Unions...

[Joey Jeremiah]

What are your thoughts on them? Are you part of one? I am just curious, since I know absolutely jack about them...

Do they serve a useful purpose in protecting employees? Do they discourage innovation and stifle the top performers?

 

[y2kmark]

Union

Wejust recently voted in a union, don't even have a contract yet and management has already put some positive changes in place. Without some sort of advocacy employers have just about unlimited power over people, and power corrupts. The dues seem worth it to have a needed counter balance.

BTW "top performers" are often in the eye of the beholder, and merely those most willing to "suck up" to the boss - look at the new US Secretary of State as a concrete example.

 

[to-guy69]

Unions and management is a marriage that never goes away...so they try to get along as best as possible (easier said then done).

If you are apart of a North American union, it's very easy to like them. Conversely, if you are not apart of a union, one typically holds an opposing view (since most workers are not unionized in the real world - over 70%).

In my opinion, unions definitely had their day and served their purpose long ago in that they aimed to protect workers from certain employers who may have otherwise subjected their staff to unfair labor pratices (poor working conditions, terrible wages, ect.)

The problem with unions today is that they are not about equality and fairness in the workplace....they are primarily about GREED and SELF INTEREST.

As long as owners and management obey the laws and legislation before them, they have a right to run their business as they see fit without having the "tail wag the dog"

If the employees don't like it, they are free to work elsewhere...

 

[spartan5782]

What are your thoughts on them? Are you part of one? I am just curious, since I know absolutely jack about them...

Do they serve a useful purpose in protecting employees? Do they discourage innovation and stifle the top performers?

Timely question for me since our Union Agreement expires this April and we are about to begin negotiations (I'm on the Management side of things).

I honestly prefer working with a Union when dealing with straight labor (truck drivers and warehouse workers). There's not much creativity there, so having set rules and regulations, job classifications, wages and wage increases for the next 4 years makes it a damn site easier for me. If there's a problem, I deal with the Steward, one voice, rather than a line up of individuals.

For the members, their security is knowing that they are interchangable within a classification, so layoffs and recalls are seniority based...meaning the new young kid will get cut before the 20 year vet. They don't have to look over their shoulder wondering if they are going to be replaced by youth, as long as they can perform the job.

Other than layoffs or job eliminations (possibly shift preference and overtime), not much else Seniority will protect. A violation of the Agreement can still lead to discipline and termination, and the member can file a grievance, but if it's in the contract, and due process has be adhered to, then he won't have a case. It does however prevent Management from "creating" an infraction and chosing to terminate without just cause.

Like anything else, there's pros and cons. The strength of the Union and language of the Agreement determines a good working relationship.

Now, if you are dealing with job descriptions that's more subjective and creative, such as sales, R&D, marketing, management...all where performance should lead to higher compensation, then I'd shy away from leveling the comp because it would lead to less initiative and drive. Just my opinion...hopes this helps.

 

[GIMME]

What are your thoughts on them? Are you part of one? I am just curious, since I know absolutely jack about them...

Do they serve a useful purpose in protecting employees? Do they discourage innovation and stifle the top performers?

I am not part of a Union, but my vendors have unions and they are pain in the BUTT. I find that Union employees are slouches, arrogant, sob's.

Ok, this is a tender subject to me. Some unions are good to have, and they do a good job of protecting the employees, while not letting the employee take advantage of the system, but there are some that just suck shit....

 

[teach]

Why they served their purpose at their beginning, now they seem to be a paradize for slackers. I dare say - it's communism!

I agree... unions breed complacency... i should know, i'm part of one and most of the people i work with are fat, lazy bastards who believe they are somehow "entitled" to what they receive...

 

[WhOiSyOdAdDy?]

Do they serve a useful purpose in protecting employees? Do they discourage innovation and stifle the top performers?

Yes unions serve a purpose...

Their purpose is leading their members to believe that they only serve and protect their members best interests while line their pockets with as much of their members money as possible and do what is best for the union, which is not always the same as what is in the best interest of the member.

When guys are laid off.. they still need to keep their union dues up to date.

Aren't unions great?

They may have served their purpose in the 30's.. but their time has long since passed

 

[Keebler Elf]

Some of the most benovelent, altruistic people I've ever met are union officials. These are people who fight for the basic rights of new immigrants who work in Toronto sweatshops. Yes, Toronto sweatshops. If you don't think that Buzz Hargrove gives a damn about the average worker or the below-the-poverty-line workers of Canada, then you don't know what the fark you're talking about and you need to educate yourself on the matter (and no, I'm not a member of the CAW or a Buzz-lover, but I do recognize someone who fights a cause they believe in and that's a hell of a lot more than the average Canadian does).

If you think unions are rolling in cash, then you truly don't have a clue what you're talking about. Most unions barely break even; they are not profit enterprises. Grievances cost money; piles of it. And strikes cost even more. Add to that shrinking union memberships (meaning less dues) and the idea that union officials are rolling in money is so far fetched it's laughable. If you've ever worked in a union head office you'd quickly learn that they are chronically under-staffed for the numbers of members they serve. And let's not even get started on the pension funding issues, which could suck up every available penny.

To say unions are all about milking their members for money is the height of ignorance, plain and simple. And it usually comes from someone who hates unions, yet knows so little about them.

Think of a union as your bargaining agent. If you have the pull to bargain for yourself (e.g. you have a skill set that is in very high demand), then you may not need a union. But for the other 75-95% of society, bargaining in numbers is much more effective than bargaining as an individual.

Really, it all depends. Unskilled labour is, IMHO, much better off with a union. Highly skilled labour that is usually highly educated, on the other hand, may have the clout to bargain their own terms of employment more effectively as an individual (especially if it's a management job).

Unions are advocates for their members. And it is b/c of this that they are as relevant today as in the past. When someone tells you they are irrelevant in today's society, there's a 95% chance that they just don't like unions and will look for any excuse to slag them.

 

[l69norm]

......Without some sort of advocacy employers have just about unlimited power over people, and power corrupts....

I've worked both sides as an union steward and later as a front line manager for a large company well known for it's fairness and good treatment of employees.

I can recall a few cases where some line managers decided to do thier own warped interpetation of the company policies (i.e. absolute power corrupts) and it was left up to the union stepped in to ensure that the real company policies were being followed.

I once had a case where a manager arbitarly changed someone's shift schedule without any attempt to contact the employee who was on days off. The manager then issued a letter of disipline to the employee for not showing up for his "newly" scheduled shift. The irony was that the employee wasn't needed that day anyway as there was already full shift working !! Upper management supported the manager until the union brought out the full story of what really happened.

Another manager decided to have asbestos insulation removed from the a/c system while employees where still in the office !!!!! Besides violating all the company safety policies, it is also highly illegal.

I also handled a few greviances as a steward where members were being lazy or were caught "sleeping on the job".

I've also seen where a line manager would "bend" the policies and put his own job at risk to help an union member (i.e. someone with a drinking problem).

All in all, absolute power does corrupt and an union does counter balance this. Remember that 99% of union members and front line managers in any company are honest and fair. The union is there to protect employees from the 1% of managers that are abusive.

 

[Keebler Elf]

What are your thoughts on them? Are you part of one? I am just curious, since I know absolutely jack about them...

Do they serve a useful purpose in protecting employees? Do they discourage innovation and stifle the top performers?

I've been a member of several unions and I've worked in senior management positions that dealt with unions on the most direct levels of contact.

Unions absolutely protect their employees. Your job security without a union is vastly inferior to that with one. You will be guaranteed your fair day in court, so to speak. Management will be required to prove improper behaviour and justify discipline. Gasp! Who can imagine such requirements in a modern society such as ours!

Do they discourage innovation? Sometimes. But less today than they did 10 years ago. Unions are often a conservative force in the workplace (versus a liberal force on social issues, usually), meaning they traditionally oppose any innovation that threatens the union's security (such as technology that might result in layoffs). However, unions have begun to realize that standing in the way of progress is bad both as an immediate PR issue and bad as a longrun strategy that usually results in making a company inefficient and more likely to risk mass layoffs down the line. On the flipside, unions give employees voice who might never have had it before (e.g. through joint committees with management) which can result in tremendous innovations. Really, the extent that unions discourage innovation is determined by the kind of relationship a particular union has with management.

Do they discourage top performers? Perhaps, but you have to realize that when you join a union shop you are agreeing to the principle of seniority. So no matter how great a worker you are, how long you've worked there will usually still be a factor in promotions. Contrary to popular belief however, many employers have explicit terms that promotions will be based on both seniority and ability. Far too many people join a union shop and then bitch and whine about seniority limiting their upward mobility. IMO, they should have paid more attention to what seniority means when they were hired rather than just being interested in the higher average wage that unions provide. Should seniority be everything? I don't think so. But I do think it should be a factor. Seniority can't be disputed. How much of a "top performer" you are is wide open to interpretation.

Besides, if you're looking to climb the corporate ladder, you should be looking to either get into management or union leadership - jobs where seniority don't apply.

 

[2fast]

Yes unions serve a purpose...

Their purpose is leading their members to believe that they only serve and protect their members best interests while line their pockets with as much of their members money as possible and do what is best for the union, which is not always the same as what is in the best interest of the member.

When guys are laid off.. they still need to keep their union dues up to date.

Aren't unions great?

They may have served their purpose in the 30's.. but their time has long since passed

I'm not going to venture into the union arguement other than to say that the reason workplaces are safe in this country today is because of unions, and the union members who stood together and demanded it.

And no, you are not required to pay dues while on layoff. Unfortunately i've got far more experience with being laid off than i care to admit.

 

[nautilus]

I've been on both sides of the fence. I've been a Teamster. Ive managed Teamsters. I've also done both hourly and mgt jobs in non unionized shops.
The bottom line is this: If a company treats employees fairly, the employees will NOT vote in a union. If mgt treats people unfairly, the likelihood of a union being voted in increases.
Unions not only protect employees, but the majority of union jobs pay better and provide better benefits including pensions.
On the other hand a company like Dofasco keeps their workplace non unionized by providing a little more for their employyes than their unionized counterpart Stelco. A pretty smart approach if you ask me, but a very rare situation.

 

[train]

If you think unions are rolling in cash, then you truly don't have a clue what you're talking about. Most unions barely break even; they are not profit enterprises. Grievances cost money; piles of it.

To say unions are all about milking their members for money is the height of ignorance, plain and simple. And it usually comes from someone who hates unions, yet knows so little about them.

Just because you say so doesn't make any of it true .

Fact = there is no longer a legal requirement for unions to publicly file their financial statements or the salaries of the union executive ....unlike the requirement for all public companies.
Fact= in the last year that it was a requirement the average amount of the dues collected that was spent by the unions on the members for negotiation , grievence prosecution and strike pay was 17% . That's right 17% . So if they barely break even then that means 83% goes to paying for Buzz and his buddies to do what exactly?
Fact= the excess of union dues received over amounts paid out (anyone else would call this profit ) is tax free .
Fact=the Steelworkers Union in the US siphons off 40% of the dues paid by Canadian members and then lobbied for increased tariffs to prevent Canadian steel from being exported to the US.
Fact= the Steelworkers in the US recorded as an expense the purchase of a golf course in Michigan.
Fact=union membership is dropping . Why? Just a guess but maybe they aren't worth the dues ?

 

[train]

I'm not going to venture into the union arguement other than to say that the reason workplaces are safe in this country today is because of unions, and the union members who stood together and demanded it.

QUOTE]

I can't speak for 50 years ago but I see no evidence of that today . The Ministry of Labour is surprisingly thorough . The only experience I have directly is with the local union president holding up changes in procedures designed to improve safety until he was made a member of the safety committee ( then everything he was arguing against he voted for immediately ) . Oh did I mention that the safety committee spends about 1 day a month in meetings and not on the production floor ?

 

[HafDun]

Socialism not communism

Why they served their purpose at their beginning, now they seem to be a paradize for slackers. I dare say - it's communism!

I'm suprised everyone let this one by. Unions are a far cry from Communism. Communism is about common ownership of all commerce. Unfortunately that is not practical in real life. Unions do not usually want to own their workplace.
Conversely, they want to make sure their members get the biggest possible benefit from it. This is socialism, which is a totally different concept, and in Canada is much more acceptable.
I have never been in a union and have spent several years in management but I recognise that management, without any checks and balance, would minimize what they give the workers in favour of bigger profits for the shareholder.
Unions serve an increasing purpose as the skill level of the members decrease. Those workers with little or no skills have no bargaining power as individuals because there has always been an excess supply of unskilled labour (except during major wars).
The problem with unions, like corporations, is when they become too big & powerful, they can develop a buraucracy that is wasteful and corruption can take place. It is possible for a group of workers to join a union that dwarfs the size of the firm that employs them. This has the potential of creating unfair bargaining tactics.

Interesting to look at company like Honda. A major employer in central Ontario, with no union and a full range of worker skills. And I have yet to talk to anyone who has any major beef with management.
A little respect goes a long way.

 

[james t kirk]

I have never been in a union, but I support their existance that's for sure.

I truly believe that without Unions, we would be right back to 1900 very very quickly. You can see it in the way that big corporations already treat their employees, and the way they talk now. "We need to be more competative", translation, "we need to pay you less", or "We need to be more productive", translation, "You need to work free overtime", or "We need to explore various options, translation, "We need to move production to China", etc. etc.

Most companies are not interested in anything but the bottom line.

I have a great story about unions. My friend used to work on the line at Ford in Oakville a few years ago and Ford brought in this outside contractor to do some work on the plant. I don't remember if it was installing machinery, or whatever.

Anyway, they were all from the states and there was this one guy who worked for this company who was mouthing off about unions all the time being lazy, communistic, the usual. Anyway, one day on a coffee break one of the Ford guys ask this guy how much he makes.

He responds $8.00 an hour (seriously), and the Ford guys all bust out laughing at how stupid he is and tell him, well we all make $22.00 an hour (or whatever they made) plus overtime.

True story.

 

[auto doctor]

Without getting into all the debate issues. The bottom line is:

Where people are being abused, Unions will flourish.

 

[train]

Without getting into all the debate issues. The bottom line is:

Where people are being abused, Unions will flourish.

I agree 100% when talking about the private sector - disagree when you refer to the public sector . Very few large private sector employers abuse their employees .

Unions are no longer flourishing . I guess this is the case if you consider the number of jobs has increased and total union membership is down . This is even more dramatic if you factor out government employees .

If the Unionists out there are so convinced of their worth they shouldn't have any problem with the model in many US states where employees have the right to declare individually whether they want to be part of the union . They might also consider making their internal affairs transparent and truly democratic .

 

[xarir]

Where people are being abused, Unions will flourish.

Maybe, maybe not. While North America isn't exactly a worker's paradise, it's fair to say that working conditions are generally pretty good here. This is particularly true when you compare our conditions with those that exist in Third World countries. There are a lot of places in the world where people earn less than $2 (US) per day. In some corners of the world they earn less than $1 a day. One would think that places like this would be prime breeding ground for unions, but they're not.

Under certain conditions, such as those that existed here in the early 1900s, I think unions were a good thing. Too often factory owners exploited the workers to their own gain and weren't held accountable for anything. Today, I think some unions have gone too far and tend to support lazy, uncooperative workers too much. Some people deserve to be fired, but some unions won't allow that. To the same extent though, some managers are still arrogant bastards that need lessons in humility.

Broadly speaking though I think unions have their place under certain circumstances.

 

[nautilus]

I agree that some people are lazy and need to be fired. That is why policies and procedures are put in place. The problem starts when one of the parties attempts to circumvent the guildlines. When management wants to get rid of lazy workers they need only follow the agreed upon procedures.