacksaw on
+2
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
This crosses the threads, but incredibly low rates of unionization are definitely going to contribute to our upcoming pandemic. The median time alotted for sick leave in the US is none.
My previous workplace nearly had a pneumonia death from the common fucking cold thanks to a horrible sick leave policy that encouraged the person to work through it.
My (union) workplace actually has a policy where if you use none of your ten sick days in a year, not only do you get paid for them, you get a cash bonus.
My (union) workplace actually has a policy where if you use none of your ten sick days in a year, not only do you get paid for them, you get a cash bonus.
In an attempt to get people not to use sick time for frivolous reasons (though mental health days are important) this SEEMS like a good thing, but it is also a bad idea in that it encourages people to come to work sick, possibly infecting others.
Hydropolo on
+26
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
My (union) workplace actually has a policy where if you use none of your ten sick days in a year, not only do you get paid for them, you get a cash bonus.
In an attempt to get people not to use sick time for frivolous reasons (though mental health days are important) this SEEMS like a good thing, but it is also a bad idea in that it encourages people to come to work sick, possibly infecting others.
100% it was instituted because people were using sick days for reasons other than being sick, and people hated getting stuck at work on Saturday when they had expensive plans, because someone else decided to have a fun Saturday night, co-workers be damned.
My (union) workplace actually has a policy where if you use none of your ten sick days in a year, not only do you get paid for them, you get a cash bonus.
In an attempt to get people not to use sick time for frivolous reasons (though mental health days are important) this SEEMS like a good thing, but it is also a bad idea in that it encourages people to come to work sick, possibly infecting others.
100% it was instituted because people were using sick days for reasons other than being sick, and people hated getting stuck at work on Saturday when they had expensive plans, because someone else decided to have a fun Saturday night, co-workers be damned.
Then that's a management failing,and it doesn't make the policy any less asinine than other perfect attendance policies.
100% it was instituted because people were using sick days for reasons other than being sick, and people hated getting stuck at work on Saturday when they had expensive plans, because someone else decided to have a fun Saturday night, co-workers be damned.
100% represents a buy in by employees on the asinine "work ethic" we face in the present day US workforce. It's literally employees buying in on managements worldview.
NEW: In a tense all-hands meeting, Cenk Uygur urged staff at The Young Turks not to form a union, arguing the progressive network couldn't sustain one. "The reality is we're in a precarious position," Cenk told me.
choice quotes from the article:
“The reality is we’re in a precarious position,” Uygur said. “We’re in a digital media landscape where almost no one makes money or is sustainable.”
He added, “For a smaller digital media company, those are absolutely real considerations. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have a union. Everyone should know the full context ... If folks say they don’t believe we’re in a precarious position, OK. And that’s their decision to make.”
In an interview with HuffPost, Uygur said he is a strong supporter of unions, especially at large corporations that aren’t sharing profits with their workers. But he said he worries a unionized workforce would bring new legal and bureaucratic costs that TYT can’t sustain.
Uygur told HuffPost he wants a secret-ballot election because a few employees told him after the meeting that they do not support a union ― “some, not all,” he said.
What strikes me is the absolute shamelessness with which Uygur is spouting known anti-union talking points. "We will go out of business with a union" and "An election should be held because some employees said to me in private that they didn't want a union" are arguments from the 1800s. He just needs a top hat and cigar.
In follow-up, it turns out that open union busting is a good way to lose a primary as a Democrat - badly:
Posts
If anything, the workers at the bottom are the most invested in the success of the business because they have the most to lose if things go south. Upper management, executives, etc. don't have nearly as much at stake.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I believe the term you're looking for is "golden parachute". They get one, while the actual workers get the shaft.
That doesn't seem self-evident in all cases. A union of people who do the same kind of job for multiple companies could sustain employment for the members through the loss of one business, for example. If bankruptcy isn't a credible threat, the danger of a strike is blunted a lot, isn't it?
That would entail the loss of jobs for members, and fewer businesses weakens the negotiating position of the union.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
No, they really can't and don't.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Why would it do that? If there's no certainty that the union will burn it all down without their demands being met, why meet them at all?
Also this doesn't touch public sector unions at all, which have unique abilities to put pressure on the citizenry.
Fuck all the way off with your jab against public sector unions until you know what those jobs entail. We get paid less than private sector and what is supposed to make up for that are our benefits. The only reason we keep our benefits is because the union is the one who goes against the state when they try taking them. Even here in California.
Come on. It's obvious you think they're intrinsically bad, but we're not exactly talking about the medieval guild system here.
The "public sector unions"/"citizenry" dichotomy was pretty gross too.
Your selective concern for people is wearisome.
Unions negatively affecting employers? That's bad.
Unions negatively affecting other people? That's bad.
Employers spending decades dangling healthcare and starvation over employee's heads to extract as much wealth as possible and force a race to the bottom eroding wages and benefits? *crickets*
Multinational corporations can put pressure on a citizenry that a public sector union could only dream of.
Also the public needs pressure put on them or you get things like firefighters dying penniless due to work related diseases or teachers being paid poverty level wages because Spool Q. Taxpayer will cheat them when it comes time for cost of living raises every single time
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Y'all got that covered I think.
God damn, I thought the thread didn't like police unions. I guess I should fuck all the way off!
I feel differently then the majority of this thread about police unions in general, but it's almost like I'm honest enough to not lump them in with the other public sector unions when discussing these things.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
It's usually that their wages have stagnated or hiring has stopped and they're overworked. Upper management refuses to fix the problem because of compensation packages that require they keep costs down.
We're currently in the middle of a staffing negotiation at my employer, we make dozens of requests for a budget and they just keep declining. We're simply supposed to take their word we're "overstaffed" when we routinely have patient care issues and mandated overtime. They recently killed the 5 positions we had open for over a year because the place is a revolving door so not only are we understaffed even if we had all of our FTE's full, we're not GOING to fill them because the positions have been closed.
Budget requests? Met with total silence.
Someone somewhere is getting a bonus by hurting us and probably sacrificing patient care. It makes me furious.
Even WITH a union things aren't looking great because ultimately they don't give a shit if things go to arbitration if it saves them money in the long run and they're still the employer, they have every legal right to simply not hire people.
I think police unions are OK. I think the main problem is that police have too much power legally and having a union exacerbates that. You reduce the power police have and make them actually liable for their actions, police unions end up making sure they have fair representation instead of perpetuating a system of unchecked violence and criminality.
I’m guessing folks think that last part is awful too but is controlled by market forces, e.g. if a company is exceedingly shitty people will stop working there
I absolutely don’t agree with that, especially because the government stopped enforcing anti-trust provisions generations ago
Most police unions are bullshit because too many police officers have been and continue to be bullshit (not to mention where the lynchers from the turn of the 20th century ended up), not because they’re unions
That is not what you meant and you fucking know it.
If only that were true, but people often find that having a job and a paycheck is better to them than no job and no paycheck. Or when they need a job, a shit job is better than no job.
The least shitty company in an area is still a shitty company.
Just pointing out you're repeatedly more concerned for the wealthy than, well, literally anyone else.
My previous workplace nearly had a pneumonia death from the common fucking cold thanks to a horrible sick leave policy that encouraged the person to work through it.
Right. My point was deflating the fallacious argument, 'well if a company is so shitty, everyone would leave and it'd go out of business, m i rite?' Sure, if it was just one company...
Which is just stupid, from a business perspective.
One worker performing at 70%, but getting a quarter of the 20 people he works with sick to a similar level, is an efficiency drop of 1.5 people. So, them staying home instead, is actually better for the company.
Even with abuse being a factor, that's a ridiculous policy.
Most management practices are stupid from a business perspective. And also basically any other perspective.
But they make perfect sense if you are the auThOriTY
Come Overwatch with meeeee
It's more just a monkey-see/monkey-do situation. It's the endless thoughtless repetition of patterns of behaviour.
In what way are you imagining a group of people doing the same job for multiple companies that isn't either itself a company or a professional organization?
like if a union can 'lose' a business it is not compromised of just all employees of that business. A union is specifically an organization of employees of a company. It is self-evidently in the interests of the union for the company to be successful because the members of the union don't want to lose their job. Some employees may have the power to walk away from their job with no risk, but it's never all employees who have that privilege.
They could sustain the loss of business from one employer, but many employers gives the union a stronger bargaining position for its members. Hence the incredibly spread of professions represented by such unions as IBEW, IBT, United Steelworkers, and the UBC.
My (union) workplace actually has a policy where if you use none of your ten sick days in a year, not only do you get paid for them, you get a cash bonus.
In an attempt to get people not to use sick time for frivolous reasons (though mental health days are important) this SEEMS like a good thing, but it is also a bad idea in that it encourages people to come to work sick, possibly infecting others.
100% it was instituted because people were using sick days for reasons other than being sick, and people hated getting stuck at work on Saturday when they had expensive plans, because someone else decided to have a fun Saturday night, co-workers be damned.
Then that's a management failing,and it doesn't make the policy any less asinine than other perfect attendance policies.
100% represents a buy in by employees on the asinine "work ethic" we face in the present day US workforce. It's literally employees buying in on managements worldview.
In follow-up, it turns out that open union busting is a good way to lose a primary as a Democrat - badly:
Niles Edward Francis is an election pundit.
3.94%. Ouch.