[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by johnnyburst79

LAN, I can't agree with you here either. Labor Unions prevent capitalist business owners from taking all the profits and driving the individuals who actually make the business function into an early grave. If there were no Unions, America would be far worse off than it already is.

http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/

57 lawsuits for violating wage and labor laws
Pennsylvania Class Action lawsuit for Walmart pressuring employee's to work off the clock
Forced to pay $11 million to janitors who worked 7 days a week without overtime pay
11 violations of child labor laws in Connecticut alone

You clearly made my point. There are laws and they are being enforced.
No need for a union in Wal-Mart.

[johnnyburst79]

Laws are being enforced to a degree but who put those laws in place? Surely it wasn't the slave drivers was it?

Walmart continues to exploit employee's regardless of the laws. A union would be better suited to ensuring all legal rights and benefits are used by the employee's, instead of employee's who may not know if their rights are being violated.

[WarC]

Originally Posted by ekim68

Kind of reminds me of that old saying...Thank the unions for the forty-hour work week, and vacations...

Absolutely.

I dislike it when conservatives become ardently anti-Union. Unions are an important aspect of maintaining the worker's voice in our society. They help leverage the worker's rights by representing HIS best interests, whereas the company or employer is representing their best interests.

Unions in this country became an important part of the labor struggles that hit this country in the mid to late 1800's, when large-scale monopolies and corporations where really running roughshod over the working class. That was a time when we were seeing big strikes, riots, child labor, etc etc etc. An ugly time, brought about through the drive we see today to build it Bigger, Better, Cheaper for Profit!

The Bottom Line cannot be absolute. But it will and can be if the beancounters and suits of government and upper management are allowed to set the tone. We must always remember that we are dealing with people who need to support their lives and their families, people who have aspirations beyond being the monkey on the production line.

Social Darwinism stinks. And it ought not to be part of the Conservative nomenclature.

Just one guy's opinion!

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Jim, There are laws in place to prevent the child abuse that you refer to.
Labor unions are outdated and do more harm to employees than good.

.... at least this is the case in the USA.

Mike I can't argue about that because I do not know American business laws or the stats on child labour but this was the part that irked me. I quoted it once and will do it again:

I think the driving force is a general lack of incentive to do better for onesself, and envy against those who excel.

Is this just rhetoric or do you have any data to back up that claim? I find it hard to believe that "generally" American workers don't have what it takes to do better for themselves. That implies that a siginifcant porportion of Americans are just lazy louts with no ambition. I think if that were the case America would never become the economic and technological powerhouse that it is. In my own experiences it is the small business owner that creates a lack of incentive. Being small and independant there is no way they can pay a competitive wage so the good workers do better themsleves by leaving, only to replaced by who is left: the lazy lout. After a period of time I can understand the small business owner believing everybody is a lazy lout.

Another problem I have had with working with a small company is that the owner is usually a mand that pours his sweat, enthusiasm, long hours and love for his business. This is commendable and I salute such a man and wish him the very best, but I have come up against the small owner that can't understand why his worker(s) don't have the same passion and dedication that he does and he comes to resent it. I also understand the position of the workers. They can't understand why the owner demands so much but only pays out minimum wage.

Companies still flaunt the law, knowing that most workers fear dire consequenes if they report a violation with the labour board. One good example here is the law concerning overtime. The small business owner I mentioned above with gladly work a twelve or even sixteen hour day to get the job done and expects his workers to do the same. Forcing workers to stay longer than their regular shift is against the law. Period. Yet this violation takes place in countless companies every day of the year. The one service unions provide is direct interaction at the time and place of the infraction instead of a worker fearing retribution and a lengty investigation which may not go well for the worker.

In conclusion I can only say that while I hate the large multinational unions and they do do harm I think the smaller unions are far from outdated. I fea that if they disappeared (or were outlawed) that all the labour laws in the country would keep companies from mistreating their workers.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by johnnyburst79

Laws are being enforced to a degree but who put those laws in place? Surely it wasn't the slave drivers was it?

Walmart continues to exploit employee's regardless of the laws. A union would be better suited to ensuring all legal rights and benefits are used by the employee's, instead of employee's who may not know if their rights are being violated.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. People have to start taking care of THEMSELVES and not relying on others.

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by WarC

Social Darwinism stinks. And it ought not to be part of the Conservative nomenclature.

Just one guy's opinion!

Unions are the buggy whips of the 21st century. Your grandchildren will learn about them while visiting the American History Museum.

[DotHQ]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. People have to start taking care of THEMSELVES and not relying on others.

I agree.

Unions are still viable in today's work place. However trade unions even today appear to be a who you know organization. If you have a relative in the union you have a better chance of getting in. I guess that is probably the case with mid management jobs also. I've seen both. 70 years ago unions were a necessity. In todays world they are still needed, but not as badly. As some have said companies have learned if they treat their people right they can keep out the union. E. I. DuPont is one prime example of this that I know of.

[LuckyStrike]

My posts are about why unions are created. I think Fidelista has covered all the bases and is right on all counts. With respect to WalMart, Lan you mentioned how good the benefits and pay are for loyal employees of WalMart. In my mind, this only reinforces my belief that wages and benefits are never a prime factor motivating workers to unionize. If ever there are successful efforts to unionize by WalMart employees it will be because a significant portion of their work force feels that they are being treated with intolerable levels of abuse, unfairness, and disrespect. I doubt that there will be unionization at WalMart stores. The atmosphere may be different at different stores depending on the site managers and regional managers.

I can tell you a story about my recently former employer. When I was hired thirteen years ago, the company had a culture of respect and appreciation for, and value of hourly workers. Our plant manager was the model of who a plant manager should be. She was respected and even beloved by both hourly workers and by her superiors within corporate management. All she had to do was ask, and people would bust their butts for her and more. That culture did not always exist at our particular site. Under a previous manager, the same good workers were treated in such an unfair, disrespectful, abusive, and childishly petty way that preliminary steps were taken by a number of employees to organize. Somehow, corporate got wind of this and sent a team down from Chicago to investigate. The team asked the plant manager what the heck was going on? The plant manager told them nothing was going on. The team from Chicago fired the plant manager and a few members of his management team that day. The Charleston site never unionized, even though our sister site in Connecticut is union. They knew that unions are created by bad management. Our site has consistently out-performed our sister sites over the years.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by LuckyStrike

My posts are about why unions are created. I think Fidelista has covered all the bases and is right on all counts. With respect to WalMart, Lan you mentioned how good the benefits and pay are for loyal employees of WalMart. In my mind, this only reinforces my belief that wages and benefits are never a prime factor motivating workers to unionize. If ever there are successful efforts to unionize by WalMart employees it will be because a significant portion of their work force feels that they are being treated with intolerable levels of abuse, unfairness, and disrespect. I doubt that there will be unionization at WalMart stores. The atmosphere may be different at different stores depending on the site managers and regional managers.

As one who has owned a business, I know the value of a good employee, and I know the value of a poor employee.

Unions seek to equalize their value in the interest of "fairness".

Well that notion is simply unfair to the employer. I will pay the better worker a higher wage, even if he does not have seniority over the poor employee.

I can tell you a story about my recently former employer. When I was hired thirteen years ago, the company had a culture of respect and appreciation for, and value of hourly workers. Our plant manager was the model of who a plant manager should be. She was respected and even beloved by both hourly workers and by her superiors within corporate management. All she had to do was ask, and people would bust their butts for her and more. That culture did not always exist at our particular site.

This is the way business actually works under non-union conditions the VAST majority of the time

Under a previous manager, the same good workers were treated in such an unfair, disrespectful, abusive, and childishly petty way that preliminary steps were taken by a number of employees to organize. Somehow, corporate got wind of this and sent a team down from Chicago to investigate. The team asked the plant manager what the heck was going on? The plant manager told them nothing was going on. The team from Chicago fired the plant manager and a few members of his management team that day. The Charleston site never unionized, even though our sister site in Connecticut is union. They knew that unions are created by bad management. Our site has consistently out-performed our sister sites over the years.

To an extent, I agree with what you are saying. But the best way to solve the problem is NOT to unionize, but instead, for the good employees to seek employment elsewhere.
Management only has to lose a good enough percentage of their good workforce to realize they are going to be losing profit hand over fist if they don't provide a better workiplace than their competition does.

And .... if an employee has been at the job for 10+ years, then the benefits should blossom exponentially .... as they do at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart doesn't pay well for people who want a "job". They pay better than any similar corporation for people who want a career.

Both the business and the employee have to make an investment in the relationship.
Wal-Mat makes their investment on the back end (long term benefits are out of this world) and the employee makes his investment on the front end with their time and effort.

That's called free market economics, and is the single greatest contributor to real individual wealth in this country.

Do you know how many people are employed with Wal-Mart?

This country should be thankful that Wal-Mart employs so many people, and pays their loyal employees a wage under which they can retire in luxury.

[LuckyStrike]

Lan,
You obviously have never worked as a full time hourly worker in a factory for any length of time. I can tell you that an hourly workforce are typically good people and good workers. The slackers or problem children are the exception.

To an extent, I agree with what you are saying. But the best way to solve the problem is NOT to unionize, but instead, for the good employees to seek employment elsewhere.

In thirteen years I saw four plant managers. Two of them were outstanding, one was mediocre, one was a petty, immature, adulterous, slime bag dud. Good workers want to support their families, build a retirement. If hourly workers quit every time they meet a bad manager, they'd be unemployed every six to eight years, starting over at the bottom, always at the lower end of the pay scale, never accumulating more than the starting vacation benefits.

You talk about seniority. I can tell you that experience that comes with length of service has real value.

I'm no fan of unions generally, but this thread is about why unions are created. Unions are created by bad management.

You talk of being an employer. Well Lan, I was a self employed business man for fourteen years before going to work for a corporation. I have been on both sides. Having a small business with with five employees does not give you a realistic perspective about a corporate work environment. The basic assumptions that are communicated by your attitude about hourly workers are way off base. You seem to have a basically negative view about workers. Well let me tell you Lan, as an employer/manager you run the company. You make the decisions. You decide who to hire or fire. You set the goals and objectives. You set the tone of the work environment. You make the rules. Your actions as manager determines whether or not there is an atmosphere of mutual respect, teamwork, and good morale. You are responsible for making sure that workers have the resources they need to do their jobs when they need them and where they need them.

If a workplace has jealosy, pettiness, bickering, low morale, and conflict, that is a reflection of the management.

General Omar Bradley was one of the greatest leaders in history who was universally respected by both his subordinates and his superiors. He said that " any commander who is worth a warm bucket of spit knows that morale is, or can be, at least as important as any other single factor with respect to combat effectiveness" Well combat effectiveness is just one type of human performance of particular interest to a combat commander in war time, but I believe the statement applies equally to all forms of human performance.

To paraphrase: Any manager who is worth a warm bucket of spit knows that morale is, or can be, at least as important as any other single factor with respect to human performance.

[WarC]

Originally Posted by Bastiat

Unions are the buggy whips of the 21st century. Your grandchildren will learn about them while visiting the American History Museum.

When there are no unions, I will quake for the future of this country. It will mean the second coming of tthe labor crisis.

One thing I will never understand, as a "bleeding heart" moderate conservative, is why so many further to the right of me have such a vitriolic attitude towards the working class, and the entities that further their causes and represent their interests where a singular employee has no real oppurtunity to have his voice heard. Of course a union can grow to be too powerful, just as a corporation can. But just as corporations are important to our way of life, so too are the unions. You can't have one without the other, without tilting the relative balance too far to one side.

This is what happened when Big Business set policy in America:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

Remember that it took Theodore Roosevelt, a Progressive Republican, who in the early 1900's as President helped bust over 40 trusts and monopolies, to set the rampant commercialism and profiteering at the cost of worker's rights back on the straight and narrow.

It is within this party and its principles to uphold the rights and oppertunities of all of this country's citizens, to adapt and change as the situation dictates, for a better and stronger country and people. You might call socialism what I call the proliferation of a blue-collar middle class. For far too long has this party been scared by the Red Word "Socialism" into a firm and uncompromising rigidity. And lets be honest, it is that aspect of a worker's union that causes such negative response.

[LANMaster]

Crap! Cut off again after almost finishing my reply.

Now it's too late to start it over.

Yes, I was factory for 12 years.

I'll get back in this tomorrow.

[Fidelista]

WarC and LuckyStrike >>> . Very well stated and true .
One argument that anti-Union people often make is this --" Unions were good and needed back then , but not now ". I suppose they think the factors that lead to abuse have changed ?.
I maintain that without Govt regulation and Unions , we would be exactly where we were 100yrs ago . Big business would use child labor -- would abuse exactly as they did in past , and still do in nations that suppress Unions .
Greed and the motivation to abuse for profit has not magically disappeared . Its human nature, and opportunity to do so is part of system. The US. Govt and most of the civilized world have long recognized this fact , and protected the right to organize for exactly this reason. Balance is what makes Capitalism work --for employers and workers -- work for all .
Its interesting that a man like T. Roosevelt was as progressive as he was , considering the times , and the political clout of business in those days .
I can not say I approve of all he did , but it does seem that he had more than a passing interest in fairness and justice --at least for N.Americans .
At any rate , you guys WarC & LuckyStrike have a good understanding of subject that few have .
History shows why Unions are needed {as well as progressive Govt } , and what would happen in their absence , it would be brutal .
I thought I would include a little about T.R. below . Not a Union promoter by any means , but very progressive in ways , for the times . >f
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A celebrated story of Roosevelt decisiveness comes from the 1902 Anthracite Coal strike. 50,000 United Mine Workers of northern Pennsylvania walked out in May, demanding a 10-20% raise, recognition of their union, an eight-hour workday, and fringe benefits. Until October, the UMW danced around the owners of the six big mines in the region. The union continually professed its willingness to negotiate, but the owners refused. Waiting "for the union to crack" , two of the owners claimed that God had granted them their extensive property rights . Finally, with coal increasingly scarce, as even schools and hospitals grew cold and riots threatened in several cities, Roosevelt called the UMW and the coal operators to the White House for a meeting.

Mitchell, the union leader, offered to meet with the operators at any time or accept binding arbitration by a commission TR appointed . Various operators, in contrast, railed that the President asked them "to deal with outlaws"; accused the union of over 20 murders; and suggested the strike be broken by the Army, violently if necessary . 'Insulting' the President and Attorney General, never acknowledging the union's representatives, they finally left in a huff . Unimpressed, Theodore Roosevelt put it to advisers that he was considering taking the federal troops the operators asked for, but to confiscate the mines from them. The troops would produce coal for the country.

This scared the operators back to the negotiating table. Never before had a President threatened "to seize and operate a major industry" .

On October 13, a temporary settlement was finalized. The workers went back to work, and TR appointed an arbitral board to iron out the conflicts of interest. Eventually, the union workers received a 10 percent raise, and working hours were lowered........."

For the first time, labor and capital had come to the White House on equal terms. Government used its influence to negotiate a settlement for the first time. Never before had a President appointed an arbitral board to settle such labor questions. It was also the first time for such threats against the operators . Though TR stepped beyond his legal bounds to wrangle out a settlement, it resulted in powerful precedents and fair treatment of the much-abused labor forces. In this issue Roosevelt coined the catchy phrase "square deal" referring to his treatment of the participants in the debate. In every crisis he took on, Roosevelt tried with his vigor, and according to his sensibilities, to achieve fairness for all parties involved.


Roosevelt was quite sympathetic to the corporations; his support of labor stemmed mostly from a balanced view of the issues. He wrote: "I would guarantee by every means in my power the right of laboring men to join a union, and their right to work as union men without illegal interference from either capitalists or nonunion men" . Roosevelt believed in unions in principle; he did not want either labor forces or capitalists to go too far in asserting their 'rights.' "Big labor, like big capital, [TR] remarked, was one of the laws of the social and economic development of the age. Unions, he believed, contributed to the general welfare" .
http://www.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/teddy/teddyxx.htm

[Gibble]

I'm not going to quote individuals but from the last several posts a few things stuck out...


1. Business can't go back to taking advantage of it's workers like it did pre-union.
Unions were a tool and lobbied for not only themselves, but everyone and laws have been enacted that protect the rights of workers. If unions went away now, the laws would still exist. Child labour, unsafe workplaces, etc, would remain a thing of the past. You don't need to go to your union to complain...you call the labour board.

2. You don't have to start over just because you change employers. If you have experience, you can get a job farther up the food chain.

3. Some places that get a bad rep, are actually good places to work if you're motivated. My current employer has a bad reputation. Most people leave within a year to two. Not because of the pay, but because you have to do your work. You can't slack, and getting things done ON TIME is VERY VERY important. If you're good at what you do, you have no problems keeping up to the pace, and the technology I work with is cutting edge. Which if you can't learn, you will fail. The biggest key to moving up in your career is your ability to learn. To absorb knowledge.

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by WarC

When there are no unions, I will quake for the future of this country. It will mean the second coming of tthe labor crisis.

One thing I will never understand, as a "bleeding heart" moderate conservative, is why so many further to the right of me have such a vitriolic attitude towards the working class, and the entities that further their causes and represent their interests where a singular employee has no real oppurtunity to have his voice heard. Of course a union can grow to be too powerful, just as a corporation can. But just as corporations are important to our way of life, so too are the unions. You can't have one without the other, without tilting the relative balance too far to one side.

Your problem is you view unions as the "little guy" up against the big bad company. Unions are nothing more than another form of business.....they sell a product just like GM or Ford and just like any business to survive they must grow. Unions are hugh corporate bodies that rival some of the largest corporations in the US. Just look at the NEA. Unions have gotten so big that the corporate union employees should unionize. How would you like to work for a company that tells you how much you will "contribute" each week from your pay to be donate to the Hillary Carter campaign? Happens in unions everyday. The claim of "vitriolic attitude" is just perpetuating the myth.