login
Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-05-18 12:26 PM in reply to: #3505297 |
Expert  938   |  Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks LawPuppetmaster - 2011-05-18 1:57 AM sfm15 - 2011-05-14 8:18 PM Unions had there time in the sun, now it's time for the sun to set. Unions need to go away.
Really? which one to start with, Cops, fireman, teachers, sports ? or is this just a anti-manufacturing union comment?
I have no problem with private unions....economics will decide if they prosper or not...see Detroit. Public unions on the other hand are WAY beyond reasonable. Why? There is no economic incentive for them to ever provide a concession. Politician after politician gives them a open check-book. Take me and my wife for instance. My company's health insurance is $780 a month for family coverage. My wife, who is a teacher, covers our family instead for $0.00. Do I benefit? Sure. Would I give it and her pension up for lower property taxes? Heck yeah. Here in NJ, I pay more in property taxes in three months, than my buddy with a similar home in Atlanta pays per year. Why? There are 629 school districts in NJ...and they all get their beloved home rule and administration costs that go with that. All those districts for schools also closely correspond for police and other town services. Heck, we pay toll collectors $60k (which is more than many teachers). Of course, they just agreed to a massive pay cuts, because Chris Christie (our Governor) told them "We are replacing you with private collectors, at a more reasonable $30k per year, unless you accept our proposal." |
| 2011-05-18 12:51 PM in reply to: #3506131 |
Champion 10668  Tacoma, Washington | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 10:02 AM TriRSquared - 2011-05-18 9:10 AM velocomp - 2011-05-18 7:54 AM Puppetmaster - 2011-05-17 11:57 PM sfm15 - 2011-05-14 8:18 PM Unions had there time in the sun, now it's time for the sun to set. Unions need to go away.
Really? which one to start with, Cops, fireman, teachers, sports ? or is this just a anti-manufacturing union comment? Heck I'll take a stab at this. Why not all of them? No one said get rid of all the cops, firemen, teachers or sports, just the unionization. No one said don't pay them fairly. No one said don't give them retirement plans, healthcare etc.. Just that they do not need collective bargaining power. While some may disagree, this opinion is held by many. If those folks can't get fair treatment without the union, find something else to do. Most of those people I would guess do their job for the love of the job, and would stay anyway. Oh, and don't tell me the teachers union helps give kids a better education. Many teachers I've known have stepped away from the union (wife included), because they took more money from them than benefits they gave, and in many instances put the employees well being in front of the kids. Most good teachers are there for the kids... Well said. Unions were a part of the growth of capitalism that had their place back in the early 20th century. However with more labor laws they have outgrown their usefulness and are now nothing more than a hindrance to growth. Look at all the foreign owned auto maker. Where are they building their new plants? In the south of course. And these plants are doing very well. The workers there make a good wage and are generally happy. So if they can do it without unionizing why can't the big 3 auto workers? It's because many (not all but many) unions are cultures of greed. People argue that w/o unions wages would fall. Perhaps. But perhaps these wages are artificially high to begin with. If they fall far enough people will leave to find better paying careers. And if enough leave the employers will be forced to raise wages to gain workers back. It's pretty amazing how well the free market works with you don't screw with it.
I have to disagree. I find this anti-union sentiment ignores both history, and what history teaches and places an enormous amount of trust in management to do right by workers, trust that has not been borne out by history. History has demonstrated that it is not government intervention that has increased the positive working conditions of workers, but rather unions. Typically, government intervention followed in the foot steps of what the unions had done. Additionally, history shows us that management and owners will attempt to maximize profits, even at the detriment of the workers. Often depriving them of safe working conditions, equitable pay, etc... Now that being said, there are a myriad of problems and abuses with modern unions. These abuses make it difficult to feel sympathy for union members. Additionally, unions current steadfastness in their negotiating position, even when that position main be detrimental in the long run to its members is problomatic. However, there was, is and will continue to be abuses in industries threw management and ownership. Owners and managers continually seek to circumvent both contracts they have negotiated with unions and government regulations. This is done in an effort to maximize profits. While an owner certainly has a right to maximize his/her profits, I also believe they have an obligation to treat fairly their work force. Until there is a perfect world, where ownership and management are free from abusive and exploitative practices then there will be a need for unions. I understand the frustration and anger that many have towards unions. However, I believe arguing that unions have outlived their uselfulness ignores the other part of the equation and that is management/ownership, who are far from having "clean hands" in the economic equation. There is enough abuses on all sides to spread the blame amoung all three of the actors: Unions, managment/owner, and the Government. There is a delicate balance, I for one do not trust any of the entities involved enough to argue that the others should be eliminated. I feel that each works as checks and balances. I hardly feel sorry for managers at industries that ran their company into the ground and yet took multi-million dollar salaries that had no connection to the profitability or sustainability of their company. Companies were failing, needing government bail outs, resulting in huge lay offs, and yet upper management still reap historic unpresidented salaries. Thank you, Brock. Thank you. |
| 2011-05-18 12:54 PM in reply to: #3506240 |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law briderdt - 2011-05-18 10:51 AM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 10:02 AM TriRSquared - 2011-05-18 9:10 AM velocomp - 2011-05-18 7:54 AM Puppetmaster - 2011-05-17 11:57 PM sfm15 - 2011-05-14 8:18 PM Unions had there time in the sun, now it's time for the sun to set. Unions need to go away.
Really? which one to start with, Cops, fireman, teachers, sports ? or is this just a anti-manufacturing union comment? Heck I'll take a stab at this. Why not all of them? No one said get rid of all the cops, firemen, teachers or sports, just the unionization. No one said don't pay them fairly. No one said don't give them retirement plans, healthcare etc.. Just that they do not need collective bargaining power. While some may disagree, this opinion is held by many. If those folks can't get fair treatment without the union, find something else to do. Most of those people I would guess do their job for the love of the job, and would stay anyway. Oh, and don't tell me the teachers union helps give kids a better education. Many teachers I've known have stepped away from the union (wife included), because they took more money from them than benefits they gave, and in many instances put the employees well being in front of the kids. Most good teachers are there for the kids... Well said. Unions were a part of the growth of capitalism that had their place back in the early 20th century. However with more labor laws they have outgrown their usefulness and are now nothing more than a hindrance to growth. Look at all the foreign owned auto maker. Where are they building their new plants? In the south of course. And these plants are doing very well. The workers there make a good wage and are generally happy. So if they can do it without unionizing why can't the big 3 auto workers? It's because many (not all but many) unions are cultures of greed. People argue that w/o unions wages would fall. Perhaps. But perhaps these wages are artificially high to begin with. If they fall far enough people will leave to find better paying careers. And if enough leave the employers will be forced to raise wages to gain workers back. It's pretty amazing how well the free market works with you don't screw with it.
I have to disagree. I find this anti-union sentiment ignores both history, and what history teaches and places an enormous amount of trust in management to do right by workers, trust that has not been borne out by history. History has demonstrated that it is not government intervention that has increased the positive working conditions of workers, but rather unions. Typically, government intervention followed in the foot steps of what the unions had done. Additionally, history shows us that management and owners will attempt to maximize profits, even at the detriment of the workers. Often depriving them of safe working conditions, equitable pay, etc... Now that being said, there are a myriad of problems and abuses with modern unions. These abuses make it difficult to feel sympathy for union members. Additionally, unions current steadfastness in their negotiating position, even when that position main be detrimental in the long run to its members is problomatic. However, there was, is and will continue to be abuses in industries threw management and ownership. Owners and managers continually seek to circumvent both contracts they have negotiated with unions and government regulations. This is done in an effort to maximize profits. While an owner certainly has a right to maximize his/her profits, I also believe they have an obligation to treat fairly their work force. Until there is a perfect world, where ownership and management are free from abusive and exploitative practices then there will be a need for unions. I understand the frustration and anger that many have towards unions. However, I believe arguing that unions have outlived their uselfulness ignores the other part of the equation and that is management/ownership, who are far from having "clean hands" in the economic equation. There is enough abuses on all sides to spread the blame amoung all three of the actors: Unions, managment/owner, and the Government. There is a delicate balance, I for one do not trust any of the entities involved enough to argue that the others should be eliminated. I feel that each works as checks and balances. I hardly feel sorry for managers at industries that ran their company into the ground and yet took multi-million dollar salaries that had no connection to the profitability or sustainability of their company. Companies were failing, needing government bail outs, resulting in huge lay offs, and yet upper management still reap historic unpresidented salaries. Thank you, Brock. Thank you. x2 |
| 2011-05-18 1:20 PM in reply to: #3506131 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 1:02 PM I understand the frustration and anger that many have towards unions. However, I believe arguing that unions have outlived their uselfulness ignores the other part of the equation and that is management/ownership, who are far from having "clean hands" in the economic equation. . Please explain why some industries (even some compaines within the same industry, eg.g. automobiles) are able to be profitable and keep their employees happy without unions. In other words, why is it necessary to have unions at say GM when the Toyota plant is operating just fine (I'd argue even better). If management at GM is treating workers unfairly then those workers will migrate towards jobs where they are treated more fairly. |
| 2011-05-18 3:10 PM in reply to: #3506318 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law TriRSquared - 2011-05-18 2:20 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 1:02 PM I understand the frustration and anger that many have towards unions. However, I believe arguing that unions have outlived their uselfulness ignores the other part of the equation and that is management/ownership, who are far from having "clean hands" in the economic equation. . Please explain why some industries (even some compaines within the same industry, eg.g. automobiles) are able to be profitable and keep their employees happy without unions. In other words, why is it necessary to have unions at say GM when the Toyota plant is operating just fine (I'd argue even better). If management at GM is treating workers unfairly then those workers will migrate towards jobs where they are treated more fairly. The short answer is "different companies". I didn't say that unions are necessary in all industries, nor within different companies within the same industries. I believe you are making the assumption that because GM and Toyota are in the same industries that they have the same work environment, or treat their employees similarly. Henry Ford when he opened his first plant said that the American worker should be paid a high wage, because it benefited industry. His theory was if you paid workers high wages they had excess or expendable income to buy more products thus more profits for him. The problem is of course that not all managers/owners saw or see the world the same. They instead see the easiest and fastest way to make maximum profits is to pay as little as possible. There are indeed companies where unions are not needed because the deal with their employees in a fair manner. They negotiate in a fair manner, they are "generous" to their employees. For these companies I agree that unions offer little to no help and in fact often muddy up the works and end up hurting both employees and management. On the other hand there are companies that do not deal fairly with their employees, that "rape" their own companies, whose upper managment compensation has no relationship to the companies profitability or sustainability. COmpanies that have to be forced by either unions or the government to give anything to their employees. For these companies unions serve a valuable service to the employees. (For example there is a trend in retail that large retailers do not hire any full time employees, they only hire part time employees. They don't have to give their part time employees as many benefits. So the altruistice view of American industry is probably as inaccurate as the altruistic view of unions) Thus, I don't believe that unions have out lived their usefullness. I feel the call for doing away with unions as a whole ignores that there are still abuses perpetrated upon employees by management/owners. I feel it paints the complex picture of our work force with too broad of a brush. That being said, one area that I feel unions have no real purpose is with government employees. Again, please don't misinterpret my stance. I'm not saying that there isn't union abuses. There are. I'm also not diagreeing that in many instances unions do more damage to the economy and employees than good. Additionally, many of the union stances have no basis in reality. But, never forget that these employment terms that many of us feel are so rediculous are negotiated for. They are not unilaterally imposed upon an employer by the union. There is often long, tiresome negotiations between companies and unions. There is as a result a give and take. I feel no sympathy for a company that complains of a term that they negotiated for. I'm simply saying that based upon history, both long term and recent, there is nothing to demonstrate that there aren't American companies that will do everything they can to get every drop of blood out of their employees; and won't give anything unless absolutely forced to. There is bad within employers and good within employers, same with the unions. |
| 2011-05-18 3:20 PM in reply to: #3506586 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 4:10 PM TriRSquared - 2011-05-18 2:20 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 1:02 PM I understand the frustration and anger that many have towards unions. However, I believe arguing that unions have outlived their uselfulness ignores the other part of the equation and that is management/ownership, who are far from having "clean hands" in the economic equation. . Please explain why some industries (even some compaines within the same industry, eg.g. automobiles) are able to be profitable and keep their employees happy without unions. In other words, why is it necessary to have unions at say GM when the Toyota plant is operating just fine (I'd argue even better). If management at GM is treating workers unfairly then those workers will migrate towards jobs where they are treated more fairly. The short answer is "different companies". I didn't say that unions are necessary in all industries, nor within different companies within the same industries. I believe you are making the assumption that because GM and Toyota are in the same industries that they have the same work environment, or treat their employees similarly. Henry Ford when he opened his first plant said that the American worker should be paid a high wage, because it benefited industry. His theory was if you paid workers high wages they had excess or expendable income to buy more products thus more profits for him. The problem is of course that not all managers/owners saw or see the world the same. They instead see the easiest and fastest way to make maximum profits is to pay as little as possible. There are indeed companies where unions are not needed because the deal with their employees in a fair manner. They negotiate in a fair manner, they are "generous" to their employees. For these companies I agree that unions offer little to no help and in fact often muddy up the works and end up hurting both employees and management. On the other hand there are companies that do not deal fairly with their employees, that "rape" their own companies, whose upper managment compensation has no relationship to the companies profitability or sustainability. COmpanies that have to be forced by either unions or the government to give anything to their employees. For these companies unions serve a valuable service to the employees. (For example there is a trend in retail that large retailers do not hire any full time employees, they only hire part time employees. They don't have to give their part time employees as many benefits. So the altruistice view of American industry is probably as inaccurate as the altruistic view of unions) Thus, I don't believe that unions have out lived their usefullness. I feel the call for doing away with unions as a whole ignores that there are still abuses perpetrated upon employees by management/owners. I feel it paints the complex picture of our work force with too broad of a brush. That being said, one area that I feel unions have no real purpose is with government employees. Again, please don't misinterpret my stance. I'm not saying that there isn't union abuses. There are. I'm also not diagreeing that in many instances unions do more damage to the economy and employees than good. Additionally, many of the union stances have no basis in reality. But, never forget that these employment terms that many of us feel are so rediculous are negotiated for. They are not unilaterally imposed upon an employer by the union. There is often long, tiresome negotiations between companies and unions. There is as a result a give and take. I feel no sympathy for a company that complains of a term that they negotiated for. I'm simply saying that based upon history, both long term and recent, there is nothing to demonstrate that there aren't American companies that will do everything they can to get every drop of blood out of their employees; and won't give anything unless absolutely forced to. There is bad within employers and good within employers, same with the unions. Bad employers loose their good employees to good employers and soon go out of business that is the free market system. All employees are free to seek jobs elsewhere no one forces them to work for mean ole company B. I still think it is interesting that people will scream to high heaven about price fixing and industry collusion yet laud unions for the exact same behavior. |
| 2011-05-18 3:49 PM in reply to: #3506586 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 4:10 PM TriRSquared - 2011-05-18 2:20 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 1:02 PM I understand the frustration and anger that many have towards unions. However, I believe arguing that unions have outlived their uselfulness ignores the other part of the equation and that is management/ownership, who are far from having "clean hands" in the economic equation. . Please explain why some industries (even some compaines within the same industry, eg.g. automobiles) are able to be profitable and keep their employees happy without unions. In other words, why is it necessary to have unions at say GM when the Toyota plant is operating just fine (I'd argue even better). If management at GM is treating workers unfairly then those workers will migrate towards jobs where they are treated more fairly. The short answer is "different companies". I didn't say that unions are necessary in all industries, nor within different companies within the same industries. I believe you are making the assumption that because GM and Toyota are in the same industries that they have the same work environment, or treat their employees similarly. Henry Ford when he opened his first plant said that the American worker should be paid a high wage, because it benefited industry. His theory was if you paid workers high wages they had excess or expendable income to buy more products thus more profits for him. The problem is of course that not all managers/owners saw or see the world the same. They instead see the easiest and fastest way to make maximum profits is to pay as little as possible. There are indeed companies where unions are not needed because the deal with their employees in a fair manner. They negotiate in a fair manner, they are "generous" to their employees. For these companies I agree that unions offer little to no help and in fact often muddy up the works and end up hurting both employees and management. On the other hand there are companies that do not deal fairly with their employees, that "rape" their own companies, whose upper managment compensation has no relationship to the companies profitability or sustainability. COmpanies that have to be forced by either unions or the government to give anything to their employees. For these companies unions serve a valuable service to the employees. (For example there is a trend in retail that large retailers do not hire any full time employees, they only hire part time employees. They don't have to give their part time employees as many benefits. So the altruistice view of American industry is probably as inaccurate as the altruistic view of unions) Thus, I don't believe that unions have out lived their usefullness. I feel the call for doing away with unions as a whole ignores that there are still abuses perpetrated upon employees by management/owners. I feel it paints the complex picture of our work force with too broad of a brush. That being said, one area that I feel unions have no real purpose is with government employees. Again, please don't misinterpret my stance. I'm not saying that there isn't union abuses. There are. I'm also not diagreeing that in many instances unions do more damage to the economy and employees than good. Additionally, many of the union stances have no basis in reality. But, never forget that these employment terms that many of us feel are so rediculous are negotiated for. They are not unilaterally imposed upon an employer by the union. There is often long, tiresome negotiations between companies and unions. There is as a result a give and take. I feel no sympathy for a company that complains of a term that they negotiated for. I'm simply saying that based upon history, both long term and recent, there is nothing to demonstrate that there aren't American companies that will do everything they can to get every drop of blood out of their employees; and won't give anything unless absolutely forced to. There is bad within employers and good within employers, same with the unions. Actually I'm making the opposite assumption, that GM and Toyota do NOT treat their employees the same. Somehow Toyota (or insert other non-unionized company here) has figured out a way to keep their employees via good wages and working conditions. In your example of retailer who do not give benefits. Those employers that DO give benefits are probably going to garden the best employees (they can chose from the best of the bunch). Those who do not will get the lower tier employees. And their customer service, efficiency, productivity and hence profitability will fall. Eventually they will realize that they cannot comp-etc w/o giving benefits. But this only happens if the free market is allowed to be free. Unions change the dynamics of free markets and make them not free. So why would you not be against gov't unions then (I am for the record)? By your logic does not the government have the ultimate ability to "rape" (your word) their workers?
|
| 2011-05-18 6:30 PM in reply to: #3506691 |
| Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law TriRSquared - 2011-05-18 1:49 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 4:10 PM TriRSquared - 2011-05-18 2:20 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 1:02 PM I understand the frustration and anger that many have towards unions. However, I believe arguing that unions have outlived their uselfulness ignores the other part of the equation and that is management/ownership, who are far from having "clean hands" in the economic equation. . Please explain why some industries (even some compaines within the same industry, eg.g. automobiles) are able to be profitable and keep their employees happy without unions. In other words, why is it necessary to have unions at say GM when the Toyota plant is operating just fine (I'd argue even better). If management at GM is treating workers unfairly then those workers will migrate towards jobs where they are treated more fairly. The short answer is "different companies". I didn't say that unions are necessary in all industries, nor within different companies within the same industries. I believe you are making the assumption that because GM and Toyota are in the same industries that they have the same work environment, or treat their employees similarly. Henry Ford when he opened his first plant said that the American worker should be paid a high wage, because it benefited industry. His theory was if you paid workers high wages they had excess or expendable income to buy more products thus more profits for him. The problem is of course that not all managers/owners saw or see the world the same. They instead see the easiest and fastest way to make maximum profits is to pay as little as possible. There are indeed companies where unions are not needed because the deal with their employees in a fair manner. They negotiate in a fair manner, they are "generous" to their employees. For these companies I agree that unions offer little to no help and in fact often muddy up the works and end up hurting both employees and management. On the other hand there are companies that do not deal fairly with their employees, that "rape" their own companies, whose upper managment compensation has no relationship to the companies profitability or sustainability. COmpanies that have to be forced by either unions or the government to give anything to their employees. For these companies unions serve a valuable service to the employees. (For example there is a trend in retail that large retailers do not hire any full time employees, they only hire part time employees. They don't have to give their part time employees as many benefits. So the altruistice view of American industry is probably as inaccurate as the altruistic view of unions) Thus, I don't believe that unions have out lived their usefullness. I feel the call for doing away with unions as a whole ignores that there are still abuses perpetrated upon employees by management/owners. I feel it paints the complex picture of our work force with too broad of a brush. That being said, one area that I feel unions have no real purpose is with government employees. Again, please don't misinterpret my stance. I'm not saying that there isn't union abuses. There are. I'm also not diagreeing that in many instances unions do more damage to the economy and employees than good. Additionally, many of the union stances have no basis in reality. But, never forget that these employment terms that many of us feel are so rediculous are negotiated for. They are not unilaterally imposed upon an employer by the union. There is often long, tiresome negotiations between companies and unions. There is as a result a give and take. I feel no sympathy for a company that complains of a term that they negotiated for. I'm simply saying that based upon history, both long term and recent, there is nothing to demonstrate that there aren't American companies that will do everything they can to get every drop of blood out of their employees; and won't give anything unless absolutely forced to. There is bad within employers and good within employers, same with the unions. Actually I'm making the opposite assumption, that GM and Toyota do NOT treat their employees the same. Somehow Toyota (or insert other non-unionized company here) has figured out a way to keep their employees via good wages and working conditions. In your example of retailer who do not give benefits. Those employers that DO give benefits are probably going to garden the best employees (they can chose from the best of the bunch). Those who do not will get the lower tier employees. And their customer service, efficiency, productivity and hence profitability will fall. Eventually they will realize that they cannot comp-etc w/o giving benefits. But this only happens if the free market is allowed to be free. Unions change the dynamics of free markets and make them not free. So why would you not be against gov't unions then (I am for the record)? By your logic does not the government have the ultimate ability to "rape" (your word) their workers?
In that situation, it's easier for the Government to rape the taxpayer as they do not have a lobbying voice like the unions. Yes they can vote them out but the politicians who they are trying to vote out are given the taxpayers tax dollars via the unions to out spend and get re-elected. The politician who would bargain in favor of the tax payer does not have equal representation, dollar wise or in the media. Money Talks! It's a money laundreing scheme, corruption in plain sight and bribery in full view and it's completely legal. Edited by crusevegas 2011-05-18 6:34 PM |
| 2011-05-19 10:18 AM in reply to: #3506691 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law TriRSquared - 2011-05-18 4:49 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 4:10 PM TriRSquared - 2011-05-18 2:20 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 1:02 PM I understand the frustration and anger that many have towards unions. However, I believe arguing that unions have outlived their uselfulness ignores the other part of the equation and that is management/ownership, who are far from having "clean hands" in the economic equation. . Please explain why some industries (even some compaines within the same industry, eg.g. automobiles) are able to be profitable and keep their employees happy without unions. In other words, why is it necessary to have unions at say GM when the Toyota plant is operating just fine (I'd argue even better). If management at GM is treating workers unfairly then those workers will migrate towards jobs where they are treated more fairly. The short answer is "different companies". I didn't say that unions are necessary in all industries, nor within different companies within the same industries. I believe you are making the assumption that because GM and Toyota are in the same industries that they have the same work environment, or treat their employees similarly. Henry Ford when he opened his first plant said that the American worker should be paid a high wage, because it benefited industry. His theory was if you paid workers high wages they had excess or expendable income to buy more products thus more profits for him. The problem is of course that not all managers/owners saw or see the world the same. They instead see the easiest and fastest way to make maximum profits is to pay as little as possible. There are indeed companies where unions are not needed because the deal with their employees in a fair manner. They negotiate in a fair manner, they are "generous" to their employees. For these companies I agree that unions offer little to no help and in fact often muddy up the works and end up hurting both employees and management. On the other hand there are companies that do not deal fairly with their employees, that "rape" their own companies, whose upper managment compensation has no relationship to the companies profitability or sustainability. COmpanies that have to be forced by either unions or the government to give anything to their employees. For these companies unions serve a valuable service to the employees. (For example there is a trend in retail that large retailers do not hire any full time employees, they only hire part time employees. They don't have to give their part time employees as many benefits. So the altruistice view of American industry is probably as inaccurate as the altruistic view of unions) Thus, I don't believe that unions have out lived their usefullness. I feel the call for doing away with unions as a whole ignores that there are still abuses perpetrated upon employees by management/owners. I feel it paints the complex picture of our work force with too broad of a brush. That being said, one area that I feel unions have no real purpose is with government employees. Again, please don't misinterpret my stance. I'm not saying that there isn't union abuses. There are. I'm also not diagreeing that in many instances unions do more damage to the economy and employees than good. Additionally, many of the union stances have no basis in reality. But, never forget that these employment terms that many of us feel are so rediculous are negotiated for. They are not unilaterally imposed upon an employer by the union. There is often long, tiresome negotiations between companies and unions. There is as a result a give and take. I feel no sympathy for a company that complains of a term that they negotiated for. I'm simply saying that based upon history, both long term and recent, there is nothing to demonstrate that there aren't American companies that will do everything they can to get every drop of blood out of their employees; and won't give anything unless absolutely forced to. There is bad within employers and good within employers, same with the unions. Actually I'm making the opposite assumption, that GM and Toyota do NOT treat their employees the same. Somehow Toyota (or insert other non-unionized company here) has figured out a way to keep their employees via good wages and working conditions. In your example of retailer who do not give benefits. Those employers that DO give benefits are probably going to garden the best employees (they can chose from the best of the bunch). Those who do not will get the lower tier employees. And their customer service, efficiency, productivity and hence profitability will fall. Eventually they will realize that they cannot comp-etc w/o giving benefits. But this only happens if the free market is allowed to be free. Unions change the dynamics of free markets and make them not free. So why would you not be against gov't unions then (I am for the record)? By your logic does not the government have the ultimate ability to "rape" (your word) their workers?
You keep mis stating my position. It seems you keep trying to put my position into a box, either pro-union or anti-union. My position is specifically in opposition to this simplistic view of unions and the work force. I am neither pro-union, nor anti-union. I conceed that there are abuses on both sides. I also believe that some on both sides do very good things on behalf of their constituents. What I am not willing to conceed is that "unions have outlived their usefulness" It seems to me that this position calls for the elimination of all unions in all circumstances. |
| 2011-05-19 12:42 PM in reply to: #3508017 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law Brock Samson - 2011-05-19 11:18 AM You keep mis stating my position. It seems you keep trying to put my position into a box, either pro-union or anti-union. My position is specifically in opposition to this simplistic view of unions and the work force. I am neither pro-union, nor anti-union. I conceed that there are abuses on both sides. I also believe that some on both sides do very good things on behalf of their constituents. What I am not willing to conceed is that "unions have outlived their usefulness" It seems to me that this position calls for the elimination of all unions in all circumstances. No, you are saying that you are pro-union in some cases. I do not think I'm misstated that, have I? And where we do disagree is that I do feel that unions have outlived their usefulness, and that they should all be eliminated. I just don't understand how you can be pro-union in some cases but anti-union in others (e.g. government worker unions as you stated). Either a union is a way to "protect the worker" or it is not. Can you explain why they are different in your view? |
| 2011-05-19 5:41 PM in reply to: #3508339 |
Master 2701 Salisbury, North Carolina | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law With 20+ yrs experience in operations/mfg/distribution mgmt, a few thoughts are: 1) never has it been more true than now that "If you get a union you deserve it" and 2) we need more right to work states, and 3) unions offer nothing, absolutely nothing, to most companies today. Edited by tri42 2011-05-19 5:41 PM |
| 2011-05-19 7:02 PM in reply to: #3508875 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law tri42 - 2011-05-19 6:41 PM With 20+ yrs experience in operations/mfg/distribution mgmt, a few thoughts are: 1) never has it been more true than now that "If you get a union you deserve it" and 2) we need more right to work states, and 3) unions offer nothing, absolutely nothing, to most companies today.
Ummm... the point of unions is NOT to offer benefits to the company (meaning raise profits for the owners). It is to offer a little more of the profits to the workers. Improved wages, hours, working conditions, vacation time, benefits, etc. Left to its own devices, a manufacturer of goods, especially in a time of high unemployment, and with no other constraints, will of course maximize its profits on the backs of workers - that is why we had child labor, why the work week was 6.5 days, and why companies hired thugs to beat workers that considered unionizing (think of the Pullman strike, the Haymarket riot, the Pinkertons used at Homestead, etc). It's why companies could get away with setting up "company towns" - where the base was far enough away from alternatives that workers essentially had to buy their goods from the company at interest rates that essentially ensured they were modern serfs. And given the recent financial meltdowns, I do not trust most companies to put long term interests ahead of short term profits, nor the government to effectively regulate. Much like the way political gridlock prevents politicians from enacting overly stupid laws favoring too much one side or the other, having unions to balance the power of employers frankly seems to me to be a necessary evil. |
| 2011-05-19 7:33 PM in reply to: #3508955 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law gearboy - 2011-05-19 8:02 PM And given the recent financial meltdowns, I do not trust most companies to put long term interests ahead of short term profits, nor the government to effectively regulate. Much like the way political gridlock prevents politicians from enacting overly stupid laws favoring too much one side or the other, having unions to balance the power of employers frankly seems to me to be a necessary evil. And yet less than 12% of the US workforce is unionized (both public and private: private is less than 7%)... and we do not have child labor or company towns or thugs beating people. There are many many companies that have show they can provide a good work environment, benefits and wages w/o unions. Again, those companies that treat their workers badly will fail. Let the free market take care of it. Not all corporations are evil greed machines. Profits does not mean chewing up and spitting our your workforce. Most companies realize this. |
| 2011-05-19 8:35 PM in reply to: #3509000 |
Master 1826 | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law TriRSquared - 2011-05-19 8:33 PM gearboy - 2011-05-19 8:02 PM And given the recent financial meltdowns, I do not trust most companies to put long term interests ahead of short term profits, nor the government to effectively regulate. Much like the way political gridlock prevents politicians from enacting overly stupid laws favoring too much one side or the other, having unions to balance the power of employers frankly seems to me to be a necessary evil. And yet less than 12% of the US workforce is unionized (both public and private: private is less than 7%)... and we do not have child labor or company towns or thugs beating people. There are many many companies that have show they can provide a good work environment, benefits and wages w/o unions. Again, those companies that treat their workers badly will fail. Let the free market take care of it. Not all corporations are evil greed machines. Profits does not mean chewing up and spitting our your workforce. Most companies realize this. Should monopoly industries have unions to protect workers? By monopoly industries I am thinking things like NFL where the employee cannot go anywhere else to do equal work, or say air traffic controller? The basis of your argument is if the work/employer sucks go to another company and the bad one will fail, so what do you feel a solution is when you can't just go to another company? |
| 2011-05-19 9:39 PM in reply to: #3508955 |
Master 2701 Salisbury, North Carolina | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law gearboy - 2011-05-19 8:02 PM tri42 - 2011-05-19 6:41 PM With 20+ yrs experience in operations/mfg/distribution mgmt, a few thoughts are: 1) never has it been more true than now that "If you get a union you deserve it" and 2) we need more right to work states, and 3) unions offer nothing, absolutely nothing, to most companies today.  Ummm... the point of unions is NOT to offer benefits to the company (meaning raise profits for the owners). It is to offer a little more of the profits to the workers. Improved wages, hours, working conditions, vacation time, benefits, etc. Left to its own devices, a manufacturer of goods, especially in a time of high unemployment, and with no other constraints, will of course maximize its profits on the backs of workers - that is why we had child labor, why the work week was 6.5 days, and why companies hired thugs to beat workers that considered unionizing (think of the Pullman strike, the Haymarket riot, the Pinkertons used at Homestead, etc). It's why companies could get away with setting up "company towns" - where the base was far enough away from alternatives that workers essentially had to buy their goods from the company at interest rates that essentially ensured they were modern serfs. And given the recent financial meltdowns, I do not trust most companies to put long term interests ahead of short term profits, nor the government to effectively regulate. Much like the way political gridlock prevents politicians from enacting overly stupid laws favoring too much one side or the other, having unions to balance the power of employers frankly seems to me to be a necessary evil. Ummm... thanks, but I already have a pretty good understanding of unions, profit-sharing, and several other topics addressed above...  . Let me add another version of my statement above: Unions offer nothing, absolutely nothing, to most employees at most companies. They WILL however, take your dues periodically. There's enough economic info. out there to completely discredit unions. I'm sure of you will say there's just as much economic info. in support of unions.... makes it fun, doesn't it ? I DO agree with you that long-term interests of employees can be at risk. The market will take care of some of that risk, but not all. |
| 2011-05-19 9:40 PM in reply to: #3505410 |
Master 2701 Salisbury, North Carolina | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law velocomp - 2011-05-18 7:54 AM Puppetmaster - 2011-05-17 11:57 PM sfm15 - 2011-05-14 8:18 PM Unions had there time in the sun, now it's time for the sun to set. Unions need to go away.  Really? which one to start with, Cops, fireman, teachers, sports ? or is this just a anti-manufacturing union comment? Heck I'll take a stab at this. Why not all of them? No one said get rid of all the cops, firemen, teachers or sports, just the unionization. No one said don't pay them fairly. No one said don't give them retirement plans, healthcare etc.. Just that they do not need collective bargaining power. While some may disagree, this opinion is held by many. If those folks can't get fair treatment without the union, find something else to do. Most of those people I would guess do their job for the love of the job, and would stay anyway. Oh, and don't tell me the teachers union helps give kids a better education. Many teachers I've known have stepped away from the union (wife included), because they took more money from them than benefits they gave, and in many instances put the employees well being in front of the kids. Most good teachers are there for the kids... I agree with you... well done. |
| 2011-05-20 6:16 AM in reply to: #3509000 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law TriRSquared - 2011-05-19 8:33 PM gearboy - 2011-05-19 8:02 PM And given the recent financial meltdowns, I do not trust most companies to put long term interests ahead of short term profits, nor the government to effectively regulate. Much like the way political gridlock prevents politicians from enacting overly stupid laws favoring too much one side or the other, having unions to balance the power of employers frankly seems to me to be a necessary evil. And yet less than 12% of the US workforce is unionized (both public and private: private is less than 7%)... and we do not have child labor or company towns or thugs beating people. There are many many companies that have show they can provide a good work environment, benefits and wages w/o unions. Again, those companies that treat their workers badly will fail. Let the free market take care of it. Not all corporations are evil greed machines. Profits does not mean chewing up and spitting our your workforce. Most companies realize this.
So, having alternatives is good for business but not for workers? I am not saying everyone should be in a union, but having an alternative helps keep things in check, which is what I said (though not what you quoted). Let's ignore your strawman argument that I am claiming that "all corporations are evil greed machines". But if we look at your "free market cures all ills" (to paraphrase you), the reality is that if a company gets big enough, when it fails, it has a good chance of getting bailed out (c.f the airline industry, the auto industry, the banking industry...). But with unemployment still very high, which means for many people the loss of healthcare access and homes, it is to me unconscionable to save companies (who continue in some cases to give their leaders big fat checks) while taking a laissez faire approach to people lower down the economic rungs. I know many who agree with you also believe the bailouts should not have occurred. But they did, and the reality is that we do not have (and I would argue would not really want) an unfettered free market. So rather than compare the situation to the mythical land of Ayn Rand's version of capitalism, let's compare it to the real world. The world in which the reason we do not have child labor, company towns, and union busting is that there are laws against it (at least here in the US. Not so much in the emerging worlds' labor markets, where many manufacturing ended up - so let's not delude ourselves that companies are no longer in favor of using children, for example; except where the publicity costs more sales). |
| 2011-05-20 7:22 AM in reply to: #3509373 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law gearboy - 2011-05-20 7:16 AM So, having alternatives is good for business but not for workers? I am not saying everyone should be in a union, but having an alternative helps keep things in check, which is what I said (though not what you quoted). Let's ignore your strawman argument that I am claiming that "all corporations are evil greed machines". I did not mean to say you are claiming that. Just making a point. But if we look at your "free market cures all ills" (to paraphrase you), the reality is that if a company gets big enough, when it fails, it has a good chance of getting bailed out (c.f the airline industry, the auto industry, the banking industry...). But with unemployment still very high, which means for many people the loss of healthcare access and homes, it is to me unconscionable to save companies (who continue in some cases to give their leaders big fat checks) while taking a laissez faire approach to people lower down the economic rungs. I know many who agree with you also believe the bailouts should not have occurred. But they did, and the reality is that we do not have (and I would argue would not really want) an unfettered free market. So rather than compare the situation to the mythical land of Ayn Rand's version of capitalism, let's compare it to the real world. The world in which the reason we do not have child labor, company towns, and union busting is that there are laws against it (at least here in the US. Not so much in the emerging worlds' labor markets, where many manufacturing ended up - so let's not delude ourselves that companies are no longer in favor of using children, for example; except where the publicity costs more sales). Bailing out a "too big to fail" company is interfering with the free market machine. We cannot use this argument as it flies in the face of free market theory. There should be no such thing as too big to fail. You are correct in your statement of what is happening. But it's happening because the government stepped in where they should not have. GM should have been allowed to fail. Currently the US government is supporting a massive union because of their actions. That's not allowing the free market to act. Also I am not arguing that we should not have laws that protect workers. NO one wants child labor or unfair wages. However these are laws that are made by our society as a whole. Not a group of people (the union or the company) with their own best interests in mind. |
| 2011-05-20 11:32 AM in reply to: #3506613 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law trinnas - 2011-05-18 4:20 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 4:10 PM TriRSquared - 2011-05-18 2:20 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 1:02 PM I understand the frustration and anger that many have towards unions. However, I believe arguing that unions have outlived their uselfulness ignores the other part of the equation and that is management/ownership, who are far from having "clean hands" in the economic equation. . Please explain why some industries (even some compaines within the same industry, eg.g. automobiles) are able to be profitable and keep their employees happy without unions. In other words, why is it necessary to have unions at say GM when the Toyota plant is operating just fine (I'd argue even better). If management at GM is treating workers unfairly then those workers will migrate towards jobs where they are treated more fairly. The short answer is "different companies". I didn't say that unions are necessary in all industries, nor within different companies within the same industries. I believe you are making the assumption that because GM and Toyota are in the same industries that they have the same work environment, or treat their employees similarly. Henry Ford when he opened his first plant said that the American worker should be paid a high wage, because it benefited industry. His theory was if you paid workers high wages they had excess or expendable income to buy more products thus more profits for him. The problem is of course that not all managers/owners saw or see the world the same. They instead see the easiest and fastest way to make maximum profits is to pay as little as possible. There are indeed companies where unions are not needed because the deal with their employees in a fair manner. They negotiate in a fair manner, they are "generous" to their employees. For these companies I agree that unions offer little to no help and in fact often muddy up the works and end up hurting both employees and management. On the other hand there are companies that do not deal fairly with their employees, that "rape" their own companies, whose upper managment compensation has no relationship to the companies profitability or sustainability. COmpanies that have to be forced by either unions or the government to give anything to their employees. For these companies unions serve a valuable service to the employees. (For example there is a trend in retail that large retailers do not hire any full time employees, they only hire part time employees. They don't have to give their part time employees as many benefits. So the altruistice view of American industry is probably as inaccurate as the altruistic view of unions) Thus, I don't believe that unions have out lived their usefullness. I feel the call for doing away with unions as a whole ignores that there are still abuses perpetrated upon employees by management/owners. I feel it paints the complex picture of our work force with too broad of a brush. That being said, one area that I feel unions have no real purpose is with government employees. Again, please don't misinterpret my stance. I'm not saying that there isn't union abuses. There are. I'm also not diagreeing that in many instances unions do more damage to the economy and employees than good. Additionally, many of the union stances have no basis in reality. But, never forget that these employment terms that many of us feel are so rediculous are negotiated for. They are not unilaterally imposed upon an employer by the union. There is often long, tiresome negotiations between companies and unions. There is as a result a give and take. I feel no sympathy for a company that complains of a term that they negotiated for. I'm simply saying that based upon history, both long term and recent, there is nothing to demonstrate that there aren't American companies that will do everything they can to get every drop of blood out of their employees; and won't give anything unless absolutely forced to. There is bad within employers and good within employers, same with the unions. Bad employers loose their good employees to good employers and soon go out of business that is the free market system. All employees are free to seek jobs elsewhere no one forces them to work for mean ole company B. I still think it is interesting that people will scream to high heaven about price fixing and industry collusion yet laud unions for the exact same behavior. This isn't true though... It may be true with some companies and some jobs. However, typically there are more people than there are jobs. Thus multiple people competing for the same job. This gives the employer an advantage. When this situation occurs, that is multiple people seking the same job, it can allow an employer to enforce "take it or leave it" employment conditions. History has shown this over and over. With this the employer doesn't care about losing an employee as there is a line of employees waiting to fill the shoes of the employee that left. Thus the employer has no incentive to change working conditions absent coersion. I conceed that this scenario is far more common in unskilled labor employment and I conceed that in employment areas that require highly skilled, or highly educated employees your assertion is probably right. However, in cases of unskilled labor I don't think your premise is accurate. The hospitality industry is a prime example of an industry in which poor and exploitive labor conditions exist, where employers know they can find any number of people to fill the vacancy of a fired employee, and employees don't ask questions or rock the boat. In fact I think history has demonstrated that "bad employers" (to use your term) don't go out of business, and they don't lose employees. Rather they cycle through employees at an alarming rate. Firing those that put up a fight, and use the threat of firing and the ability to find replacements as a tool to ensure compliance. History has shown that what has effectuated change for "bad employees" isn't the "free market" but rather coercion of some form, either through government regulation or unionization. Of course you can point to certain companies or industries that have done fine without unions. However, equally as true are a vast multitude of companies and industries that have compiled horrible records as it relates to employees. And yet they are still in business and many prosper. Thus my main point that employers are neither all good nor all bad, likewise unions are neither all good nor all bad. |
| 2011-05-20 12:21 PM in reply to: #3509997 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law Brock Samson - 2011-05-20 12:32 PM trinnas - 2011-05-18 4:20 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 4:10 PM TriRSquared - 2011-05-18 2:20 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 1:02 PM I understand the frustration and anger that many have towards unions. However, I believe arguing that unions have outlived their uselfulness ignores the other part of the equation and that is management/ownership, who are far from having "clean hands" in the economic equation. . Please explain why some industries (even some compaines within the same industry, eg.g. automobiles) are able to be profitable and keep their employees happy without unions. In other words, why is it necessary to have unions at say GM when the Toyota plant is operating just fine (I'd argue even better). If management at GM is treating workers unfairly then those workers will migrate towards jobs where they are treated more fairly. The short answer is "different companies". I didn't say that unions are necessary in all industries, nor within different companies within the same industries. I believe you are making the assumption that because GM and Toyota are in the same industries that they have the same work environment, or treat their employees similarly. Henry Ford when he opened his first plant said that the American worker should be paid a high wage, because it benefited industry. His theory was if you paid workers high wages they had excess or expendable income to buy more products thus more profits for him. The problem is of course that not all managers/owners saw or see the world the same. They instead see the easiest and fastest way to make maximum profits is to pay as little as possible. There are indeed companies where unions are not needed because the deal with their employees in a fair manner. They negotiate in a fair manner, they are "generous" to their employees. For these companies I agree that unions offer little to no help and in fact often muddy up the works and end up hurting both employees and management. On the other hand there are companies that do not deal fairly with their employees, that "rape" their own companies, whose upper managment compensation has no relationship to the companies profitability or sustainability. COmpanies that have to be forced by either unions or the government to give anything to their employees. For these companies unions serve a valuable service to the employees. (For example there is a trend in retail that large retailers do not hire any full time employees, they only hire part time employees. They don't have to give their part time employees as many benefits. So the altruistice view of American industry is probably as inaccurate as the altruistic view of unions) Thus, I don't believe that unions have out lived their usefullness. I feel the call for doing away with unions as a whole ignores that there are still abuses perpetrated upon employees by management/owners. I feel it paints the complex picture of our work force with too broad of a brush. That being said, one area that I feel unions have no real purpose is with government employees. Again, please don't misinterpret my stance. I'm not saying that there isn't union abuses. There are. I'm also not diagreeing that in many instances unions do more damage to the economy and employees than good. Additionally, many of the union stances have no basis in reality. But, never forget that these employment terms that many of us feel are so rediculous are negotiated for. They are not unilaterally imposed upon an employer by the union. There is often long, tiresome negotiations between companies and unions. There is as a result a give and take. I feel no sympathy for a company that complains of a term that they negotiated for. I'm simply saying that based upon history, both long term and recent, there is nothing to demonstrate that there aren't American companies that will do everything they can to get every drop of blood out of their employees; and won't give anything unless absolutely forced to. There is bad within employers and good within employers, same with the unions. Bad employers loose their good employees to good employers and soon go out of business that is the free market system. All employees are free to seek jobs elsewhere no one forces them to work for mean ole company B. I still think it is interesting that people will scream to high heaven about price fixing and industry collusion yet laud unions for the exact same behavior. This isn't true though... It may be true with some companies and some jobs. However, typically there are more people than there are jobs. Thus multiple people competing for the same job. This gives the employer an advantage. When this situation occurs, that is multiple people seking the same job, it can allow an employer to enforce "take it or leave it" employment conditions. History has shown this over and over. With this the employer doesn't care about losing an employee as there is a line of employees waiting to fill the shoes of the employee that left. Thus the employer has no incentive to change working conditions absent coersion. I conceed that this scenario is far more common in unskilled labor employment and I conceed that in employment areas that require highly skilled, or highly educated employees your assertion is probably right. However, in cases of unskilled labor I don't think your premise is accurate. The hospitality industry is a prime example of an industry in which poor and exploitive labor conditions exist, where employers know they can find any number of people to fill the vacancy of a fired employee, and employees don't ask questions or rock the boat. In fact I think history has demonstrated that "bad employers" (to use your term) don't go out of business, and they don't lose employees. Rather they cycle through employees at an alarming rate. Firing those that put up a fight, and use the threat of firing and the ability to find replacements as a tool to ensure compliance. History has shown that what has effectuated change for "bad employees" isn't the "free market" but rather coercion of some form, either through government regulation or unionization. Of course you can point to certain companies or industries that have done fine without unions. However, equally as true are a vast multitude of companies and industries that have compiled horrible records as it relates to employees. And yet they are still in business and many prosper. Thus my main point that employers are neither all good nor all bad, likewise unions are neither all good nor all bad. I invite you to come to a meeting of one of the many Florida manufacturing associations. You will be told by almost everyone in attendance that this is NOT the case. Finding people who have a pulse and will not show up drunk is harder than you might think. Employees cannot afford to "churn and burn" employees like they used to be able to years and years ago. They have since learned their lessons. |
| 2011-05-20 12:31 PM in reply to: #3509454 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law TriRSquared - 2011-05-20 8:22 AM ... Bailing out a "too big to fail" company is interfering with the free market machine. We cannot use this argument as it flies in the face of free market theory. There should be no such thing as too big to fail. You are correct in your statement of what is happening. But it's happening because the government stepped in where they should not have. GM should have been allowed to fail. Currently the US government is supporting a massive union because of their actions. That's not allowing the free market to act. Also I am not arguing that we should not have laws that protect workers. NO one wants child labor or unfair wages. However these are laws that are made by our society as a whole. Not a group of people (the union or the company) with their own best interests in mind. So we should have rules to enforce protection of workers, but the free market will prevent it from happening? If it self-regulates, it should not need a law. As for "no one wants child labor or unfair wages", it was less than a century ago that congress's efforts to regulate child labor was struck down TWICE (1918 and 1924). And defining "unfair wages" is always going to involve judgment calls, with labor and management on different sides of the issue. I don't know where you stand on the issue of illegal immigrant labor, but it is certainly a prime example of what happens when certain markets can get away with it. Cheap labor, easily replaced, afraid to bring a governmental spotlight on themselves - often endure pretty bad wages and working conditions. But a perfect example of free market principles at work. If the work was so well paid, locals would want the jobs. |
| 2011-05-20 12:32 PM in reply to: #3509997 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law Brock Samson - 2011-05-20 12:32 PM trinnas - 2011-05-18 4:20 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 4:10 PM TriRSquared - 2011-05-18 2:20 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-18 1:02 PM I understand the frustration and anger that many have towards unions. However, I believe arguing that unions have outlived their uselfulness ignores the other part of the equation and that is management/ownership, who are far from having "clean hands" in the economic equation. . Please explain why some industries (even some compaines within the same industry, eg.g. automobiles) are able to be profitable and keep their employees happy without unions. In other words, why is it necessary to have unions at say GM when the Toyota plant is operating just fine (I'd argue even better). If management at GM is treating workers unfairly then those workers will migrate towards jobs where they are treated more fairly. The short answer is "different companies". I didn't say that unions are necessary in all industries, nor within different companies within the same industries. I believe you are making the assumption that because GM and Toyota are in the same industries that they have the same work environment, or treat their employees similarly. Henry Ford when he opened his first plant said that the American worker should be paid a high wage, because it benefited industry. His theory was if you paid workers high wages they had excess or expendable income to buy more products thus more profits for him. The problem is of course that not all managers/owners saw or see the world the same. They instead see the easiest and fastest way to make maximum profits is to pay as little as possible. There are indeed companies where unions are not needed because the deal with their employees in a fair manner. They negotiate in a fair manner, they are "generous" to their employees. For these companies I agree that unions offer little to no help and in fact often muddy up the works and end up hurting both employees and management. On the other hand there are companies that do not deal fairly with their employees, that "rape" their own companies, whose upper managment compensation has no relationship to the companies profitability or sustainability. COmpanies that have to be forced by either unions or the government to give anything to their employees. For these companies unions serve a valuable service to the employees. (For example there is a trend in retail that large retailers do not hire any full time employees, they only hire part time employees. They don't have to give their part time employees as many benefits. So the altruistice view of American industry is probably as inaccurate as the altruistic view of unions) Thus, I don't believe that unions have out lived their usefullness. I feel the call for doing away with unions as a whole ignores that there are still abuses perpetrated upon employees by management/owners. I feel it paints the complex picture of our work force with too broad of a brush. That being said, one area that I feel unions have no real purpose is with government employees. Again, please don't misinterpret my stance. I'm not saying that there isn't union abuses. There are. I'm also not diagreeing that in many instances unions do more damage to the economy and employees than good. Additionally, many of the union stances have no basis in reality. But, never forget that these employment terms that many of us feel are so rediculous are negotiated for. They are not unilaterally imposed upon an employer by the union. There is often long, tiresome negotiations between companies and unions. There is as a result a give and take. I feel no sympathy for a company that complains of a term that they negotiated for. I'm simply saying that based upon history, both long term and recent, there is nothing to demonstrate that there aren't American companies that will do everything they can to get every drop of blood out of their employees; and won't give anything unless absolutely forced to. There is bad within employers and good within employers, same with the unions. Bad employers loose their good employees to good employers and soon go out of business that is the free market system. All employees are free to seek jobs elsewhere no one forces them to work for mean ole company B. I still think it is interesting that people will scream to high heaven about price fixing and industry collusion yet laud unions for the exact same behavior. However, in cases of unskilled labor I don't think your premise is accurate. The hospitality industry is a prime example of an industry in which poor and exploitive labor conditions exist, where employers know they can find any number of people to fill the vacancy of a fired employee, and employees don't ask questions or rock the boat. That is odd as my employer a FL Hospital is actively looking for ways to improve employee retention because skilled trained labor is important. It cost companies time and money to constantly replace people thereby harming their productivity and profits; most good companies know this. Believe me I used to work for a company that treated it's employees very poorly, *note the used to. Their turnover was horrendous and they were rapidly loosing what little profitability they had. It has now been sold to another company. |
| 2011-05-20 12:38 PM in reply to: #3510108 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law trinnas - 2011-05-20 1:32 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-20 12:32 PM ..
However, in cases of unskilled labor I don't think your premise is accurate. The hospitality industry is a prime example of an industry in which poor and exploitive labor conditions exist, where employers know they can find any number of people to fill the vacancy of a fired employee, and employees don't ask questions or rock the boat. That is odd as my employer a FL Hospital is actively looking for ways to improve employee retention because skilled trained labor is important. It cost companies time and money to constantly replace people thereby harming their productivity and profits; most good companies know this. Believe me I used to work for a company that treated it's employees very poorly, *note the used to. Their turnover was horrendous and they were rapidly loosing what little profitability they had. It has now been sold to another company.
Ummm....he said "hospitality industry". Not "hospital". Hospitality is things like hotels, restaurants, theme parks. Not medical care. He also specifically said "unskilled labor". Not skilled medical personnel. |
| 2011-05-20 12:43 PM in reply to: #3510126 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law gearboy - 2011-05-20 1:38 PM trinnas - 2011-05-20 1:32 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-20 12:32 PM ..
However, in cases of unskilled labor I don't think your premise is accurate. The hospitality industry is a prime example of an industry in which poor and exploitive labor conditions exist, where employers know they can find any number of people to fill the vacancy of a fired employee, and employees don't ask questions or rock the boat. That is odd as my employer a FL Hospital is actively looking for ways to improve employee retention because skilled trained labor is important. It cost companies time and money to constantly replace people thereby harming their productivity and profits; most good companies know this. Believe me I used to work for a company that treated it's employees very poorly, *note the used to. Their turnover was horrendous and they were rapidly loosing what little profitability they had. It has now been sold to another company.
Ummm....he said "hospitality industry". Not "hospital". Hospitality is things like hotels, restaurants, theme parks. Not medical care. He also specifically said "unskilled labor". Not skilled medical personnel. My bad!!! The hospital industry has both skilled and unskilled labor it is not just medical personnel. Even unskilled labor takes time and money to train for the specific job reducing productivity for the company. btw I do know what the hospitality industry is and have been a waitress, they are even more mobile than "skilled" labor. |
I guess it has been a long day already.| 2011-05-20 5:14 PM in reply to: #3510132 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law trinnas - 2011-05-20 1:43 PM gearboy - 2011-05-20 1:38 PM trinnas - 2011-05-20 1:32 PM Brock Samson - 2011-05-20 12:32 PM ..
However, in cases of unskilled labor I don't think your premise is accurate. The hospitality industry is a prime example of an industry in which poor and exploitive labor conditions exist, where employers know they can find any number of people to fill the vacancy of a fired employee, and employees don't ask questions or rock the boat. That is odd as my employer a FL Hospital is actively looking for ways to improve employee retention because skilled trained labor is important. It cost companies time and money to constantly replace people thereby harming their productivity and profits; most good companies know this. Believe me I used to work for a company that treated it's employees very poorly, *note the used to. Their turnover was horrendous and they were rapidly loosing what little profitability they had. It has now been sold to another company.
Ummm....he said "hospitality industry". Not "hospital". Hospitality is things like hotels, restaurants, theme parks. Not medical care. He also specifically said "unskilled labor". Not skilled medical personnel. My bad!!! The hospital industry has both skilled and unskilled labor it is not just medical personnel. Even unskilled labor takes time and money to train for the specific job reducing productivity for the company. btw I do know what the hospitality industry is and have been a waitress, they are even more mobile than "skilled" labor. I think you and I have different world views, most likely based upon our different life experiences. Neither will probably ever convince the other of the merits of our own position. Which is cool. Good natured friendly debate. I enjoyed hearing your opinion and your views, even if I disagree with them. Thanks for the mental jousting and challenging my view point.  Thanks for listening to, and thinking about my view point. And thanks for challenging my position with respect. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK