Unions are protecting the Rich

[tboy]

Smerf: if you read the thread I've repeated many times how unions prevented and were needed to overcome the many abuses that occurred.

As for your example of 10 hrs a day 6 days a week. Now it's not the "workers" putting in those hours, it's the middle management staff. The reason I quit working in offices was because it was almost mandatory to work upwards of 70 hrs per week wherever I went. They didn't come right out and say it, but the work load on each person was so high it was impossible to get everything done in an 8 hr day.

See, why I am against unions is directly related to this. What I mean is the union workers in the plant were paid so much that in the front office, they couldn't hire more staff because there wasn't the money left over. And if someone knows more than I, please correct me but I don't believe management can be unionized.

 

[wumpscut]

Tboy, just so I understand. You get overworked and perhaps underpaid for all the unpaid work you do. A union at your work prevents it's members from being abused in a similar fashion. You blame the union for taking too much money from the company yet you don't hold your bosses accountable for overworking you or not paying you fairly... yet upper management can find money to live high off the hog I'll bet.

You blame the union for collectively fighting for thier rights and as much money as they can get while you (who can't form a union) get shafted. Thats like hating the kid who fights the bully and keeps his lunch money while the bully(Management above you in this case) keeps taking from you because you can't fight back (you might get fired for insubordination) At least thats how I see it.
P.S. In answer to your earlier question, what I want is to be paid is a fair wage.... $25/hour would be more than I'd expect. I ain't greedy..... just underpaid,LOL

 

[Rockslinger]

who cheat on their wives or their SO,s. by purchasing sex with hookers.next time i need a moral compass i will be sure to look y,all up...

We are all sinners, this includes unionists and non-unionists. No one over the age of 10 years is without sin.

 

[tboy]

Wump: it's all about balance. The business owners etc deserve to receive the fruits of their labours because they are the ones taking the most risks. I don't begrudge owners their lifestyle but I DO think they ought to be a little more discrete about it. For eg: I worked for a place that had to enter into work sharing due to a drop in business (where office staff worked 4 days instead of 5) and then we see the President/owner show up with a new Jaguar and we found out he took his vacation in Fiji....

As I mentioned, it's about balance. IF the unions were simply after equal pay for equal work, then this thread would be irrelevant and we wouldn't need unions. As I stated in my example if the unions didn't gouge the company there would have been more left over in the budget to hire more office staff. If the union had agreed to more reasonable wages, the company would probably have stayed in business longer and the workers would still have jobs.

One thing about the owners/management: they will take what they want from the company no matter what. So if they expect x amount of dollars they will always take x amount of dollars even if the employees have to pay for it. I guess what I'm trying to say is if the company budgets for $100K in wages/employment costs then that's what it is. If a union takes $75K of that, that leaves only $25K for non union. A good example of this is an earlier example of the union insisting on a 4 hr minimum and a 2 man minimum for any work after 4:30. Even if there is only 1 hr work, we had to pay for 8 hrs. Stuff like that killed the company. If one understands how many businesses operate it is all about profit margins. If the company can't meet it's margins, which allows it to expand, advertise, garner more business, pay it's rent etc, it goes under. Stuff like the 8 hrs wages for 1 hrs work kills margins faster than a nuclear cruise missle. If a company can't stay in business, the union workers are out of a job. THAT'S what I'm trying to say here.

 

[Keebler Elf]

Tboy, just so I understand. You get overworked and perhaps underpaid for all the unpaid work you do. A union at your work prevents it's members from being abused in a similar fashion. You blame the union for taking too much money from the company yet you don't hold your bosses accountable for overworking you or not paying you fairly...

This is the type of person that accounts for 99% of the people complaining about unions.

They see someone else doing better and they get jealous and bitter.

Instead of bashing unions, why don't YOU do something about YOUR situation. Form a management association. Or better yet, quit and find a better job. If you're such a superstar, you should be working for an employer that will recognize that. But to sit back and criticize people who have stood up and taken action when you're not doing the same is downright laughable.

The truth of the matter is that deep down inside, it's always envy.

p.s., I find it absolutely hysterical and ironic that someone who is questioning management's practices in one breath is criticizing the union in the other. Just makes me want to shake my head. Some people never learn...

p.p.s., anyone who thinks unions (in Canada, at least) are going anywhere doesn't know what they're talking about and needs to go educate themselves. The unionization rate is stable at just under 30% and the labour movement is firmly entrenched in our society. If you think unions are just going to fade away, you're sorely mistaken. Smaller unions and locals may merge (just like firms), but unions aren't going anywhere. Right now they're slowly making the transition (along with the rest of us) from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based one. That's why you see unions like the CAW representing office workers. What can be considered a "union job" is slowly changing.

Remember, just b/c you may want unions to disappear, doesn't mean they're going to.

 

[tboy]

Keeb: for what it's worth, one can complain about more than one thing at a time yes?

You're mistaken (at least in my case) that it is envy. It isn't that at all. If you read my posts it is, and always has been my contention that equal pay for equal work should be the norm. If you refer back to my posts you will see many examples of the injustices that unions permit. ie: the guy who works his ass off gets paid the same amount, and gets the same increases as the one who sits on his ass all day.

I did quit and started working for myself. Therefore I can control how much I make and how hard I work and I do get rewarded for my efforts. Being self employed I often hire people on to help for a day or two at a time. Now these people that I hire, I treat them well, if they work hard, I bring em back, if they are lazy ass good for nothings, they don't hear from me again. If I went to the union for labour I'd HAVE to keep them on and pay them more than I was actually making therefore I wouldn't take the contract and then NO one would be working. That sound fair to you?

A great example is the General Labourers Union 605 I think it is. When they took over the place I was working at many of the sub contract installers used to work almost every day, of every week. After they went union MOST of the guys worked 6 days a month. HOW can that BE you say? Because the UNION dictates who works for whom. You see: they have a list of who has been there the longest. The ones with the most seniority get asked first. The new guys in the union get asked last. When you're number 1205 on the list, you don't get to work that often.

If memory serves, most of the installers we used to use all quit the union and went into other businesses because they couldn't afford to work for the union at only 6 days a month. Also for the record many of our customers just stopped doing business with us because the costs went so high. They didn't go to another supplier, they just stopped that business all together and put their money elsewhere (same thing happened to NYC, Chicago, Miami, LA etc)

Also for the record I was the ONE manager that (even though they didn't report to me) they used to come to me for advice re: work or personal matters. After the union was voted in know what they came to me for? COmplaints about how the union was screwing them.....

For eg: Last year I was hired on to be a finishing/site manager for a condo developement. They wanted to put me on salary and I told them to stuff it (literally) because I KNEW I'd be putting in some long hours. In fact, I averaged 120 hrs a week but the kicker was: I made sure I negotiated an hourly rate and was paid for every hour worked. No union was required to do that....

As for management level abuses. You know and I know that every middle manager could quit tomorrow who was in that situation and the jobs would be filled within 2 weeks because that is the norm. If one doesn't agree to putting in the hours to get the job done, they won't be working. EOS.

 

[Moraff]

But does the new union have profit sharing?

Yes.

I bet there is a clause in there somewhere that prohibits unions from owning shares in the company they work for....I wouldn't say for sure because I'm not that up on the laws/rules/regs etc but I could see something like that being in effect....

The share thing might be a possibility as I don't know what the laws on that would be. I would think it would be a good thing for the employees to have shares. More incentive to help the company do good that way.

 

[tboy]

Yes.



The share thing might be a possibility as I don't know what the laws on that would be. I would think it would be a good thing for the employees to have shares. More incentive to help the company do good that way.

LOl that's the benefit to the company of having a profit sharing/stock option program. Not only is it a great benefit to the employee, it also benefits the company (kind of like those westjet commercials lol)

 

[C Dick]

Auto manufacturing is very raw material intensive - steel, glass, plastic of which a lot has to be sourced locally. I'm guessing that 30K$ car might contain 10K$ in raw materials. A 30K$ Nortel switch is going to have a lot less local material in it, so the multiplier effect isn't going to be as big. If 1 auto plant job = 10 jobs, 1 telecom sector job might only equal 3 jobs.

A Nortel switch might have a lot of research labor in it, the that labor can be located anywhere in the world as the end product is easily transportable. Raw materials aren't. That's why the government makes a big stink when GM threatens to close a auto plant. When Nortel moved all it's manufacturing out of Canada, did anyone even notice?

My point is that the materials in things matter less and less, the economic content is what matters. The $30K Nortel switch is a good example, of the $30K, the actual materials and assembly could be $5K worth, the other $25K would be for the design, marketing, support, etc. So even if the entire thing is physically made in China, 25/30ths of the economic value could be retaining in North America, if all the other activities I mentioned were done here. Designers and engineers create more value per person than assemblers do, so let assembly be in China, Canadians can have a higher standard of living by going higher value work.

I don't think the multiplier is that relevant - it is determined more by whether an industry is vertically integrated or not. The auto industry has done a lot of deintegration in their assembly operations, where contractors do more and more, right up to final assembly (they do this because big-three union labour is so inefficient, but that is another discussion). It may be that a 4,000 person auto plant is the final stage of a 40,000 person sub-economy, where the 4,000 person telecom plant is starting right from scratch with no inputs. Or not. And there could be 10 other 4,000 person technology companies in the area, so that each industry in the area has 40,000 people, just that one is is a serial and one is parallel.

Either way that does not mean you should tax the telecom to subsidize the auto though, you need to consider the whole ripple effect through the economy of having it versus not having it, to decide what to do. This is very complex, so it is not suprising that it is hard to make good decisions. If it were true that a small subsidy at the final assembly end could feed everyone down the chain, it might be worth it. But these are giant subsidies, and they are going to need to grow and grow to keep up, to me, it is not worth it, we should cut our losses.

 

[l69norm]

My point is that the materials in things matter less and less, the economic content is what matters. ......Either way that does not mean you should tax the telecom to subsidize the auto though, you need to consider the whole ripple effect through the economy of having it versus not having it, to decide what to do. This is very complex, so it is not suprising that it is hard to make good decisions. If it were true that a small subsidy at the final assembly end could feed everyone down the chain, it might be worth it. But these are giant subsidies, and they are going to need to grow and grow to keep up, to me, it is not worth it, we should cut our losses.

Just looking at some research on this and this seems to be a difference of opinion between "traditional" and "neo-liberal" economists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_deficit

"Traditional" economists like manufacturing and trade surplus. Auto plants use a lot of raw materials and since we have a lot of raw materials, it helps with the trade surplus.

"Neo-liberal" economists favor "labor arbitrage" and trade deficients. Companies can outsource jobs to places with low labor rates in order to gain an absolute economic advantage. Trade deficients can result in economic growth and higher local investments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_advantage

There have been some studies that show auto plant incentives produce net positive gains - Toyota receives $325 million in incentives but puts $632 million in to the Kentucky economy over a 20 year period.
http://www.lanereport.com/archive/ky_info/toyota.html

http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/North-SouthPaper.PDF
"....There is substantial evidence which shows that an incentive package paid to encourage an automaker to invest in a community is quickly recovered through tax revenues generated by the jobs created, along with the additional indirect or spinoff employment effects...."

Essentially, the government uses "traditional" economics policy and that's why they offer auto plant incentives which they hope to quickly recover. Your position represents the "neo-liberal" view which might be equally right?

 

[C Dick]

Norm: yes, you make a number of good points, these things are all a matter of discussion and opinion.

There have been some studies that show auto plant incentives produce net positive gains - Toyota receives $325 million in incentives but puts $632 million in to the Kentucky economy over a 20 year period.

$600M over 20 years = $30M per year = 9% ROI on $325 = not that great?

There are two questions that raises: could $325M invested in something else, such as a technology company, have made a greater return? An industry that would still be thriving and growing in 20, 30 or 40 years, rather than a dying one? And was it not really just a lucky bet, in that Toyota has been beating their competition, so presumably the same $325M in another auto-maker would have made even less?

The second question is, is it really better for the government to be deciding what industries get investment, instead of the market? Wouldn't it have been better to invest $325M in general incentives to any companies that would make capital investments that would lead to job growth?

 

[l69norm]

..
$600M over 20 years = $30M per year = 9% ROI on $325 = not that great?

There are two questions that raises: could $325M invested in something else, such as a technology company, have made a greater return? An industry that would still be thriving and growing in 20, 30 or 40 years, rather than a dying one? And was it not really just a lucky bet, in that Toyota has been beating their competition, so presumably the same $325M in another auto-maker would have made even less?

The second question is, is it really better for the government to be deciding what industries get investment, instead of the market? Wouldn't it have been better to invest $325M in general incentives to any companies that would make capital investments that would lead to job growth?

From what I understand, the whole traditional vs. neo-liberal economic theory discussion has been going on for a while between so-called "professional" economists, so I don't think there's an immediate right answer.

For example, where Nortel would be today had the government interceded with $325M (assuming of course that the Nortel books hadn't been fudged)? A lot of Nortel technology was state of the art and developed in-house by Canadians. Some of this stuff was so far advanced that Cisco is just starting to produce similar technology 7 years later. I assume most of that talent has ended up down south and it's somewhat analogous to the Avro Arrow.

I don't think that it would have necessarily been as much ROI as say a Toyota or Honda plant, but it certainly would have been in the same order of magnitude. Remember, at it's peak Nortel alone accounted for 30% of the TSE100 and even without cooking it's books, it still would have been a huge part of the Canadian economy.

I also assume that a large part of the government's motivation is that the auto plant incentives produce highly visible and noticeable public results - big auto plants with huge/full lots, transporters full of new cars, etc. The results more easily translates to votes at election time. A CD with the latest Canadian written Nortel switch code might be worth more than a whole rail yard full of new cars, but it just doesn't have the same public impact at election time.

Similarly, it's less risky for the government to deal with a Toyota or a Ford because it's one big player, the competition (i.e. other US states) is well known and easy to gauge, and there's a track record for results. If it were a hundred smaller players, it a lot harder to make "good" deals. It also leaves the problem of judging how much that latest CD of Nortel switch code is actually worth.

 

[train]

I've worked at a union shop .... and all I can say is Thank God there was one. The working conditions were terrible.

Management were irresponsible and cared more about pushing out product than cared about the workers. There were injuries and verbal abuses.
The workers had a saying "...until someone dies" which meant until someone dies -- maybe conditions would change.

I was so surprised that environments like that still existed and still do.

Maybe a silly question but given that these situations are not that prevalent anymore in North America why do you think this particular company still had terrible working conditions dispite having a union ? Why was the union so ineffective and why were you glad they were there ?

 

[train]

$600M over 20 years = $30M per year = 9% ROI on $325 = not that great?

?

Not sure you are looking at the complete picture . Factor in additional/incremental State taxes paid by Toyota and all of their workers and local suppliers . I'm guessing that you will end up with a different evaluation.

 

[new2game]

not sure what planet you live on...

Maybe a silly question but given that these situations are not that prevalent anymore in North America why do you think this particular company still had terrible working conditions dispite having a union ? Why was the union so ineffective and why were you glad they were there ?

....but making it sound like the vast majority of employers offer great working conditions??....you must be be living in fantasy land ..unbelieveable. ..where so many employers expect you to be committed to the job 60-80 hrs a week.. but offer 40 hrs pay....where commercials from Rogers to Holiday Inn show you how you can stay connected to work all the time..where other employers feel 10/hr is a liveable wage...nope ..working conditons for the most part on this continent are perfect...


N2G

 

[train]

....but making it sound like the vast majority of employers offer great working conditions??....you must be be living in fantasy land ..unbelieveable. ..where so many employers expect you to[ be committed to the job 60-80 hrs a week.. but offer 40 hrs pay....where commercials from Rogers to Holiday Inn show you how you can stay connected to work all the time..where other employers feel 10/hr is a liveable wage...nope ..working conditons for the most part on this continent are perfect...


N2G

I guess I have a different perspective and I don't think it's fantasy land.

I have 400 employees working for me in a non-unionized plant in Ontario. Of that 300 work in production and 100 in labs qc sales and admin.

The Steelworkers have tried to organize this plant twice and the employees have voted by secret ballot twice to reject a union.

About 5 years ago we bought another business in another province which has about 200 unionized employees. Working conditions were significantly worse than in the Ontario plant - partly due to the building and partly due to the whole culture. The businesses are similar but there are some differences. Over the 5 years we have made some progress but we are still tring to get the two plants on an equilvalent basis.

Surprisingly , both local management and the union have been an impediment to accomplishing this.

So I'm just interested .

Of the manufacturing businesses that I have knowledge of, a vast majority of Ontario companies do offer good working conditions. The non-paid overtime that I have seen is all in middlemanagement and above.

 

[fuji]

I've worked at a union shop .... and all I can say is Thank God there was one. The working conditions were terrible.

It's worth noting though that this can be the RESULT of having a union. Without the union management believes it is responsible for keeping people happy.

Once there is a union in place management will come to see anything it could do to improve working conditions as a potential bargaining chip in contract negotiations, and will not be done except in return for some concession.

The same thing works in reverse: Workers will refuse to do anything to make the company better "for free" if they could potentially use it as a bargaining chip in contract negotiations. So, for example, workers in union shops will refuse to do anything that is outside their job description, no matter how sensible because having their job description "expanded" is a bargaining chip.

In a non-union shop the worker would probably think they could raise their stature in the company by being "helpful", especially if it doesn't really cost them anything.

Similarly, in a non-union shop management would think giving people a break helps "retention" and cuts "turnover", but in a union shop they see it as giving something away for free without getting any concession from the union.

Once everything is explicitly negotiated there is a fundamental change in the relationship.

 

[fuji]

To see just how perverse union politics can get:

I know of one case where a factory manager noticed that female workers were paid less than male workers for similar work, and decided to implement a pay equity scheme. The plan was to RAISE the pay of female workers, without cutting the pay of male workers.

The union OPPOSED to pay raise.

Why? Ultimately, because the union represented workers at several different similar manufacturing organizations, and had NOT fought for this concession at other locations. The union was worried that it would face the ire of female workers in other factories if they thought workers in this factory got a better deal.

I'm not saying that makes unions bad, I'm just saying, once everything is negotiated explicitly some weird things happen.

 

[train]

To see just how perverse union politics can get:

I know of one case where a factory manager noticed that female workers were paid less than male workers for similar work, and decided to implement a pay equity scheme. The plan was to RAISE the pay of female workers, without cutting the pay of male workers.

The union OPPOSED to pay raise.

.

A similar situation happened to us. We were having a hard time filling a certain position. We thought it was because the job was not attractive i.e. repetitive , boring etc. We raised the hourly pay rate beyond what was in the union contract to try to attract workers. The union filed a formal grievance.
Go figure.

 

[Moraff]

A similar situation happened to us. We were having a hard time filling a certain position. We thought it was because the job was not attractive i.e. repetitive , boring etc. We raised the hourly pay rate beyond what was in the union contract to try to attract workers. The union filed a formal grievance.
Go figure.

Just to make sure I understand. The position that you raised the pay rate on. Was it just for the position you needed to fill, or for all employees in that position (if any)? If it was the former I can see why the union grieved.