Are you kidding me?train said:Very few large private sector employers abuse their employees .
It depends on your definition of abuse, but most companies are not overly concerned about their workers that I have seen.
Are you kidding me?train said:Very few large private sector employers abuse their employees .
train said:The ministry of labour's very existance is my point. It was unions who fought for safety and accountability in the workplace, bringing about the ministry of labour who fights to keep all employees, in all workplaces as safe as possible.2fast said: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 ?![]()
I can't speak to the rest of your post as i don't know the circumstances involved. That said, any safety committee in a union shop must include both management and union members, so was it a case of the company trying to exclude the union from said committee?
Good points, nautilus. I work for an organzition funded arms-length by the province. We formed a union over a decade ago when it appeared that another arms-length agency, wtith a stong labour bias, was about to devour us and some other groups.nautilus said: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.
I guess my question would be how many have you seen ? or what's your definition of overly concerned .james t kirk said:Are you kidding me?
It depends on your definition of abuse, but most companies are not overly concerned about their workers that I have seen.
Been there , done that provincially . Thank heavens we've never done that federally .Gord's Bro said:Final thought . . . if unions hold as much power as appeared, wouldn't we have NDP governments both provincially and federally?
IMHO . . . .
G's B.
My employer is getting the first "real" union in it's 50 year plus history, though. Without the counter balance in place all that time a lot more than 1% of the front line managers are less than honest and fair. Some of the previous posters might want to look on our situation as the "in the beginning" case where a union is really needed.l69norm said: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.
I'll be efforting to find out the meaning of this and see what it looks likeCardinal Fang said:Unions cater to the lowest common denominator. I have no idea what that means but it sounds cool.
Hugh Jorgan said:Magna Internation is one of the most successful company's in the world and is 99% non-unionized, while working in an industry where auto manufacturers (such as the big 3) are 100% unionized.
CAW has tried to get in and only been successful once. Why is that....the employers are treated better and rewarded better by NOT having a union.
This is not necessarily true. The union I delt with has a 40% pay spread based on personal peformance (i.e. pay rating from 80% to 120% of the job). Other unions have steps within a job classification with the same kind of pay spread (i.e. job class A, step 1 = 80%, step 2=100%, step 3=120%). It depends on how the contract is negociated.Hugh Jorgan said:...All unions do is protect the weakest employee....and since all workers within a job class are paid the same....it reduces everyone to that weak level....
Yes I think the two biggest issues facing unions today are:strange1 said:.... if they get too large, they get more concerned with justifying their own existence...
De-certification is far more complex than one emplyee's gripes aginst a union.nautilus said:For those of you who belong to unions and think their time has passed, you know you can vote OUT the union if the membership is so inclined.
Of coursre this will mean putting your money where your mouth is so to speak.
Some might consider that an unfortunate statement after the use of that well known verb....to effortyychobbyist said:I'll be efforting to find out the meaning of this and see what it looks like
At least union members don't talk as stupidly as management does.