Unions - Pros & Cons in Sun Articles

[Bud Plug]

Once again, that's Bull. Whenever someone quotes a percentage they leave out key facts: is that the labour cost in assembling the vehicle? (because most auto makers are mainly assemblers), does that include the labour cost to:
Mine the ore to make the steel?
Smelt the ore to make the steel?
Make the dies to make the parts?
Transport the materials to the assembly plant?

For eg: I've shipped tractor trailer loads from here to chicago. That is 525 miles and the cost was around $1000.00. If that 6% holds true, then the driver should only earn $60.00 for making that trip. Yeah RIGHT. (yes, fuel costs have gone up since then but even still, NO driver will make that run and only earn $60.00)

Also, did that 6% include the wages GM is paying people NOT to work? (part of a past autoworkers contract)

TBoy, you're still on the wrong track. The debate here is about the impact of higher union wages on the bottom line. Your narrow focus on it's relativity to specific costs (like raw materials, or transportation fuel, as examples) misses the point. The point is that in manufacturing, labour costs (where direct or indirect) are less than 20% (a lot less in the automobile industry, probably because of the relatively high cost of raw materials, energy, and marketing) of the total costs of production. That means that increased wage costs have relatively little impact on the bottom line. Give up on this tact, already!

Now, you could argue that margins are so small in a particular industry that even small wage impacts can move a company from a profit position to a loss. However, that would vary wildly by industry and by how well a particular company is managed.

You could also object to unions from a philosophical perspective (or work ethic perspective), as I have.

However, you're really missing the mark on your cost argument.

 

[futurelegend]

EXAMPLE 1
I have a family member that works the IBEW and he has told me that part of his pay is deducted from every paycheck as sort of a "bid fund". This allows the union to undercut a non-union shop when bidding for a large enough job, while still paying it's employees full rate and then deducting that amount again. NET, he makes just slightly more than he would make in a non-union shop, due to the amount of deductions that are made. In this case, the union is relatively useless, but acts as more of a bidding entity, to get it's employees decent work.

EXAMPLE 2
Father of example one. Is an engineer for CN. Unionized. Often, the issues between employee and management are for regular breaks, fair pay and safe working conditions. Some of these engineers are also the ones driving the GO trains. During the last strike, the largest issue was actually that CN was trying to cut the amount of engineers on a train from 2 to 1. This would mean that the same engineer would have to drive the train back and forth for 10 hours straight, without a single break. They would not have washroom breaks or a set lunch break. Would you want to be on a 400 ton train, moving at 100km/h, where the engineer has been driving for 9.5 hours straight and is hungry and exhausted? They were also lobbying to keep their guaranteed break between shifts. They are allowed to book 8hrs rest between shifts, without being able to work and CN was trying to cut that to 4. Again, do you want someone driving a train that has worked 12 hours, then is called in to work after only 4 hours of rest? Probably not. Very little of the dispute had to do with pay or benefits. In this case, the union is very useful and critical to the employees.

EXAMPLE 3
Old customer of mine from a previous employer. Union shop, stamping company that made parts for the Big 3. Shipper/Receiver was about 45-50 and was constantly sleeping at his desk when I would go in. I asked one of the other employees about it and she told me that they had tried to do something about it, but he claimed that it was his medication that made him tired. They couldn't do anything about it, because the union protected him. Union...USELESS!!

Unions still serve purpose in some places, but in the manufacturing sector and in unskilled, general labour, positions specifically, they are only a hindrance to the production levels and operating costs of the manufacturer.

With the cost of fuel what it is right now, why do you think that it is STILL cheaper to get a product made overseas and shipped here, rather than have it manufactured locally?

 

[BredBad]

OK here is my piece, I once worked for Brewers Retail on deliveries in cottage country--I delivered to a liquor store and was finished in two hours-came back to get another load as previously I worked for Pepsi on commission basis--the plant manager told me to get lost and come back at the end of the day as that job is considered a full days work and if I can do it in two hours they will lose the extra hours--hence higher beer costs, another example is goverment work--years ago I was told if you worked for the govt you had a job for life but under market wages--now you have way over market wages/benifits out the ying yang and CUPE/ OPSU etc etc etc standing in line waiting for the next strike mandate as it cost more to live cause prices keep going up- what a crock, If you pay thousands of dollars for your kids to go to school for a good paying job then no lazy ass firing worthy unionized member should make near the same, OH but now they wont but they get 70 to 100K to quit--kinda makes a used car look good

 

[Rylan]

EXAMPLE 1
I have a family member that works the IBEW and he has told me that part of his pay is deducted from every paycheck as sort of a "bid fund". This allows the union to undercut a non-union shop when bidding for a large enough job, while still paying it's employees full rate and then deducting that amount again. NET, he makes just slightly more than he would make in a non-union shop, due to the amount of deductions that are made. In this case, the union is relatively useless, but acts as more of a bidding entity, to get it's employees decent work.

EXAMPLE 2
Father of example one. Is an engineer for CN. Unionized. Often, the issues between employee and management are for regular breaks, fair pay and safe working conditions. Some of these engineers are also the ones driving the GO trains. During the last strike, the largest issue was actually that CN was trying to cut the amount of engineers on a train from 2 to 1. This would mean that the same engineer would have to drive the train back and forth for 10 hours straight, without a single break. They would not have washroom breaks or a set lunch break. Would you want to be on a 400 ton train, moving at 100km/h, where the engineer has been driving for 9.5 hours straight and is hungry and exhausted? They were also lobbying to keep their guaranteed break between shifts. They are allowed to book 8hrs rest between shifts, without being able to work and CN was trying to cut that to 4. Again, do you want someone driving a train that has worked 12 hours, then is called in to work after only 4 hours of rest? Probably not. Very little of the dispute had to do with pay or benefits. In this case, the union is very useful and critical to the employees.

EXAMPLE 3
Old customer of mine from a previous employer. Union shop, stamping company that made parts for the Big 3. Shipper/Receiver was about 45-50 and was constantly sleeping at his desk when I would go in. I asked one of the other employees about it and she told me that they had tried to do something about it, but he claimed that it was his medication that made him tired. They couldn't do anything about it, because the union protected him. Union...USELESS!!

Unions still serve purpose in some places, but in the manufacturing sector and in unskilled, general labour, positions specifically, they are only a hindrance to the production levels and operating costs of the manufacturer.

With the cost of fuel what it is right now, why do you think that it is STILL cheaper to get a product made overseas and shipped here, rather than have it manufactured locally?

Very good examples of all three types of issue surrounding Unions. Great post!

 

[kilkenny2001]

I think that unions should be banned in a monopoly service like the government. If gm goes on strike you can always buy a honda.when CUPE goes on strike you cant get a drivers licence. There are no competive forces to keep wages in check so the union demands what ever wants and the real cheque writers, the public, has no say in the wages. You cant fire them for bad customer service and seniority prevents the cream from rising to the top. We are left with mediocrity because that is inbred in union shops.

 

[Bud Plug]

EXAMPLE 2
Father of example one. Is an engineer for CN. Unionized. Often, the issues between employee and management are for regular breaks, fair pay and safe working conditions. Some of these engineers are also the ones driving the GO trains. During the last strike, the largest issue was actually that CN was trying to cut the amount of engineers on a train from 2 to 1. This would mean that the same engineer would have to drive the train back and forth for 10 hours straight, without a single break. They would not have washroom breaks or a set lunch break. Would you want to be on a 400 ton train, moving at 100km/h, where the engineer has been driving for 9.5 hours straight and is hungry and exhausted? They were also lobbying to keep their guaranteed break between shifts. They are allowed to book 8hrs rest between shifts, without being able to work and CN was trying to cut that to 4. Again, do you want someone driving a train that has worked 12 hours, then is called in to work after only 4 hours of rest? Probably not. Very little of the dispute had to do with pay or benefits. In this case, the union is very useful and critical to the employees.

Interestingly, right after the strike GO reassigned its work to Bombardier.

 

[futurelegend]

Interestingly, right after the strike GO reassigned its work to Bombardier.

That decision was, in large part, due to the way that the Engineers were being handled. However, CN is continuing to make things difficult, by demanding that no engineer is allowed to run a train on their tracks, with less than 3 years experience. This has made it difficult for Bombardier to come up with a sufficient number of crew to run the trains properly.

This is also why 'example 2' and many of his co-workers left CN and moved to VIA at the same time. They were allowed to keep their seniority. Things are completely different at VIA. (apparently)

 

[44fortstreet]

I was in a union once
Yrs ago I worked at Douglas Aircraft as a student.
I remember thinking I was in some kind of
different planet similar to earth but not earth
.....I

Climb only 3 rungs on a ladder
Could not carry a hammer
Could not use a razor
Had to call for another worker to help if I carried anything over 20 lbs.

I was told by a union rep while taking a leak that I had to SLOW down, I was
working too fucking fast.As a kid I was afraid
I saw--others punch in and out fellow workers time cards WHILE the supervisor was there.
I saw workers sleep in steel stores
I saw workers play floor hockey behind steel stores
I saw workers read,eat,drink outside the stringer bay..Great view of planes taking off and landing .

I hated every minute of working there, except the pay check.
Douglas left Canada, wonder why.

Unions are just a business taking $$$$ from workers and screwing
their employers.
I would rather have a barium enema then join a union.

That is all

db

DB's great post is a perfect exposition of one of the major sins of unionism. Unions stifle flexibility, innovation, creativity, and process improvement in the work place, which are the major gateways to continuous quality and productivity improvement. In today's hyper competitive environment, this ability determines who get to survive and prosper. One of the reasons that the Japanese keep kicking North American butts is that every year, they get hundreds of thousands of suggestions to improve their work systems from the front line staff.

The other major sin of unionism is of course the gross inflation of the cost of doing business.

These two major sins over time will eventually render an entity in the private sector non-competitive and become road kill.

The major reason behind these major sins is the institutionalized mind set of unionism. The mentality is antagonistic and the approach is zero sum game. Everything is a win/lose situation. And the win/lose score card is primarily marked by how much it can take from the employer while giving back as little as possible, preferably nothing. Leadership is chosen based on exhibition of such quality.

In the private sector, until union membership comes to the conclusion that its main job is primarily to guard against unfair management practices, but that it shares the same concern as management for the survival of the entity, unionized companies will keep getting brutalized by non-union shops whether locally or globally. And everybody loses.

 

[fuji]

Never had any problems.

Never had any problems I couldn't solve by either renegotiating my contract or quitting and working elsewhere.

Never had a family.

I have a family.

Never had any dental coverage.

Never had any drug plan.

At my present non-unionized job I have both of these, in both cases the best plans you can get. I didn't have these when I was contracting--but I was paid so well it didn't matter, I was able to "self insure" as they say.

Never had any pension.

I have an RRSP and I have savings beyond the RRSP, since I save more than I'm allowed to contribute every year.

True or not?

Not sure what your point is. I also have:

-- A great relationship with my manager
-- A friendly work environemnt
-- A safe work envrionment
-- Interesting work to do
-- A highly profitable employer

I imagine that I would not have any of the above if the company I were working for unionized. That's because even things like making it a safe place to work would become "bargaining chips" rather than things everyone works together on.

In my case management takes an active interest in the wellbeing of workers because we'd quit and go to work for the competition otherwise.

Hence my rule: You only need a union (and the costs of one) when the workers do NOT have the option to quit and work someplace else, such as when a small town has only one employer, or the worker's skills are very, very specific to the employer's business and not transferrable to the competition.