labor unions

[photosynthesis]

what do you think of unions and stuff? in NYC the transportation workers are thinking about striking and it would practically shut the whole city down. I really hope they don't strike btu at the same time it seems like they are being treated unfairly.

[Lounge Daddy]

oooohhhhh....
your trying to open a big can of worms, arent you?

ill start by saying that unions had thier value in history
and i today have utmost respect for trade unions...
i have the highest regard for thier work and value and place in American commerce





however (could you see the however?) however... much of the union machine has become known as "big labor" and in condeming big buisiness - in no small part to Wal-Mart remaining anti-union...
while demonising big-buisiness, unions have become a big business

[RC_]

A big advandtage to unions is that their members have a legally binding contract. In alot of states, you can be fired for looking at the boss cross-eyed, even though such things violate the employee handbook. With a contract, there's a process they have to follow.

[Nathan]

I generally support unions. I'm in a union, and it has been very good to me. Without it, I can say with certainty that I would be making minimum wage and have none of the benefits that I enjoy. The employers in my company would also be firing people left, right, and center -- they would also get rid of every full-timer and replace him with three part-timers. With the union, they can't do that. And if we feel that our rights are being infringed in any way, we simply file a grievance and the union corrects the problem for us.

Having said that, I do feel that unions sometimes make it unfair for employers. I've seen many co-workers abuse the system, getting away with murder. Many that truly deserve to be fired or at least suspended don't get fired or suspended, simply because they're in the union. (Where I work, you could literally urinate on the bosses desk and not be fired.) People milk minor injuries like crazy, receiving full pay and benefits while sitting at home for weeks or months at a time. I do [i]not[/i] support that stuff.

But without the union, in my company anyway, nobody would be able to make a living wage. Workers' rights would be trampled upon on a daily basis. I have no doubt.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Nathan

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Leo XIII supported unions.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[eddieloudog]

I support the unions too! I grew up in NYC and we are a tough bunch. We will survive, but the union-ers are doing what they need to in order to secure their futures and the commuter’s futures in turn.

Besides, the MTA had like a 1billion surplus this year! Rate hikes, my A**!!

[photosynthesis]

I just saw on WCBS 2 that they're striking...all the public transportation is shut down and people have to walk everywhere... Mayor Bloomberg accusedthe strikers of being selfish and making the whole city suffer because they're trying to get what they want.

[Sojourner]

In theory, I think unions can be a good thing. In practice, they introduce a lot of bureaucracy and problems that don't necessarily benefit workers.

I will say, however, that the unionized newspaper writers at the Indianapolis Star make thousands of dollars more than non-unionized I do. They've sold their souls, of course, but still. I have considered the possibility of starting a union ... but I'm just too lazy.

[Matty_boy]

I don't know if I support the idea of unions. I don't think that they are effective because we live in a capitalist economy and unions are communist in practice. They are trying to hurt the boss or the company by hurting the consumer thinking that either the boss will cave under loss of money or the people will make the boss cave. The people in New York still made it to work today (which I see as hugely commendable).

However, the unions generally seem to be vastly irresponsible when they go on strike. I don't like that they hurt so many people who have nothing to do with the process, especially during the holidays. Remember last year when one airline's employees staged a "sick-out" on Christmas? They left all of those people stranded at the airport and they couldn't visit their families or see their loved ones. That doesn't seem very Christian at all. I think unions are generally a struggle for the balance of power, but the people in the unions seem to try to own part of the company rather than being employed by the company. I guess I see unions as a wife who uses the gift of sex as a weapon by witholding from her husband as a punishment

[lifescanticle]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Dec 20 2005, 01:05 AM']what do you think of unions and stuff?  in NYC the transportation workers are thinking about striking and it would practically shut the whole city down.  I really hope they don't strike btu at the same time it seems like they are being treated unfairly.
[right][snapback]831415[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

as a southerner i have not had any real experience with unions. it seems to me with my limited knowledge that unions certainly had a place in the past. today with so many laws concerning worker rights and a multitude of lawyers willing to take on most any case, unions appear to be more of a political pawn than organizations with there members best interests at heart.

[jasJis]

I've worked non-Union and Union, both as labor and as management. Here in the South, Unions generally smell of elderberries and are only out for the few 'loyal' Union members and are not for the general worker, and are not at all realistic with the companies. The type of work I do would benefit from the good aspects of Unions, providing training and increasing the qualification of people. If the Unions would do what they are supposed to do, they would be a service to the public, the workers, and the employers. Instead, they choose to operate like a temporary labor pool, making their profit off the dues and benefits the employers pay and what is deducted from the employee's wages. The general workers are treated like carp, with those with 'connections' getting the best paying, most stable jobs. They treat the companies like shinola, where they employee Unions only if required because of Union contracts in plants in other states. The average worker takes home less pay, and recieves less benefits, and has less stable employment than the non-Union worker doing the exact same work. The $$ that goes into the retirement fund is only available if you stay IN the union as a dues paying member until you retire. Not likely considering the temporary nature of the work. Non-union workers doing the same thing, make $3 or $4 dollars an hour more, enjoy stable work assignments, get better benefits, get bonuses, are catered to by the employer because they need them, are rewarded for better production than a lazy co-worker, etc. The draw back is, it's hard to get trained and certified because the employer needs them working, so doesn't pay for advanced training. Instead, you learn on the job. A non-union worker who can be a working foreman, with about 5 years of experience, would expect to make about $45-$50k a year, plus bonuses, company work vehicle, vacation, and some sort of 401k. If you were only an experienced laborer and could not run others, you'd still make $16 an hour, bonuses, vacation, etc., with plenty of overtime in 5 years. This is working in Florida where the cost of living is still cheap.

Unions are great if they are about providing trained and skilled workers with a good work ethic. Unions smell of elderberries if they are about living off the dues and only really benifiting about 25% of the members which is my experience.

The idea of retail clerks at a Wal-Mart unionizing is patently ridiculous. What skill or training or benefit does the Union provide to the worker or the employer? Teamsters provide skilled drivers, equipment handlers, etc., to load trucks, drive trucks, move cargo and stuff. What skill does it take for someone to tell you brooms are on aisle 5 of housewares? I would suspect that those who want to unionize retail clerks are really all about making a % of their pay. Very few people lack the intelligence that being a retail clerk is all they can do to make a living. If that is all they can do, then that is what food stamps and supplemental income from the Government is for. The majority of people who think they can make a living just being a retail clerk, are lazy underacheivers who want to smell of elderberries off the Government teat or holding 'big-Business' hostage and are taking away $$ from those who really need and derserve supplemental help because being a retail clerk is all they can do.

I don't know enough about the Transit Workers in New York. On the surface I would expect the Unions to provide training and skills to these workers. Though it isn't operating a nuclear power plant, it is a specialized skill in not the best working conditions. It's not a retail clerk job, so it does require people with intelligence and ability. It isn't cheap to live in New York so it is reasonable to expect a living wage with the proper experience and training. If the Union is providing training and skills to the workers, the Transit Authority should pay fairly for it.

Now if the Union isn't really helping the worker be valuable, then they are just taking advantage of the situation and holding the Transit Authority hostage because the workers may be getting paid for what they are worth. I strongly suspect failure on the Union's part if they are threatening a strike during the Holidays. It seems to be pulling out the Big Guns right at the start, but I don't know the whole story.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote]The nation's largest mass transit system endured its first strike in a quarter-century Tuesday, stranding millions of riders in the December cold as negotiations remained stalled and a judge imposed a $1 million-a-day fine on the striking union.
State Supreme Court Justice Theodore Jones leveled the fine against the Transport Workers Union for violating state law by going on strike. Attorneys for the city and state had asked Jones to hit the union with a "very potent fine" for ignoring the law.
"This is a very, very sad day in the history of labor relations for New York City," Jones said in imposing the fine. The union vowed to immediately appeal, calling his ruling excessive.[/quote]
[url="http://www.wnbc.com/traffic/5532275/detail.html"]-- story HERE[/url]

it seems to me what they are doing in New York is pretty irresponsible
this is a city with a great big bulls-eye to terrorists - threat level orange
a huge commercial buisiness city reliant on mass transportation

and the unions have ILLEGALLY shut it all down

[photosynthesis]

I was thinking about going into new york tomorrow and visiting my friends. but now with the strike it makes me glad I live in North Jersey.

[RC_]

[quote name='Matty_boy' date='Dec 20 2005, 12:57 PM']I don't know if I support the idea of unions.  I don't think that they are effective because we live in a capitalist economy and unions are communist in practice.  They are trying to hurt the boss or the company by hurting the consumer thinking that either the boss will cave under loss of money or the people will make the boss cave.  The people in New York still made it to work today (which I see as hugely commendable). 

However, the unions generally seem to be vastly irresponsible when they go on strike.  I don't like that they hurt so many people who have nothing to do with the process, especially during the holidays.  Remember last year when one airline's employees staged a "sick-out" on Christmas?  They left all of those people stranded at the airport and they couldn't visit their families or see their loved ones.  That doesn't seem very Christian at all.  I think unions are generally a struggle for the balance of power, but the people in the unions seem to try to own part of the company rather than being employed by the company.  I guess I see unions as a wife who uses the gift of sex as a weapon by witholding from her husband as a punishment
[right][snapback]831858[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Without unions, employeers controll the labor market, and will basically enslave thier employees. The demands put on workers these days are less christian than the requests made by labor unions.

[jasJis]

[quote name='RC_' date='Dec 21 2005, 02:17 AM']Without unions, employeers controll the labor market, and will basically enslave thier employees.  The demands put on workers these days are less christian than the requests made by labor unions.
[right][snapback]832543[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]The employers cannot control the labor market, nor can they enslave employees. With the unemployment rate as low as it has been for years, a person can always find another job. On what basis can you make the statement that a labor union puts less demands on a worker? Please give an example. Is the Union demand to pay dues to the Union Organization that supports pro-Abortion canidates very Christian?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 20 2005, 09:57 AM']Leo XIII supported unions.
[right][snapback]831677[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yeah, but its still an open question because such support cannot be unconditional and must be understood in the context of his statements, as well as in the social, economic and historical context of the time.

I'm not saying I don't support unions, I'm just saying that the particulars are still very much on the table as it were. Jas has a good point for example.

[Carrie]

What's going on in NYC is infuriating.

First, the strike is illegal.

Second, if the TWU was concerned about straphangers, they would have waited til after the holidays to strike. NYC is losing $400 million a day!

Third, the MTA workers make between 47,000-52,000 a year starting [b]base[/b] salary, not including overtime or benefits. I don't know about the rest of you, but that's considerably more than I make and I still manage to live comfortably in this city.

Fourth, age for pension eligibility is 55, instead of 62 like most people.

Fifth, the workers don't pay for healthcare and are outraged that incoming employees will have to pay one percent of their health care. They also do not pay co-payments. Don't the rest of us pay co-payments? Yes!

Sixth, the TWU president is up for re-election this year. This strike is one way for him to play political re-election games.

Seventh, the TWU leaders are now being held in criminal contempt by the courts and can be arrested.

The MTA offered the TWU a very good contract on Monday night, which the TWU turned down. Their parent union is furious that they turned down the offer.

Basically, they have good base wages, better benefits than most people in this country, pensions at 55 and were offered an eleven percent raise over the next three years as well. The union is illegally trying to bring this city to its knees.

Police officers base salary = $25,000
Firefighters base salary = $25,000

Please tell me who has a worse working condition? The police officers who fight criminals everyday? The firefighters who risk their lives daily to save others? Or the MTA workers who deal with a few rats (this only applies to the subway workers, not the bus workers)?

Yet, look at the differences in base wages. Personally, I think the police officers and firefighters deserve higher wages. But are they striking? No.

end of rant.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='RC_' date='Dec 21 2005, 04:17 AM']Without unions, employeers controll the labor market, and will basically enslave thier employees.  The demands put on workers these days are less christian than the requests made by labor unions.
[right][snapback]832543[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
no, employers do not own employees...
working men and women controll the job market - people like you and me
this isnt the early 1900's - we do not have to work at the local labor mill, lol

today in America we have a "competitive job market" - we have employment options - and it behooves an employer to have an attractive work environment if it wants to attract and keep skilled employees

[RC_]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Dec 21 2005, 11:42 AM']no, employers do not own employees...
working men and women controll the job market - people like you and me
this isnt the early 1900's - we do not have to work at the local labor mill, lol

today in America we have a "competitive job market" - we have  employment  options - and it behooves an employer to have an attractive work environment if it wants to attract and keep skilled employees
[right][snapback]832872[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There are lots of people without college educations that are not part of the so-called "competitive job market". Even skilled laborers do not have many viable options without the benifits of unions.

[Didacus]

OK OK OK

Time for a Canadien point of view:

I ABSOLUTELY DETEST MODERN DAY UNIONS!

(I would say hate, but that would be unchristian)

Union today have the unique purpose of business.. making more moeny. It is their only reason to persist in existance in this day and age... at least in Canada. Never worked for one and hope I never do.

back to you Bob....