[LuckyStrike]

I am generally not a fan of labor unions. I think they eventually become corrupt and become a drag on productivity and competitiveness.

However I think that unions are created when workers are treated so badly that a significant number of the workforce are willing to risk the possible or even probable loss of their jobs in and effort to organize a union, rather than continue working under their present conditions.

I don't think unions are created by external forces. I don't think they are created by communist agitators. I don't think they are created by professional union organizers. I don't think labor unions are created by bad workers. I think labor unions are created by bad management.

My Stuart Smalley moment.

[ekim68]

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

[LuckyStrike]

Originally Posted by ekim68

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

On the other hand, maybe a fifty hour work week would be better than a zero hour work week.

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by LuckyStrike

I am generally not a fan of labor unions. I think they eventually become corrupt and become a drag on productivity and competitiveness.

However I think that unions are created when workers are treated so badly that a significant number of the workforce are willing to risk the possible or even probable loss of their jobs in and effort to organize a union, rather than continue working under their present conditions.

I don't think unions are created by external forces. I don't think they are created by communist agitators. I don't think they are created by professional union organizers. I don't think labor unions are created by bad workers. I think labor unions are created by bad management.

My Stuart Smalley moment.

You think right !.
Its next to impossible to organize employees who feel they are treated fairly.
Successful organizations are never achieved simply because workers want a little more money ---- doesnt happen. It takes much more to get people to risk all.
Unions and organizers only "organize" , and direct , they cannot create the anger and resolve it takes for a win .
Only management can do that .
Your "Smalley moment " is right on. >f

[LuckyStrike]

A demonstrated lack of respect for workers is the single most important driving factor in my mind. I agree that money is never the prime objective.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by LuckyStrike

A demonstrated lack of respect for workers is the single most important driving factor in my mind. I agree that money is never the prime objective.

I tend to disagree with you on this point.
As a former small business owner (non union-only 5 employees at its height) I think the driving force is a general lack of incentive to do better for onesself, and envy against those who excel.

Your co-worker, Harry, gets a goodly raise and another co-worker, Bob, didn't, even though Bob's worked there longer.
That's not fair, right?
Wrong. Harry is perceived to be a more valuable employee to the company.
Bob's bent out of shape. But instead of trying to improve the quality of his work, Bob starts a union movement claiming there's a lack or respect for the workers at the company.
Harry knows different, and wants nothing to do with a union. Bob is jealous and envious. Plain and simple.

That is the way I view most companies that go union.
And what is even harsher, is that while the company is forced to pay better compensation, their overall sales go down because of the price increases that must be passed on to the consumer.

There has been a driving force inside Wal Mart for decades to go union. Thankfully that effort has failed.
If a person stays employed at Wal-Mart over 1 decade, their benefits go through the roof, pretty much setting that person up well in their retirement. Stay 20 years, and one can retire early if he/she wants to.

Unionize Wal-Mart, and you take away a fantasticly sweet private incentive retirement package available for every faithful and loyal Wal-Mart employee, that they can get from no other consumer chain of its kind.

Unions destroy incentive, loyalty, and consumer prices. They had their place at one tiome, but they are antiquated, and do more harm than help to the employee overall.

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by LuckyStrike

A demonstrated lack of respect for workers is the single most important driving factor in my mind. I agree that money is never the prime objective.

Having done this work for many years , I know you are right .
It works something like this most times --and I will make this short .
Someone "drops a dime" , calls the Union with a proposal to Unionize .
Its passed off and a meeting is arranged .
The majority of the time -- and I mean majority -- its simply a disgruntled employee.
Mad at Boss , sees others promoted and is angry , many many gripes ! .
Usually , its one person , or one and a friend or two . .
Kind of like the "Bob" Lan describes .
We listen and determine if its something that effects the majority ? --if it is serious ? -- would majority support and fight ? --- never will they for a disgruntled employee, or even a few of them -- and neither would we invest in such stupidity .
If I didn't give the thumbs down on such a thing , I would not have a job ! be fired !.

Unions are a business and campaigns are only invested in when a clear cut majority is fighting mad !. As a campaign goes on , some shrink with fear , others are promised that all grievances will be addressed without the Union , and some seek to curry favor or advantage with management -- in short , sometimes there are losses -- a clear majority is needed.
Generally its never one issue , but several { unfair treatment -- benefits ect ect }, that get a majority vote, and never just a raise.
I understand the dynamics of this very well .
I suppose it could be summed up as you say -- "lack of respect".
People are simply not motivated enough to take the obvious risks to organize --unless they have deep grievances , and then they have to be shared by a strong majority .
This is as it should be.
Like I have stated before , if a company shows respect to employees , treats them fairly , tries to provide the basics needed to live , and what is seen as fair wage --they cannot be organized -- impossible . I know . >f

[pyritechips]

As a former small business owner (non union-only 5 employees at its height) I think the driving force is a general lack of incentive to do better for onesself, and envy against those who excel.

That is so comptempuous! The same tired old rant about lazy, unappreciative slobs sucking off the hard earned dollars of the businessmen. I have been in unions. I have seen bad ones and good ones; I have worked for excellent owners and pure slave drivers. Before you spout clichéd tripe why don't you at both sides of the story and research the beginnings of unions and associations at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. I suppose 10 year-olds working 16 hour days for pennies in filthy pit mines is ok? You don't believe there aren't sweat shops here here today in Canada and America explioting the underpriviledged and immigrants? Trust me; if our governments put a stop to slave labour people wouldn't feel a need to organize and try to get better working conditions. Also, there seems to be a sentiment on this continent that just about everything should and is regulated but business should have carte blance and do whatever they want.

Mike, you are a smart man with good ideas but get it out of your head that the world is black and white. Business is all good and unions are all bad (along with those ungrateful, greedy and lazy workers). The world is more complex than that. Unions are like everything else in our lives; they are a human invention that suited a need. There are more modern ideas in the 21st century other than the antiquated master-slave relationship between the employers who provide others with a living and the employees that help the employer gain the riches he enjoys.

[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.

[Fyzbo]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I tend to disagree with you on this point.
As a former small business owner (non union-only 5 employees at its height) I think the driving force is a general lack of incentive to do better for onesself, and envy against those who excel.

Your co-worker, Harry, gets a goodly raise and another co-worker, Bob, didn't, even though Bob's worked there longer.
That's not fair, right?
Wrong. Harry is perceived to be a more valuable employee to the company.
Bob's bent out of shape. But instead of trying to improve the quality of his work, Bob starts a union movement claiming there's a lack or respect for the workers at the company.
Harry knows different, and wants nothing to do with a union. Bob is jealous and envious. Plain and simple.

That is the way I view most companies that go union.
And what is even harsher, is that while the company is forced to pay better compensation, their overall sales go down because of the price increases that must be passed on to the consumer.

There has been a driving force inside Wal Mart for decades to go union. Thankfully that effort has failed.
If a person stays employed at Wal-Mart over 1 decade, their benefits go through the roof, pretty much setting that person up well in their retirement. Stay 20 years, and one can retire early if he/she wants to.

Unionize Wal-Mart, and you take away a fantasticly sweet private incentive retirement package available for every faithful and loyal Wal-Mart employee, that they can get from no other consumer chain of its kind.

Unions destroy incentive, loyalty, and consumer prices. They had their place at one tiome, but they are antiquated, and do more harm than help to the employee overall.

I find it odd that you would use Walmart as an example. They are probably one of the worst companies and the only one I could think of where a union would be a good thing.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Fyzbo

I find it odd that you would use Walmart as an example. They are probably one of the worst companies and the only one I could think of where a union would be a good thing.

You must not have read my post.

Compared to like businesses, the loyal employee fares far far better in the long run.

You have bought into the anti-capitalist BS surrounding Wal-Mart.

[Nekochanpurr]

Personally, even though our union kind of sucks (food workers union, UFCW) i am glad we have it. I am scared to think of what our management would do if we didn't.. You can't tell me Kroger's is hurting with a union, when the Farmer Jack's (at least, in Michigan) have all gone out of business.. We start off with low, mim wage jobs, but at least we eventually get raises.. They can't dump us when we don't ring '95 or higher' even when most of the time it isn't our fault. =/ I dislike my job, i dislike my pay (specially when groceries are going up, wtf?) but really.. I'm glad i have a job at all. >.<
Was that all over the place and rambly for you guys? lol Sorry!

[Fyzbo]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

You must not have read my post.

Compared to like businesses, the loyal employee fares far far better in the long run.

You have bought into the anti-capitalist BS surrounding Wal-Mart.

How do they fare better? I feel no need to work for 10 years before getting basics like health insurance.

Wal-Mart tops the list of companies having the most employees on taxpayer-subsidized state health programs.

On average, U.S. employers spend $5,600 per worker on health care annually. Wal-Mart spends only $3,500.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Fyzbo

How do they fare better? I feel no need to work for 10 years before getting basics like health insurance.

Get educated on the subject

Wal-Mart's critics are often appalled by the company's health insurance coverage, but the facts don't always justify the rants directed against the company.

Detractors point out that Wal-Mart covers only 48 percent of its employees. But according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, in the retail sector overall only 45 percent of workers receive health coverage from their own employer. Still, why do more than half of Wal-Mart's employees opt out of the company's health insurance?

For one thing, part-time workers who make up 25 percent of Wal-Mart's workforce are not eligible until after two years. Then there is the cost. Wal-Mart pays 67 percent of the cost of health insurance for employees, about equal to the retail industry average of 68 percent for family coverage-but, for individual health insurance, far below the 77 percent that retailers contribute on average.

Many employees opt out because they are otherwise covered. The company says that two-thirds of its employees are second-income providers, college students, and senior citizens. Many of these have health insurance through their spouse's employer, parent's plan, or retirement and Medicare programs. Thus about 40 percent of the company's workers are covered apart from Wal-Mart's plan.

Hence the company asserts that close to 90 percent of its employees have health insurance by one means or another. Deductibles are $1,000 for a plan with a low premium, which does not include routine treatments such as flu shots and child vaccinations. Wal-Mart's health insurance emphasizes protection for catastrophic health expenses such as cancer treatment.

Health-care premiums for U.S. employer plans increased 11.2 percent in 2004, the fourth consecutive year of double-digit increases. Wal-Mart's coverage seems to reflect a company facing spiraling health-care costs for more than 1.5 million employees.

Link

Worth a look (PDF)

And this .....

January 23, 2008
Wal-Mart health insurance plan working well
Thomas Lifson

Give the New York Times credit for running this article about Wal-Mart, one which might even cause some readers to reconsider their hostility toward the retailing revolutionary. Headlined, "Wal-Mart Says More Than Half Its Workers Have Its Health Insurance", the piece recounts the lengths to which the company has gone to provide affordable coverage to its workforce, so that now more than half carry Wal-Mart health insurance in one variant or another. Most of the others have a plan provided by a spouse or through other means. Only 7.3% are without coverage, and Michael Barbarro reports on management's plans to reduce that number.

Link

[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