Unions are protecting the Rich

[new2game]

Spoken like a true company slappie

PS: for the record, I've repeated this over and over again. Many here (as I have) admit that without unions, the abuse of workers would have continued and unions brought about the many laws and rights we have.

BUT, IMO, their usefulness for that purpose has ended and all too often their only concern is money money money.......

...there are rotten unions...just like there are rotten companies....but unions still have their place...when working co-operatively with the company..

For those of you that want to put the blame on the unions for getting the high wages and benefits they got during the gravy times...who gave these wages to them??...the company...obviously their negotiators sucked ass, and were steamrolled by the unions. There's lots of blame to go around for the layoffs ....from management, to marketing, to the workers and the unions..and more layoffs are coming...To any of you that think you are immune to this shift..think again...no matter what business you are in,youill feel some effect form this..and the further layoffs to come. Better be set for some rough times ahead..I know I've set up for it..

N2G

 

[tboy]

Actually New2, you have some good points there but you can't point blame at a company's ability to negotiate or not. The basic problem is: if they don't eventually give in to the union demands, they are out of business. And that's the problem right there. For eg: GM is on the ropes financially. Sure they have HUGE labour costs due to giving into union demands in previous negotiations BUT (and again, this is a HUGE black mofo butt) if they hadn't given in, they would have been out of business a long time ago because when the UAW goes on strike, GM can't build cars and trucks and every second the line doesn't run, they lose massive amounts of money.

For eg: (and this is where I totally lost faith in unions) anyone remember when Chrysler shut down ALL their plants and filed for chapter 11? Lee Iaccoa begged borrowed and pleaded and got a bail out from the US government. Well 3 weeks after they opened their doors again, the union goes on strike. That is just one pebble into the pond but you throw enough pebbles and the large wave eventually hits land (hence the 12,000 ppl laid off this week).

 

[fuji]

I still think unions fundamentally make sense only in firms where the firm has a monopoly on hiring (the only major employer in a small town, like a mine in the middle of nowhere), OR, where workers at the firm gain a lot of firm-specific skills that are not really transferrable to any other employer.

In either of those cases the company essentially has the workers over a barrel. There is either nowhere else to work, or the worker has invested in skills that are not worth as much anywhere else. The free market will fail workers in this case and unless they band together they are screwed.

In any other case, where there are lots of employers, and the skills that workers learn are easily transferred to another employer, then the free market does a better job of improving conditions: If one employer treats people like crap they can freely go work for another that treats them better.

It USED to be the case that auto workers were in this boat, that they learned skills that were so specific to one manufacturers brand of cars that they really couldn't work effectively in some other factory. Some have written up thread that this is no longer the case, that the skills required in a modern auto plant are easily transferred to another industry.

I think, though, that most places where there are unions these conditions don't hold, and in that case, the union makes the whole relationship between workers and management antagonistic when there is no need for it, and results in a less efficient company--inevitably one that has to lay people off because of more efficient competition elsewhere.

 

[fuji]

That antagonistic part often makes unions look like they are justified where they are not. When there is a union the relationship between workers and management will be testy, with each trying to get a better deal, and essentially it'll look like management is horrible and trying to screw the workers.

Same management without the union might have treated them great, recognizing that they are a key asset that could take off and work for another firm if not well treated.

In industries with high skilled workers who have easily transferrable skills, say software developers, architects, etc., working conditions tend to be fantastic and there are no unions precisely because it's the workers who have the market power.