unions

[Doktor Howl]

However, it occurs to me that American CEOs are the true causes of industrial downfall.

Unions have their problems, but my principle argument in favor of them is this:  Management is by definition organized, therefore labor should also organize, in self-defense.

Also, the threat of a union is often better than the union itself.  The company I work for offers ACTUAL "competitive wages" & benefits (ie, as good or better than the hourly guys would get with a union), mostly to keep the unions out, as nobody likes the paperwork.  The employees are happy this way, the company winds up spending less money, and I don't have to worry about dealing with a union steward.

This. Unions (read: "worker racketeers") are the only semi-defense against corporate racketeers. Unless they're made up of dirty, New York Italians like me. Then they're just bullies.

Hairy bullies.

Hairy greasy bullies.

You jumped in entirely too enthusiastically with the hairy thing, btw.

I have Italian cousins.  They make me look almost normal.

[Deepthroat Chopra]

Another thing in favor of unions is that they're the reason we have weekends.

I'm assuming it's a similar situation in America, but here, everything that's better about a job now, than it was a hundred and fifty years ago, is because of union action. Shorter working weeks, breaks, increased real wages, safety conditions, and the list goes on. Mgmt did not come in and say, "here, have a wage rise!".

But that doesn't answer the original question. I always thought I was in a union, basically because of Industrial Relations history. But then, some years ago, our conservative Liberal government wanted to return to some early 20th century situation, and it was the unions that prevented this from happening, really (as well as voters who threw out that government at the time).

It was obvious that, yes, there are organisations (Chambers' of Commerce, Industry Associations and their think-tank fronts, etc.) that are actively conspiring to make life worse for people working for salaries, wages, and contracts, and they will continue to do so. They believe they will benefit from us getting lower wages, and they're right. The existence of unions is probably the best counter-conspiracy.

Yes, unions can be full of bastards, playing petty power games against each other with our money. I hate that. My Union's national secretary was recently busted using union funds for hookers. My money! And I didn't get so much as a handjob.

But the folks who do want to fcuk us over are bigger than me, and the gains unions have made, and the territory they've defended, point to it being more than worthwhile.

This I believe.

[navkat]

However, it occurs to me that American CEOs are the true causes of industrial downfall.

Unions have their problems, but my principle argument in favor of them is this:  Management is by definition organized, therefore labor should also organize, in self-defense.

Also, the threat of a union is often better than the union itself.  The company I work for offers ACTUAL "competitive wages" & benefits (ie, as good or better than the hourly guys would get with a union), mostly to keep the unions out, as nobody likes the paperwork.  The employees are happy this way, the company winds up spending less money, and I don't have to worry about dealing with a union steward.

This. Unions (read: "worker racketeers") are the only semi-defense against corporate racketeers. Unless they're made up of dirty, New York Italians like me. Then they're just bullies.

Hairy bullies.

Hairy greasy bullies.

You jumped in entirely too enthusiastically with the hairy thing, btw.

I have Italian cousins.  They make me look almost normal.

[Cain]

However, it occurs to me that American CEOs are the true causes of industrial downfall.

Unions have their problems, but my principle argument in favor of them is this:  Management is by definition organized, therefore labor should also organize, in self-defense.

Also, the threat of a union is often better than the union itself.  The company I work for offers ACTUAL "competitive wages" & benefits (ie, as good or better than the hourly guys would get with a union), mostly to keep the unions out, as nobody likes the paperwork.  The employees are happy this way, the company winds up spending less money, and I don't have to worry about dealing with a union steward.

Pretty similar to my situation.  We have a staff association, which I'm not a member of, and don't pay any dues towards, but who still seem to actually do stuff (for instance, I just found out, five minutes ago, that profits are up yet again, while wages have declined due to inflation - not that this bothers me right now, since my pay has essentially quintipled from my previous job).

Ultimately, our parent company is owned by a massive, UK-based investment firm, who are, as a rule, hostile to unionization, but are willing to pay enough to employees to keep the headache of having to deal with them away.  Given the politically connected nature of our parent company, and in particular their profits on Olympics linked ventures, I do not see us running into money issues anytime in the near future, and with the educational subsidriary expanding, I suspect there will plenty enough money going around to bribe us from unionising.

In a broader sense, I'm OK with unions because, well, I'm aware of the history of labour in the UK.  Most of it was shitty, and it was frequently violent.  My main concern is the institutional links between the major unions and the Labour Party - which is, of course, a party made up mostly of neoliberal hacks and globalization-telecomms/New Economy/Management Science fetishists, and so is instinctively hostile to organised labour.  Watching them fund the Labour Party is rather pitiful, and definitely contrary to their best interests.

That said, if the above situation did improve, I still wouldn't necessarily be happy with it.  I'm not a big fan of having outside institutions having a major say in how a political party is run - that should be up to the party itself, and if it's a major party in a democratic state, then the process by which that party is run should also be democratic.

[hirley0]

However,

Unions have their problems, spending less money,

Pretty similar to my situation.

imo As earth enters this ?"UAYEB (POISONED)"? period
WHITCH, My guess is will be the worst time ever recoded by human beings
EVER!-! Gathering together in a common cause (for example reducing the
NuKe Number| will only make thins worse more quickly. EVEry man for
himself, thats the way it works. Sure there may be a LIFE BOAT  here
and there? but shirley not everywhere | & its bound to be EVEry Wear
now lemme ee where? from here (see LiNK

[LMNO]

Everything is someone else's problem.

Oh shit, let's keep talking about unions pleeze.

Still want to know what it explains.

I think it was an attempt at humor.

[rong]

In the there's some truth in every joke sense, but the truth is up to you.

[Doktor Howl]

In the there's some truth in every joke sense, but the truth is up to you.

Sorry, the East German judge gave you a 2, on account of wimping out.

[AFK]

[rong]

Right, because fisticuffs on an internet forum is fucking tough.

[Cain]

Yeah, fuckface! Get ready to be beaten down. Grrr! Internet ain't so safe now is it motherfucker! Shit just got real! Bam!

[LMNO]

[rong]

roffles.jpg

[Doktor Howl]

Right, because fisticuffs on an internet forum is fucking tough.

Not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, you take a shot at someone, don't go all passive-aggressive and walk off. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I agree with Dok on both points. Unions are bad, but for many jobs non-union is worse. The place my Dad works would be much more of a nightmare than it is, if they didn't have a union. On the other hand, as Dok also said, the threat of Unions make many companies behave... Limited Brands, for example, generally ranks high on the "Nice Place to Work" surveys and they make sure it stays that way because they don't want unions to come in.