Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I've lived in California my entire life. We have a few unions here, mostly related to construction and food service jobs. I've never been in one.

What EXACTLY is their current purpose?

People say it's to negotiate this or that benefit, but don't people do that when they get hired? If you don't like the benefits a job offers, don't work there.

I'm just very confused on the entire thing. Mostly on how there are people whose ONLY job is to manage the union for other people, which off the top of my head makes zero sense as that person will just make decisions that benefit themselves(as humanity has proven time and again).

So help me out here people. Why on earth are these things around?

 Aerethan wrote:

People say it's to negotiate this or that benefit, but don't people do that when they get hired?

And how do you think those benefits that exist when you get hired there came to be?

What EXACTLY is their current purpose?

Theoretically it is to protect you from management, get you better benefits, and to present a unified voice of the workers.

Now be prepared for 5 pages of people arguing about how effective they actually are.

Eesshh. That sounds like something that has "Comrade" all over it....

Just to get a baseline:

Are you saying that unions have a historical role that you believe may no longer be necessary?

Presumably by asking what the *current* purpose of a union is, you understand what unions have done in the past?

 Aerethan wrote:
Sell me on unions

No.

I get that back in the day unions negotiated better terms.

From what I can tell, a lot of those terms are now laws, such as any company over X employees in size must offer healthcare to it's full time employees, minimum break times, etc.

Today the benefits can still be more sick days, more vacation days, fair ways do to promotions, better pay, protection from wrongful termination, etc. There is lots of good stuff that is done today by many unions. There is also lots of useless unions.

It really varies from union to union, and within each union from local to local, it also depends on state laws that strip unions of powers/give workers more rights (depending on your ideological stance).

I think "sell me on unions" is a pretty lofty goal and is probably something that nobody should try to do.

"Sell me on joining my local" would be a more practical question. Look at your field, the business you are working for, compare it to non-union shops as well as other union shops to see how your local is run. Investigate what your local has done and what benefits the union gives you.

It's a pretty complicated question. You will get the "unions are awesome" and "unions are the devil" answers here, but it's just Internet ranting unless you check out and investigate your local.

I have my own opinions on unions, with many personal anecdotes, but d has it right. Investigate the locals and look into educational sites with no axe to grind on the subject.

Relapse wrote:
I have my own opinions on unions, with many personal anecdotes, but d has it right. Investigate the locals and look into educational sites with no axe to grind on the subject.

I'm generally pro-union, but I have worked in places with unions that I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole!

 Aerethan wrote:
What EXACTLY is their current purpose?

People say it's to negotiate this or that benefit, but don't people do that when they get hired? If you don't like the benefits a job offers, don't work there.

Because in lots of cases people aren't naturally free to pick and choose jobs as they please. If you're trained in working a drilling machine that's used only in coal mines, then you're pretty committed to working for the only coal mining company in your town. Retraining in some other job, or moving your family to another town in the hope that you'll get work in another coal mine isn't practical.

There's also the issue that while your employer has HR specialists who know all about the job market and what pay and benefits are reasonable for the job, the employer might have no idea. In that case it makes sense to use a service that has that information and will be on your side.

For these reasons and others collective bargaining is often preferred to employees just bargaining on their own behalf.

I'm just very confused on the entire thing. Mostly on how there are people whose ONLY job is to manage the union for other people, which off the top of my head makes zero sense as that person will just make decisions that benefit themselves(as humanity has proven time and again).

That is a significant problem. A lot of people will point to the rise of professional managment in unions as the start of the decline of the movement. I think that's way too simplistic, but it's certainly an issue.

So help me out here people. Why on earth are these things around?

Honestly, the major reason they are around is that those conditions I described above used to not occur sometimes, but instead were the dominant market conditions. Going back to pre-war period and in to the inter-war period you had a lot of manifestly unfair working conditions, and these were eventually resolved through concerted union action. That kind of thing tends to carry on through history, even when the original reason has faded away. That's actually my biggest issue with unions. Instead of looking to move on to new areas of exploited workers, like retail, instead they've largely contented themselves with continuing to protect industries where the pay and conditions are actually pretty good (like auto manufacture).

I mean, right now here in Australia there's threats of strike by miners, where the average rate of pay exceeds $150k. Once you earn 2.5 times the average rate of pay your claim that you need to strike to avoid being exploited starts looking pretty silly.

If we allow people to collectively organize into corporations that buy labor, why would we not allow people to collectively organize into unions that sell labor?

I understand the importance for a union for people who are specialists. For instance, teacher's associations. Because those people need the ability to negotiate new wages and benefits within their work structure. Teaching isn't really a field with dynamic competition, and unlike other workers who can threaten to quit and work in another field, teachers have invested their education into a narrower niche. Similarly you have the pipe-fitters union, electrical workers, steel workers, nurses, policemen, all fields where you need to develop expertise through years of schooling/experience that don't easily transfer to other fields. The union is there to make sure that the federal/state/local government, corporation, or organization doesn't take advantage of these workers.

I don't really understand the functionality of a union for unskilled labor. Unskilled labor jobs are available everywhere and wages are easily settled competitively. It's hard for a teacher to walk away from teaching, but it's easy for a bus driver to walk away from bus driving. To my mind, a union for unskilled laborers drives up wages and reduces employment, preventing the hiring of people outside the union.

TLDR: unions representing specialist labor is important. Unions representing unskilled labor drive up wages and price out other workers.

 d-usa wrote:
Today the benefits can still be more sick days, more vacation days, fair ways do to promotions, better pay, protection from wrongful termination, etc. There is lots of good stuff that is done today by many unions.

A lot of the good union work is done in health and safety, and informing employees of their rights and providing legal services when something goes wrong (wrongful dismissal or a workplace injury, for instance).

It really varies from union to union

Yeah, it really, really does. Unions that keep their fees low, that generally rely on volunteers who work in the industry and union professionals, and focus not on taking the fight to management but instead working with management to produce best practice and productivity increases, while offering services to employees like legal advice and decent insurance are great unions. Terrible unions are, you know, the opposite of that. And both kinds are pretty common.

 d-usa wrote:
Today the benefits can still be ... protection from wrongful termination, etc.

I can offer a personal account of this, if it would help illustrate the point Aerethan. When I worked at Kroger, (in the deli) I broke my arm. After getting it in a cast, our store manager told me that she was sorry, but she'd have to let me go (since it wouldn't be sanitary to let me work around food). Fortunately, before I left, another employee stopped me and told me I needed to go talk to our union rep. She put in a few calls to verify that this sort of issue had been hashed out in the past, and then contacted the manager to remind her that, no, she could not fire me for this reason, and that this exact issue had been negotiated in the past.

While I didn't wind up getting paid time off or anything, I still had a job waiting for me when I got the cast off. If it had been the same lady managing a Wal-Mart, then I'd have been unemployed.

It really varies from union to union

Oh good lord, this. So much this. Even locally, you can find some unions that are generally fair, don't take advantage of their influence, and operate as intended. You also find some that use their power as mob-style leverage to force businesses to pay higher costs for poorer work, or some that operate simply as tools of the management to continue exploitive practices with their workers while maintaining a public facade of being sympathetic to the plight of the working man. It seriously varies not only from union to union, but from local to local.

I've a buddy who works as an electrician, and at his local office they keep guys in work on a rotational basis. As many of the union's jobs are construction sites and whatnot the work tends to be somewhat limited....

From what he was telling me, once a job is completed, you go back on the "needs work" list with a sort of points system. Guys who haven't worked longer are at/near the top... But priority starts to break down a bit in that guys who are married and have kids are given higher priority than single guys, unless the time of not having work is over a certain amount of time.

I want to make a thread titled "Sell Me On Onions" now for some reason.

Some good points made here.

So let me pose another scenario which I heard from a friend of mine who runs a lighting company(think concerts and such).

He was hired by GM(the car company) for a ~$4500 rental for basic stage needs for some trade show which was held at a convention center which had it's own union workforce. He was told he could unload his gear but once it got to the convention floor ONLY union workers were allowed to move it to the display area, then he could set it up. This was roughly 100' in distance.

A few days after the show, GM called him wondering why the got a bill for somewhere around $200k in union labor charges. He told them they had to work it out with the convention center and never heard back.

So how on earth is a union worth paying for labor if the amount they charge is astronomical, yet you have no other options? It sounds like the same kind of monopoly that ISPs have in most areas where you can't pick a different brand if you don't like the service you receive.

I'm not saying GM can't afford it, but honestly 200k to move a $4500 rental is ridiculous.

 Ahtman wrote:
I want to make a thread titled "Sell Me On Onions" now for some reason.

The Onion was the first thing i thought off.

Unions are useless, let's go back to 12 hours workdays, Company stores, working on Saturdays, no Holidays, Can lose your job on a whim, all possible without Unions!

 Ahtman wrote:
I want to make a thread titled "Sell Me On Onions" now for some reason.

I knew I wasn't the only one who thought that.

 Red_Zeke wrote:
Just to get a baseline:

Are you saying that unions have a historical role that you believe may no longer be necessary?

Presumably by asking what the *current* purpose of a union is, you understand what unions have done in the past?

The historical need for unions has basically passed. Now they're largely bloated organizations which are no better than what they are supposedly there to protect you from, and in many ways they are worse.

If you aren't a senior member you are going to have very little protection and a lot of fees.

They can basically force you to go on strike, even if you individually don't want to.

If you are a younger worker, stay the heck away from them.


That doesn't mean that they should go away. The basic concept is a good one and they should be there. But thats all they should be, there for when they actually are needed. Most modern strikes are done over rather superfluous things which wouldn't have made anyone bat an eyelash at when unions first formed.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Red_Zeke wrote:
Just to get a baseline:

Are you saying that unions have a historical role that you believe may no longer be necessary?

Presumably by asking what the *current* purpose of a union is, you understand what unions have done in the past?

The historical need for unions has basically passed. Now they're largely bloated organizations which are no better than what they are supposedly there to protect you from, and in many ways they are worse.

If you aren't a senior member you are going to have very little protection and a lot of fees.

They can basically force you to go on strike, even if you individually don't want to.

If you are a younger worker, stay the heck away from them.


That doesn't mean that they should go away. The basic concept is a good one and they should be there. But thats all they should be, there for when they actually are needed. Most modern strikes are done over rather superfluous things which wouldn't have made anyone bat an eyelash at when unions first formed.

This is basically the view most people I know personally share, which is why I made the thread.

The strike issue is a good one. Plenty of people can't afford to go on strike. Is the union paying those members during these periods? Or are people supposed to ALL stop working because Larry can't afford his daughters braces?

Pretty much. And nope, nobody gets paid unless you're willing to pay us extra! And during the meantime the company just hires some freelancers who are willing to get paid less than Union wages.

And don't even think about crossing the line. Some unions are basically their own mafia.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most modern strikes are done over rather superfluous things which wouldn't have made anyone bat an eyelash at when unions first formed.

When unions were formed, horrifying accidents, such as a worker falling into machinery and being rendered into lard were fairly common, so that's maybe not the best example yes? Our society has evolved since then so the fact that the bar for which workers are willing to strike has moved with it is neither shocking nor unexpected.

 Aerethan wrote:
Or are people supposed to ALL stop working because Larry can't afford his daughters braces?

From your previous 2 posts I am beginning to suspect when you said "sell me on unions" what you meant was "please reinforce my preconceptions about unions".

Thats exactly my point. Unions were to protect workers from dangerously unsafe environments and abusive salaries. Neither of which really exists any more.

Changing the criteria for a strike is not unexpected, but the extent to which it has changed is nothing short of silly.

I think it's only silly if you truly think a typical reason to strike is that one union member, somewhere, can't afford braces for their kid.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The historical need for unions has basically passed.

Yeah, the need for unions went away when we stopped having exploited workers and industries with dangerous working conditions.

Oh, wait.

Now they're largely bloated organizations which are no better than what they are supposedly there to protect you from, and in many ways they are worse.

Many unions are. But that doesn't mean that all unions are like that, nor does it mean that there isn't a need for increased union presence in industries where there is worker exploitation.

They can basically force you to go on strike, even if you individually don't want to.

That depends on the union, and the industry.

If you are a younger worker, stay the heck away from them.

That depends on the union, and the industry. As a blanket statement it's just really terrible advice.

 sebster wrote:
Collective bargaining is often preferred to employees just bargaining on their own behalf.

This sums it up for me. There tends to be a lot of competition for jobs, and there is always going to be some poor immigrant who is willing to live in one small room, sharing with eight other people; and work 20 hour days, breathing carcinogens, for a fraction of what you'd call 'fair wages'. You can't compete with someone like that, and frankly, you don't want to. But so long as he exists to undercut you, you have zero leverage to negotiate better wages or conditions on your own.

Unions probably do eventually evolve into grotesque ugly monsters, corrupt to their greedy foundations... But that's kind of what you need when you're facing off against grotesque ugly monsters, corrupt to their greedy foundations (I.e. corporations). At least it's fair.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The historical need for unions has basically passed.

Not really. There are still unfair labor practices, dangerous working conditions, and unscrupulous business owners driven more by profit than compassion. If those things were to cease to exist, you would have an argument. But they haven't and you don't.

Now they're largely bloated organizations which are no better than what they are supposedly there to protect you from, and in many ways they are worse.

The case could be made for that to apply to the handful of "large" unions in America, but the is only a handful of all the workers represented by unions. On top of that, union membership is currently lower than it ever has been.

If you aren't a senior member you are going to have very little protection and a lot of fees.

Nope. That is the classic stereotype; not to say that it doesn't happen, but it is most definitely the not standard operating procedure.

They can basically force you to go on strike, even if you individually don't want to.

Strikes are rare. Very rare. Most modern unions have varying degrees of no-strike clauses in their CBA to prevent them from going on strike for superfluous reasons. Also, for a union to go on strike, the body (i.e.- the members) has to vote to authorize it; the business manager doesn't just decide to call a strike one day "just because." Also, you don't join a union to have your voice heard, you join to have a collective voice heard. It is similar to how the country works: we don't get to vote for every single law that comes up in Congress, the people we choose do that for us.

If you are a younger worker, stay the heck away from them.

That is a terribly incarnate blanket statement.

 Ouze wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
Or are people supposed to ALL stop working because Larry can't afford his daughters braces?

From your previous 2 posts I am beginning to suspect when you said "sell me on unions" what you meant was "please reinforce my preconceptions about unions".

I thought the same thing...

If you want to see just how useless & catastrophically bad for the whole Unions have become, just take a peak at Ontario and how the public sector unions have all but destroyed our province's economy, while also controlling the ruling government through backscratching and illegal attack ad campaigns aimed at political opponents.

11 years of abuse and these ****ing Liberal bums are still around, despite 2 on-going police investigations into corruption & misuse of taxpayers money!

And it's all because of big public sector unions propping them up in order to keep their extravagant perks.

Let's get one thing straight...



Employers and Corporations did not feel generous and decide to give you two days off every week to have a social/personal life. (We now call them weekends). Corporations did not just feel like being nice one day and give their employees paid vacations. CEOs didn't get together in a board room and say "Let's give our employees more rights at work" or "Maybe there should be laws to limit our power over an employee".



Virtually ALL the benefits you have at work, whether you work in the public or private sector, all of the benefits and rights you enjoy everyday are there because unions fought hard and long for them against big business who did everything they could to prevent giving you your rights. Many union leaders and members even lost their lives for things we take for granted today.



The right-wing attack on unions is nothing more than ignorance, lack of education, and propaganda.



If republicans would rather support corporations instead of organized groups of workers working to secure a fair work environment A.K.A a union, I ask them to walk the walk as well. Give up every benefit and right that you use that unions are responsible for.



Complete trust and submit yourself to the corporate agenda you fight for. Play by their rules with no influence from democrats or labor unions to try to force rights among the workers of this country. Dedicate your life to their life goal of making your company more money than the year before. Just understand that this may mean sacrificing the union fought rights you enjoy everyday. I mean, you don't want to be a hypocrite, do you? Like bashing unions on your union fought lunch break? Which means if you practice what you preach, you don't get a lunch break.



Corporations use to work employees 80+ hours a week, offer no breaks, hire children, offer horrid, unsanitary work conditions, paid literally next to nothing, and even murder. Not murder with a pen like they do today, but actual murder. They basically did whatever they wanted.



This is what they were like before unions. Don't take my word for it, look it up. (Links at bottom of page). If we rid the world of unions tomorrow, who is to say that they won't go right back to the way they were merely 70 years ago? The GOP governor of Maine signed a bill to repeal child labor laws this year, maybe they are going back to their roots whether we have unions or not.



So conservatives, please practice what you preach and give up all these rights and leave the umbrella of these laws for they were brought to you by unions...



36 Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union


•Weekends
•All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
•Paid Vacation
•FMLA
•Sick Leave
•Social Security
•Minimum Wage
•Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
•8-Hour Work Day
•Overtime Pay
•Child Labor Laws
•Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
•40 Hour Work Week
•Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
•Unemployment Insurance
•Pensions
•Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
•Employer Health Care Insurance
•Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
•Wrongful Termination Laws
•Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
•Whistleblower Protection Laws
•Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
•Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
•Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
•Sexual Harassment Laws
•Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
•Holiday Pay
•Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
•Privacy Rights
•Pregnancy and Parental Leave
•Military Leave
•The Right to Strike
•Public Education for Children
•Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
•Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States

So will conservatives give up all 36 of these union fought rights? Will they stand by their rhetoric that unions are thugs and refuse to take benefits from these "thugs" or will they hypocritically carry on the diatribe that unions are ruining this country while enjoying their weekends and paid vacations?


Or...

Maybe they could just admit that while not perfect, like anything else, unions have done great things for working people that they use and benefit from everyday of their lives?

Maybe a conservative union-hating family got to have some of the best moments of their lives while on vacation from work, and they still got to come to a job still there waiting for them, because of unions?

Maybe a conservative can't wait for their lunch break at work so they can turn on the radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Back talk about how horrible unions are?

If you don't want to give up all your union fought rights and benefits at work, I understand. I don't want to either, that's why I'm pro-union and vote Democrat.

But maybe you could just admit that unions are not demons spawned from hell, and admit the FACT that they have improved your life in more ways than one?

Or am I asking too much?


Taken from this site ....http://la.aflcio.org/gnoaflcio/index.cfm?action=article&articleID=257e8c90-0ac8-43f7-b0c6-dce69756e21c

Educate yourself about it. Unions are not perfect but they are a necessary evil.

Well union workers really screwed themselves over around here. A metal works didn't give enough vacation and they thought they had a narrow market so wanted more money. They protested and then went on strike, the business hired scabs to work til the current orders where filled, then closed down the plant and moved across the country.

Now all those workers "9 years later" still have signs all around the old building complaining about how they where robbed of a job and the government should pay them til the age of retirement and should sue the company and all this crap.

Unions are for the most part a collective "b#@$" fest" about people complaining and threatening a business unless there demands are met. Basically legal unarmed terrorist's. But they do some good thigns like the wrongful termination thing which can be brough upto the gov level now a days anyways so ya.