train 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.
Unions...
- Thread starter Joey Jeremiah
- Start date
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.
train said: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 ?
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.
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?
If you are looking for a yes/no type of answer I would say no they don't serve a purpose. Get rid of them. From my perspective they have just protected lazyness. It's a bearacracy onto itself. Now if you take out their power to negotiate wages, then there is some use for them.
G
Gord's Bro
nautilus said:
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.
It was necessary at the time but not it appears to breed contempt . . . largely for the union executives.
What really bugs me is we're encouraged to ask for more, more, more when we don't generate a profit. All our funds come from industry (or worse still TAXES!!!) and, if they pay more, we ALL pay more.
Yep necessary but I susepct many members would walk away from the union today.
Final thought . . . if unions hold as much power as appeared, wouldn't we have NDP governments both provincially and federally?
IMHO . . . .
G's B.
james t kirk said:
I guess my question would be how many have you seen ? or what's your definition of overly concerned .
There are many reasons why it doesn't pay to treat your employees poorly ranging from high retraining costs to workmen's comp costs . Most large companies have red flags raised if employee turnover is high in comparison with it's peers or even if it changes .
Well Said...
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:
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.
Unions cater to the lowest common denominator. I have no idea what that means but it sounds cool.
Y
yychobbyist
Cardinal Fang 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.
Unions
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.
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.
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.
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.
Heres a great site to debate or inform yourself of the good and bad of belonging to a Union. http://www.ufcw.net/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi
http://www.ufcw.net/cgi/ultimatebb.cgiHugh Jorgan said:
Give it time and that will change, mark my words. Magna employees have a few perks, free coffee and juice, subsidized cafeteria, etc. but i'll tell you from experience the biggest two reasons for not unionizing so far.
First is that they make it a point every chance they get to point out that all the equipment is only bolted down and not at all permanent. Stronach is notoriously anti-union, and has indicated several times that if the union comes in, he'll take it all to Mexico.
Secondly, they use a huge temporary labour force (that incidentally allows them to claim that they've never laid off an employee, when in reality they let people go on a daily basis), this temporary labour force allows their employees to be far lazier than any union employee i've ever worked with, and also guarantees their job security. The second the CAW gets voted in will be the last day that anyone is a temp in a magna plant.
None of this is a guess, or speculation, i've worked for magna on two seperate occasions. The facility i worked in has approx 60% temps in a workforce of 1500-1800 people.
Hugh Jorgan said:
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.
The fairness aspect is key here as the qualifications to reach each pay step are set out in advance and everyone knows what is required up front. It also prevents a rogue manager from bring an unqualified friend into a job.
strange1 said:
Yes I think the two biggest issues facing unions today are:
1. Complacency in the union membership
Unions are largely based on volunteer activity at the grass roots level. Members only get out what they are willing to put in. A lot of times, the only persons willing to run for union office are the so called "bitter" or "negative" guys with "a chip on thier shoulder". There is also a tendency for members to vote in the most radical candidate instead of someone who truly represents thier views. This leads to unnecessary conflict with Management where the energy and financial resources of the union are being used up on nuisance issues rather on bettering the workplace.
An example of this is the issue of manditory retirement at age 65. This is a much discussed management/union issue that is using up a lot of resources on both sides. Well, Ontario is about to outlaw this within a year, so why even try to negociate a mid-term agreement ?
If the people whom can represent the membership the best do not stand up for election, then pretty soon the entire union leadership is not representative of the members and where they want to take the workplace.
I got involved in the union because one of the older stewards told me: "Talk is cheap, if you really think you can do better then here's your chance. You'll only get out what you are willing to put in".
2. Complacency in the union leadership
The union I was involved with had a few hundred stewards and about 35 chief stewards. I once attended a chief stewards meeting and was rather dismayed to find that the same 4 chief stewards and the union executive were making all the policy decisions. What happened to the other 31 stewards and the views of the thousands of members they are suppose to represent?
I have also seen where a chief steward was impeached by his junior stewards whom elected a new chief steward amoungst themselves. The problem with this is that in this particular union, the chief stewards are elected by direct vote from the membership they represent. Any impeachment should have been voted on by the membership. A new chief steward should have been elected by the membership. The union office should have stepped in to ensure this happened. The membership should not have allowed this to happen.
It's another version of "absolute power corrupts"
As a member of a UNION (IBEW) with a no strike clause and non senority lay-offs permitted. I find that while they once served a vital purpose in the labor market. Today they or mine just collect dues to make it possible to have a multi-million dollar local.
Of course as a "red-headed-step-child" of the IBEW, I might be tainted by their telling me I am not worth as much money as my brothers.
Of course as a "red-headed-step-child" of the IBEW, I might be tainted by their telling me I am not worth as much money as my brothers.
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.
Of coursre this will mean putting your money where your mouth is so to speak.
nautilus said:
De-certification is far more complex than one emplyee's gripes aginst a union.
When you de-certify you surrender your rights that have granted you a stronger hand then the labor laws provide. BUT and I say BuT if you belive you are held back, feel free.
Yes even as a red-headed-step-child I realize the microscopic benifits the union offers.
Last edited:
yychobbyist said:
Some might consider that an unfortunate statement after the use of that well known verb....to effort
I guess this is "akin" to talking politics or religion . I do wish that people would realize that the union movement is big business , with huge revenue streams accountable to no one . I have dealt with three large unions . two in Ontario and one in Quebec . The only time I saw a worker being threatened both physically and mentally was by the union organizer ......poor tactics I guess because the vote failed . Thank heavens for secret ballots counted by the ministry .
Microscopic?
Maybe just taken for granted? If you DIDN'T have an ultimately impartial grievance procedure, for instance, it would certainly impact you sooner or later. If it's always been in place, on the other hand, you may have never noticed. Like Oxygen - doesn't come readily to mind when thinking of what's important in your like - but try doing without it for a change.
Maybe just taken for granted? If you DIDN'T have an ultimately impartial grievance procedure, for instance, it would certainly impact you sooner or later. If it's always been in place, on the other hand, you may have never noticed. Like Oxygen - doesn't come readily to mind when thinking of what's important in your like - but try doing without it for a change.
Similar threads
