Unions increase unemployment.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Question For Americans... What Do You Think Of Unions?
The topic title should have been, "Question for Americans with experience". It's important to personally see the inside operation of these companies.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Unions are good for the workers and unions increase unemployment.
Must be why UPS has over a quarter million employees. Employees that have better benefits and better pay than their competitors.. while remain very profitable.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
UPS is not a good example of unions. try an industry not based on a very secure commodity. cars, planes, etcKmarion wrote:
Must be why UPS has over a quarter million employees. Employees that have better benefits and better pay than their competitors.. while remain very profitable.
The goodness or badness of a union is dependent entirely upon the actions of that union. The problem with unions in the US is that many have devolved from their original purpose of protecting workers' rights (and lives) into political beasts whose entire purpose now seems to be continuation of the union and/or furtherance of the political views of the union's leadership.Braddock wrote:
What do you think of the concept of unions? Do they provide a positive platform upon which hard working citizens can voice their opinions and fight for basic rights and conditions in the workplace? Or are they an evil form of Communist mob-tactics? Obviously many unions have been found to be incredibly corrupt throughout US history but this has largely been due to organised crime gangs, what I want to discuss here is the underlying philosophy of 'the union' - a collective of workers who can use the power of numbers to talk to the people in charge and campaign for certain conditions and so on.
I ask this because there often seems to be a huge difference in opinion between many Americans and Europeans on the issue.
Unions that stick to their original principles generally are not looked down upon (UTA being an example).
Those that abuse their power to garner wages and benefits that are ridiculously high compared to similarly skilled and employed workers elsewhere generally are (UAW being a fine example of this).
Those that lobby for political issues that have nothing to do with employee wages/benefits/working conditions are generally frowned upon (NEA is an example of this).
Those that force workers to unionize in order to gain employment are generally frowned upon (Teamsters/UAW/etc are examples of this).
Workers certainly have a right to unionize. Conversely, they should have the right NOT to unionize, should they so choose, without fear of retribution or degraded work environment from their unionized fellow workers (mob tactics).
One of the biggest reasons I have issues with unions is that, for many, their original goals have been accomplished via legislation. Safe working conditions, equitable pay and benefits, etc all have some kind of standard set nationally and state-by-state (national being the minimum, states can only increase the requirement). So many of the unions have devolved into PACs without changing their names or status simply so they can continue to exist. They don't care about the workers any longer...they only care about the continuation of the union machine.
Of course, there are a few notable examples contrary to that, but generally, that is the case in the US.
Chomsky needs to lay off the NyQuil. Unions haven't been removed in the US. They are still in full effect.JahManRed wrote:
The removal of unions in the USA was in line with the Capitalist doctrine which is failing in the USA and the rest of the world. Yes unions can have too much power in France of example. If regulated properly they help workers get a fair deal.
Inherently evil? No. Unethical and wrong? Yes.Braddock wrote:
Question: does anyone else think the idea of attempting to ban unionisation or sacking anyone discovered to be part of a union as inherently evil?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I think there is no sweeping answer for this. In the broad strokes I feel that unions serve a purpose to stand up for worker rights at a point and time. I think over time they can overstay their welcome when their relevance dies and they linger. Kinda like that ring in lotr.
I have had nothing but bad experiences with unions and most of the workers. I have no doubt that there are good unions and union members out there but in my opinion they are few are far between. to me it turns into elitist bullshit. I was a non union caulker for a year and was treated like shit by the union workers on the job sites.
when I was at a job site I was there to work my ass off 8 to 10 hours. I don't take breaks other then a half hour or hour for lunch. well try to continue working when all the lazy ass union jerks take their break. they get pissed at you!!! I'm not even kidding! "hey stop working! we are on break for the 10th time today!" they spend the 15 minutes leading up to break slacking off getting ready for the break, then take 5 or so extra minutes on break, and then spend another 20 minutes trying to get back to the work they are overpaid to do. and then they all hover around the damn time clock 10 minutes before they leave. of course not all union employees are like this but the majority I came across were.
when I was at a job site I was there to work my ass off 8 to 10 hours. I don't take breaks other then a half hour or hour for lunch. well try to continue working when all the lazy ass union jerks take their break. they get pissed at you!!! I'm not even kidding! "hey stop working! we are on break for the 10th time today!" they spend the 15 minutes leading up to break slacking off getting ready for the break, then take 5 or so extra minutes on break, and then spend another 20 minutes trying to get back to the work they are overpaid to do. and then they all hover around the damn time clock 10 minutes before they leave. of course not all union employees are like this but the majority I came across were.
Onion bureaucrats do that, not onion members.usmarine wrote:
unions destroy companies and take money away from non union workers.
great in theory, bloated and corrupt in practice.
It's a great example. You can compare it directly to it's competitors. They offer the same exact apples to apples service... the ones who aren't unionized.usmarine wrote:
UPS is not a good example of unions. try an industry not based on a very secure commodity. cars, planes, etcKmarion wrote:
Must be why UPS has over a quarter million employees. Employees that have better benefits and better pay than their competitors.. while remain very profitable.
Good and bad is my verdict.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
yes but how many choices do people really have for cargo? the normal person has a handful of options.Kmarion wrote:
It's a great example. You can compare it directly to it's competitors. They offer the same exact apples to apples service... the ones who aren't unionized.usmarine wrote:
UPS is not a good example of unions. try an industry not based on a very secure commodity. cars, planes, etcKmarion wrote:
Must be why UPS has over a quarter million employees. Employees that have better benefits and better pay than their competitors.. while remain very profitable.
Good and bad is my verdict.
they can basically set whatever price they want.
how many choices do people have when it comes to cars?
It's very competitive... well it used to be. DHL just got their asses kicked here in the states.usmarine wrote:
yes but how many choices do people really have for cargo? the normal person has a handful of options.Kmarion wrote:
It's a great example. You can compare it directly to it's competitors. They offer the same exact apples to apples service... the ones who aren't unionized.usmarine wrote:
UPS is not a good example of unions. try an industry not based on a very secure commodity. cars, planes, etc
Good and bad is my verdict.
they can basically set whatever price they want.
how many choices do people have when it comes to cars?
Shipping relies on SERVICE. If it were nothing but a bunch of lazy union workers they would tank.. quickly. The fact is that most union employees still work hard. For various reasons, like promotions.
I filed one grievance in 13 years. They screwed my pay up for 3 months. They had no interest in fixing it until I filed.. fact.
One problem is that the hard workers just get abused more. Rather than go at the hardcore union people sometimes management will just put more work on people who would rather just get the job done. Then the union peeps give them (the hard workers) a hard time because they make them look bad... fact.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
i am not saying they are lazy. i am saying that cargo is the most secure industry when it comes to transportation, and is a bad example when it comes to unions.
when people book an airline ticket, they go to a website that has many options. with cargo, you get like 4 choices....sometimes no choice if you are buying from a particular customer.
when people book an airline ticket, they go to a website that has many options. with cargo, you get like 4 choices....sometimes no choice if you are buying from a particular customer.
The predominant argument against unions is that they protect the weak and lazy. I assure you UPS gives you much more than 4 options. Not to mention they have branched off into many other industries.. not just shipping (home deliver, logistics and supply lines). It would blow your mind. UPS does not advertise those things much. They really don't need to.usmarine wrote:
i am not saying they are lazy. i am saying that cargo is the most secure industry when it comes to transportation, and is a bad example when it comes to unions.
when people book an airline ticket, they go to a website that has many options. with cargo, you get like 4 choices....sometimes no choice if you are buying from a particular customer.
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/bussol … vices.html
http://www.upscapital.com/solutions/sbl_main.html
http://www.upscapital.com/solutions/cod … ement.html
http://www.upscapital.com/solutions/insurance.html
http://www.upscapital.com/solutions/creditcardsvc.html
http://www.upscapital.com/solutions/gscf.html
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/bussol … ility.html
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/bussol … icals.html
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/bussol … ology.html
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/bussol … ology.html
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/bussol … irect.html
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/bussol … eight.html
Xbone Stormsurgezz
i don't think you are understanding my point.
take skybus for example. here you have pilots making twice to three times as much as most people in the company. you are flying brand new automated airplanes. yet pilots are raised above anyone else in the industry. it has been that way since the 60's when they were like celebrities really.
they sign on knowing exactly what they are getting into. but, after a while they decide they should become union. why? they know it will kill a start up airline, yet still want to do it.
what makes someone think they are owed more? we all think we are worth more. its human nature. but we are not forced to work for anybody. what gives us the right to demand anything? just fucking quit of you don't like it.
take skybus for example. here you have pilots making twice to three times as much as most people in the company. you are flying brand new automated airplanes. yet pilots are raised above anyone else in the industry. it has been that way since the 60's when they were like celebrities really.
they sign on knowing exactly what they are getting into. but, after a while they decide they should become union. why? they know it will kill a start up airline, yet still want to do it.
what makes someone think they are owed more? we all think we are worth more. its human nature. but we are not forced to work for anybody. what gives us the right to demand anything? just fucking quit of you don't like it.
Our pilots are mostly millionaires. They have their own union..lol.
A union cannot stop a business from laying off people if the economic circumstances dictate it. Your philosophy lacks common sense. Unions do not collect dues from the unemployed. It's a contradiction to simple logic. You toss my example out because it works and use your own because it's one that clearly has it's problems.
Again --> good and bad.
A union cannot stop a business from laying off people if the economic circumstances dictate it. Your philosophy lacks common sense. Unions do not collect dues from the unemployed. It's a contradiction to simple logic. You toss my example out because it works and use your own because it's one that clearly has it's problems.
Again --> good and bad.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
oh ok.Kmarion wrote:
Our pilots are mostly millionaires. They have their own union..lol.
A union cannot stop a business from laying off people if the economic circumstances dictate it. Your philosophy lacks common sense. Unions do not collect dues from the unemployed. It's a contradiction to simple logic. You toss my example out because it works and use your own because it's one that clearly has it's problems.
Again --> good and bad.
tell me why you need unions. when so many people work without them, what makes a select few so special?
Well aside from the precious example I gave you.usmarine wrote:
oh ok.Kmarion wrote:
Our pilots are mostly millionaires. They have their own union..lol.
A union cannot stop a business from laying off people if the economic circumstances dictate it. Your philosophy lacks common sense. Unions do not collect dues from the unemployed. It's a contradiction to simple logic. You toss my example out because it works and use your own because it's one that clearly has it's problems.
Again --> good and bad.
tell me why you need unions. when so many people work without them, what makes a select few so special?
Need is subjective in this case. No one needs a union. You can obviously choose to grab your ankles and take it. A Union can help the employee out in many different ways. For example, I had a problem getting my disability when I was injured. I couldn't get anywhere with HR. With a big company you often get passed from office to office. One call to my union hall fixed that. They served me and helped me get what was promised to me when I was hired. Obviously there is a problem with corporate responsibility and employees are still, even in these days shit all over.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Would it be better if everyone was union? i don't think it should be selective then right?
I'm a man of choice. Florida is a right to work state. Meaning you don't have to join to be employed. I think that should be the option everywhere. I don't think CA is.. might be wrong though.usmarine wrote:
Would it be better if everyone was union? i don't think it should be selective then right?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
when i worked in south carolina, i had that choice.Kmarion wrote:
I'm a man of choice. Florida is a right to work state. Meaning you don't have to join to be employed. I think that should be the option everywhere. I don't think CA is.. might be wrong though.usmarine wrote:
Would it be better if everyone was union? i don't think it should be selective then right?
but, do you think we would be better off if everyone was union?
No because every local union is ran different. That's why I say choice.usmarine wrote:
when i worked in south carolina, i had that choice.Kmarion wrote:
I'm a man of choice. Florida is a right to work state. Meaning you don't have to join to be employed. I think that should be the option everywhere. I don't think CA is.. might be wrong though.usmarine wrote:
Would it be better if everyone was union? i don't think it should be selective then right?
but, do you think we would be better off if everyone was union?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
yeah thats so true "unions do protect the lazy"lilbaily2 wrote:
hes 100% right, unions protect the lazy while the company has to cater to their needsusmarine wrote:
unions destroy companies and take money away from non union workers.
THIS.FEOS wrote:
The goodness or badness of a union is dependent entirely upon the actions of that union. The problem with unions in the US is that many have devolved from their original purpose of protecting workers' rights (and lives) into political beasts whose entire purpose now seems to be continuation of the union and/or furtherance of the political views of the union's leadership.Braddock wrote:
What do you think of the concept of unions? Do they provide a positive platform upon which hard working citizens can voice their opinions and fight for basic rights and conditions in the workplace? Or are they an evil form of Communist mob-tactics? Obviously many unions have been found to be incredibly corrupt throughout US history but this has largely been due to organised crime gangs, what I want to discuss here is the underlying philosophy of 'the union' - a collective of workers who can use the power of numbers to talk to the people in charge and campaign for certain conditions and so on.
I ask this because there often seems to be a huge difference in opinion between many Americans and Europeans on the issue.
Unions that stick to their original principles generally are not looked down upon (UTA being an example).
Those that abuse their power to garner wages and benefits that are ridiculously high compared to similarly skilled and employed workers elsewhere generally are (UAW being a fine example of this).
Those that lobby for political issues that have nothing to do with employee wages/benefits/working conditions are generally frowned upon (NEA is an example of this).
Those that force workers to unionize in order to gain employment are generally frowned upon (Teamsters/UAW/etc are examples of this).
Workers certainly have a right to unionize. Conversely, they should have the right NOT to unionize, should they so choose, without fear of retribution or degraded work environment from their unionized fellow workers (mob tactics).
One of the biggest reasons I have issues with unions is that, for many, their original goals have been accomplished via legislation. Safe working conditions, equitable pay and benefits, etc all have some kind of standard set nationally and state-by-state (national being the minimum, states can only increase the requirement). So many of the unions have devolved into PACs without changing their names or status simply so they can continue to exist. They don't care about the workers any longer...they only care about the continuation of the union machine.
Of course, there are a few notable examples contrary to that, but generally, that is the case in the US.
Chomsky needs to lay off the NyQuil. Unions haven't been removed in the US. They are still in full effect.JahManRed wrote:
The removal of unions in the USA was in line with the Capitalist doctrine which is failing in the USA and the rest of the world. Yes unions can have too much power in France of example. If regulated properly they help workers get a fair deal.
Inherently evil? No. Unethical and wrong? Yes.Braddock wrote:
Question: does anyone else think the idea of attempting to ban unionisation or sacking anyone discovered to be part of a union as inherently evil?
The above quote is a wall of text that should be read.
The Union that exists solely to protect the worker from abusive working conditions is, in a word, Improbable.
The union exists to maximize the benefits to their constituents (workers) - NOT to negotiate a fair deal, NOT to negotiate a deal that equally balances the needs of the workers, the company, and the nation's economic well-being. No, the union is there to work for the maximum benefit they can achieve for their workers. It's just how it works - and it's killing the American manufacturing base.
Too many of the modern American Unions artificially inflate the wages and benefits of their members completely beyond a reasonable open-market value - to the detriment or demise of the company that employs their members.
In plain english, "How the hell do you expect us to keep our operations in the USA when we have to pay someone $35/hour to push a broom?!"
The primary reason the USA cannot compete in manufacturing anymore, is our unions. We can still design some of the coolest shit on the planet - but we have to outsource the manufacturing to places where you don't have to spend $35/hour on the janitorial staff.
AND no, we cannot automate our plants to match the competition on production costs (Japan, Germany) - the Unions insist that their plants have to have <X> number of union workers .. 'or else'.
The American Automotive industry tried to compete with their ascending rivals (Japan, Germany, etc) during the 1970's and 1980's, but ended up getting decimated because of the USA's insane unionized labor costs. Again.. we lost our asses to a country that has to import nearly every ounce of metal they use in anything
The solution?
In the 1980's, 1990's, and 2000's, all the manufacturing that could be moved overseas, was moved overseas.
We can still design the coolest cars on the planet - but it would cost $75,000 to build it here with UAW workers. Japan can do it for $35,000. Germany can do it for $35,000 too - but they get to tack on another $15,000 for their sterling reputation for quality.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Question For Americans... What Do You Think Of Unions?