|
|
| Normal Rooms | | General | 4 users
AntiStaticCleaningWi, melinda_halliwell_tu, Mistress_SinisterLov, littlegothgirlthatco |
|
|
|
|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 29 guests online !
|
|
|
 |
 |
Forums
You are not logged in | | |
|
|
|
Anya
Extreme Fanatic   Posts: 656 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 22/10/2003 at 09:58 PM |
Alright, since there's a strike going on with Ralph's and Albertson's in my
area, I am very curious on what everyone's opinion on unions here are.
|
| |
| |
bettie_x
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 1570 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 22/10/2003 at 11:14 PM |
Unions nowadays are really kind of rediculous and and pointless. They used
to be necessary, but now it's just a sort of useless club. They have no
real power in most cases, striking or not, and are more of a bother and an
expense than a benifit. (these words come from the mouths of union members
that I know).
Take the Bon Marche for instance. THEY have a union. What did they do?
Make a multi-million dollar name change while stripping employees of
medical benifits, jobs, raising their insurance premiums and cutting their
wages. The union "rallied" and yelled and screamed, and they did it anyway
with no real recourse. The teachers in Washington state go on strike at
least once a year for better benifits and pay (we pay our teachers horridly
here), they hold pickets and meetings and the union bosses go through the
motions, but rarely have they ever got what they wanted. We've had some
tax levys go through by taxpaying voters, but the unions accomplish little
for them. Boeing workers also go on strike on a regular basis..it's like
the yearly salmon run or flooding of the pugeot sound rivers...and they're
usually just laid off anyway or get a fraction of what they were striking
for to shut them up UNTIL they get laid off.
Unions were originally started as a working class revolt against monopoly
companies and their labor practices. They revolted against extremely
hazardous working conditions they were subjected to and no compensation
when they were hurt under those conditions, or compensation for their
families if they were killed.
An example I read was a coal factory where they company had to paint a
"saftey" line in front of the incinerators that indicated a safe distance
to be away from the fires should a backdraft or explosion should occur. Of
course these lines were painted WAY far away form the incinerator door, and
the man shoveling had to break his back to heaving the shovels of coal
twice as hard to make it in the door. It lowered his productivity, which
meant eventually he'd be fired. So they had to stand past the line to get
their work done and not get fired. An explosion or backdraft would occur,
a man would be hurt or killed, and then the question was asked "was he
behind the line" Well of COURSE he wasn't, so they weren't compensated
because he was ignoring policy, even tho it was the only way to be
productive enough to keep his job. Plus usually anyone who "ratted out"
the company, say if the man WAS behind the hazard line, THAT man would be
fired shortly afterwards for costing the company money, hence even if
something DID happen and someone was behind the line, nobody would attest
to it in fear of losing THEIR job.
This is where unions came in, preventing catch 22 bullshit the early
american megacorporations pulled on poor, blue collar families who broke
their backs to survive.
Now there are so many labor laws in the govt that it's almost unnecessary
for unions to even exist, other than in jobs that are pysically hazardous.
Plus they don't have any real power anymore anyway, it's a formality. ____________________
Trapped in time. Surrounded by evil. Low on gas.
|
| |
Starlight
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 618 Registered: 27/9/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 23/10/2003 at 03:15 AM |
I agree that unions were much more important in the days before such things
as safety regulations and minimum wages being established and enforced.
The people that I do know who are currently in unions seem to either view
their membership as some sort of status symbol or as a hinderance to things
they want to do but are forbidden to by their union (which they are
required to join in some professions whether they want to or not). I think
it would make more sense for someone to be given a choice as to joining a
union or not, but some people are faced with take the job and join the
union or find an alternate type of job.
I think in recent years, going on strike rarely accomplishes enough of a
change in wages to justify the overall amount of pay reduction taken by
going on strike in the first place. From what I understand, "strike pay"
just doesn't compare to regular wages. Also, it's frightening to think that
there are some teachers, firemen, policemen, doctors, nurses, postal
workers, and other "essential" type workers out there who would rather put
education, safety, and normal life on hold for an extra buck here and
there. I like to think that most of the people in those types of
professions (that would affect a large part of daily life for the public)
would rather think of their profession as noble and what they enjoy doing
and that the amount of money made from it is enough to be happy with. ____________________
"When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never
tried before." ~Mae West
|
| |
Anya
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 656 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
 posted on 23/10/2003 at 06:26 AM |
I think that unions are only necessary in very few cases nowadays.
However, I totally understand you guys' point. I've had this discussion
with a few Californian residents and I cannot really say a different story
without them getting all angry at me, hehe. The only person who was
willing to hear the 'negatives' about unions was the economics teacher.
In the beginning, unions were VERY necessary. They were needed. Employers
were screwing the workers up the black hole. Working conditions were
harsh. Unions had to start so that the imbalance could go back to balance
again. It used to be that employers were taking advantage of workers
(still somewhat are in some places), but now, a lot of unions take
advantage of employers through political means and encouraging strikes for
the littlest of things.
There are some laws to protect union members from being taken advantage too
much (i.e., the Taft-Harvey Act), but otherwise, there are loopholes.
Closed shops are supposedly illegal, but I can name a loopey place that
could easily be considered a closed shop.
One big thing that is going on with unions is that some of them either go
extremely overboard or are given too much power. A worker can be whining
about having a minimal wage job and that ends up being a strike. You can
simply try to fire a lazy union member and bam - a strike! That's where I
think unions are given too much power. Some of them are protecting the
lazy.
Another thing I noticed in a lot of union movements is that they, at times,
try to push to make people have equal pay no matter what. If we're
supposed to be leaning toward capitalism, where it's Darwinian and you reap
what you sow, should a lazy and inexperienced worker get as much as a
hard-working and experienced employee? I do not think so, but I am
interested in hearing an explanation from someone who thinks otherwise. I
understand that -some- people buy their way through college, but if many
people are trained and work hard to do jobs that not everyone can do, then
I think they should be paid over a burger flipping job. This does not mean
that people who start low should not move up, but I'm sorry - the only
benefits that I would give an unskilled employee is training and THEN I
would let them work their way up.
Now there's a problem with workers getting replaced with people who will
take less pay (i.e., immigrants). I do not blame their rage, but if
certain unions keep pushing companies, their companies might just move
their work to Mexico where they can have cheap labor and those union
members will be stuck trying to find another place to work out.
Unions were utterly necessary in the beginning, but some of them are just
getting too powerful or are demanding too much.
[Edited on 10/23/2003 by Anya]
|
| |
Xaoswolf
Fanatic   Posts: 463 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 23/10/2003 at 07:55 PM |
I gotta agree with everybody above. Before, unions were needed, now they
are a corrupt joke.
The problem is, is that they already got what they needed, now they want
more, and it hampers business more than helps. ____________________
Sometimes I dream about dinosaurs shopping for cargo shorts at the Gap.
Does that make me a bad person?
|
| |
Anya
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 656 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 24/10/2003 at 03:52 PM |
Exactly.
As I said, if Unions keep pushing it, people will start moving their
businesses elsewhere and there will be MUCH less jobs around.
|
| |
Ironboots
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 893 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 24/10/2003 at 10:15 PM |
Anya: Its already begun... Just 26.5%* of Americans are employed in the job
of making something. Everyone else just handles paperwork or sells
hamburgers.
But I don't think we should blame the unions. They're just trying to get a
living wage and decent working conditions for their workers. But overseas,
they aren't unionized, so workers get treated like crap and get paid like
it, too. If they were unionized as well, the quality of life in those
(third-world, most likely) countries would rise. Companies would realize
that it is cheaper to just keep the factory on their home turf, and so we'd
see a resurgence in domestic manufacturing.
*According to the 2003
CIA World Factbook, only 26.5% of people are employed in:
manufacturing, mining, transportation, crafts, farming, forestry, and
fishing. The rest are employed in managerial, professional, technical,
sales and administrative support.
[Edited on 10/25/2003 by Ironboots] ____________________
Piggy's got the Conch!
|
| |
Anya
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 656 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 25/10/2003 at 11:59 AM |
I never said that it was just unions, but I do strongly think that unions
can push things for too far.
I suppose to an extent that California is very expensive to live at. It
somewhat irks me because some people want to live by their selves and not
with roomies. However, there's many unions that're getting good enough
wages to live on their own and they still push for more money. The current
strike I understand that they just want to keep their benefits, but there's
some strikes that're done over little things, which to me, is somewhat
silly.
Then again, you're talking to someone who's used to living in Kansas, which
is a right-to-work state and does not have as many strikes as
California.
Blessings,
Anya
|
| |
|
|
|
