Union Labor: For or Against?

nimh

I didn't respond to au, roger, or other reasonable posts, because I'm not trying to change their minds.

I only responded to a personal insult.

I just added my opinions in with everyone else's.

dlowan, I also believe that the dockers unions here in the states are also corrupt. They went on strike right after 9-11, and demanded the moon. Many of them make over $100,000/year.

Walter and I had this dicussion several months back and there are some pretty significant differences between US Usions and their European counterparts.

For the most part they serve little purpose here nowadays other than to give union bosses jobs. They are corporations themselves and are at least as corrupt if not more so than most employers and do a fair job of screwing their own members all by themselves.

There is a need for the intended purpose of the unions but I don't think the current unions serve that function very well in most cases.

There are employer's unions for just about every industry you can think of. They lobby for subsidized farm products, including tax incentives for using using alcohol as a motor fuel. They lobby for protective tariffs. They lobby for more relaxed environmental regulations. They also lobby for more favorable labor law. Union lobbyists join them on tariff issues, and oppose them on labor law.

Sorry, Sophia. I feel like a socialist on this issue, but I've seen what many of the small to medium size companies will get away with when they can, and they just aren't subject to the enforcement of the real giants. Honestly, the labor market just isn't the free market we would like to believe it is.

There's a lot more grey than black and white, but on balance, I'm sorry to see the unions weakened as they have been. Remember that most of the laws and work conditions we take for granted were once radical, socialist, union extremist goals.

My take on the current and previous job is that the owner and family were the nobility. More or less kindly and well meaning nobility, but nobility all the same. The rest of us have been reasonably well treated serf, but serfs all the same.

The company makes the union not vice versa. Bad management practices will lead to unionism.

A good example is Wal-Mart. Requiring employees to attend company meeting without pay. Requiring employees to work without pay cleaning up the store after hours. These are minimum wage folks. Feds file suit on behalf of all employees for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Women who work at Wal-Mart earn less than men up and down the food chain.

http://www.cluw.org/

http://www.walmartyrs.com/

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/magazine/walmart.cfm

The union movement - and the Australian Labor Party - here, are like family.

They give me the shits, they do wrong stuff (according to me in my goddess-like state of all-knowingness!) all the time, they make dumb mistakes, and I often want to spank them.

But - they are my people.

Oh, Wal-Mart. What did you expect, Joanne. I do believe that unions have caused many jobs to move overseas. I firmly believe that when Wal-Mart got big enough to tell its vendors what they could charge, they became guilty of exactly the same offense.

I still believe in free trade, mostly because it removes governmental distortion of economic signals, but Wal-Mart is introducing its own distortions. Now, Thomas is sure to drop in and demand I defend that statement. I hope I'm better rested when he does.

Here is more union action around the world.

Actually Roger I think it is the other way around moving jobs overseas is welfare for China and India without having to fund it through Foreign Aid and let the public decide.

The Communication workers of America (CWA)just had a four day strike here in Dallas, TX.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5219616.html

The Aero Space Engineers are organizing at Texas Instruments at the request of the Engineers that have been asked to double and triple their work load without overtime.

http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm?tkr=TXN&pg=1

Here, in Germany, it seems, we've got more of them than unions (which isn't exactly the fact, but since they come to the public statewise ....).

There "power" seems to be much greater than that of the unions - at least, regarding their proposals and what finally gets out .... of every workers/employees wallet.

I totally agree with you, roger. It aint no level playing field for workers out there! In the current situation workers need all the protection they can get.

And everyone enjoys those conditions whether they believe in unions or not.

What unions do/can do worldwide (inclusive the USA ) can be seen on this website
This week's top stories

I completely agree with you on this one. I also have to say that it has been about 20 years since this realistically occurred. I do feel a need, at this point in time, for union labor to make a comeback. I don't deny for one second that this was very taken advantage of, in the past. It's been about 20 years now!

I work non-union. I am trying to figure out the slavery and prisoner combo, just to have medical benefits. I am an RN. I see nurses work double shift, because of staffing needs, every day. I think, given the importance of this job, eight hours is enough for your attention span and being flat out exhausted. We are down to a skeleton crew, in medicine, as all others, in differing fields, are also. Union busing was needed, for a time, but I feel that time has come and gone. Workers need protection for reasonable employment, working conditions, and wage today.

I have a wonderful new job as Nurse Supervisor. Tonight, a nurse called in sick. Not only did I have to run a floor, with only three days training and patients I didn't know or their paperwork, which I was not trained to do. I also had to run the entire nursing home, with three floors at the same time. Isn't that just grand! I couldn't get anything done, with call offs, which I am expected to staff. I didn't even get training for the new admission and had to figure out the paperwork mountain alone.

The buck stops with me for any problem that arises. I am a new employee. I didn't know that a nursing home only hires for supervisory positions, given the huge pay difference between the RN and LPN. I'm waiting for my head to be cut off because of the lousy job I did on the floor tonight.

I did my job, as supervisor. I had multi call offs. I had to arrange staffing and did, even calling agency to cover the other shifts, which is expected of me. I didn't get my admission complete. No one taught me the paperwork. I know the basics, which is what I did. I left the chart for someone who knows what to do with it, which I didn't have training to do or anyone to help me. Since I had to spend so much time on the phone and pouring over an admission, which I had no clue how this facility does this, I expect to have my head chopped off soon.

That really is what the workplace is today, sink or swim. You better be good at work politics or you are sunk quickly and will lose your job, even if they didn't bother to train you adequately for it. I have to figure it out, alone. I had no one to help me and left an admission chart incomplete because I have never done one at this facility and had no help at all. No one had time to help me.

I did what I could and expect to get eaten alive for this screw up. That really is reality for today's non-union worker. Be brilliant or get fired. Third shift nurses don't do admissions. It will be left for first shift to see all my screw ups of ignorance to criticize and complain about, which they will. I called, after thinking about two things, which I failed to do because of lack of time, reporting to the third shift nurse. Now, I'm a real screw up. I forgot to give an IV med. I forgot to chart a blood sugar. This really is a big deal, on top of leaving an unfinished chart, with a new admission, for first shift to figure out.

My name is Mud! Some people would have lied, but I can't, knowing that forgetting this woman's IV antibioticss may lead to amputation. I better fess up to my mistake and did, which makes me look really bad. I asked her to start the IV, because I forgot about it and dont' even know these patients at all. She was really nice about it, given it is a 12hr. dose. I said no. The correct time should be noted and I will take responsiblity for it. I got blasted with two jobs, little training, and no assistance to teach me.

It is my responsibility, which I will pay for my mistakes and know it. I also say this isn't right or fair to me, as an employee, to hog my time with staffing issues at the expense of patient care, yet be held completely responsible for both. Employers, of today, don't want fair, they want a low paid slave, which happens to be me.

There are a few things that I see that isn't right. Nurses regularly work 16 hour shifts, for straight pay, back to back. Do you really want an exhausted nurse caring for you or your family member? This is too much, but the norm in the medical profession. I don't think it is fair to me taking a floor, because someone called in sick and having the responsibility of supervising and problem solving for an entire nursing home. I got two jobs, but one paycheck. Tonight, for example, I was in the weeds over staffing problems, which is my responsibility to deal with. What about my patients that I have to care for, but couldn't?

It is a no brainier why there is a nursing shortage these days. No one wants to pay us, but take advantage of our ability because of an RN license. You can't screw up or neglect anyone or anything. In medicine, there are no excuses of lack of staff. I cannot make a mistake. This isn't fair to me at all.

I couldn't care less if they are in desperate need for the next shift, for a nurse. I wont do it, but many do and are never rewarded anything but straight pay for working a 16 hour shift, but still have to be perfect, no matter how exhausted we are. I refuse this, unless they are willing to financially compensate me, but never do.

I believe, with union labor, I would get a fair deal. I don't wish to drive my employer to bankruptcy. I only want to be adequately treated. I want fair pay for my work, which we don't get. I refuse to work more than one shift for straight pay. This is unreasonable. They want more than an eight hour shift out of me, give me financial incentive to be perfect, which I am required to do anyway, but not paid for it.

I don't think this is just a problem with the medical field, but nurses often accept straight pay for an unreasonable shift. I feel this is wrong. I feel that employers are taking advantage of us. Don't make the mistake of thinking they understand you were no adequately trained or working unreasonable hours, beyond concentration, if you work more than an eight hour shift. Don't stupidly think they appreciate your efforts. They don't. Don't expect to get anything beyond straight time working an exhausting 16 hour shift. The standards are the same.

Individually, I am nothing more than a slave to my employer. They don't care about me, as an employee. They do care about any mistake you may have made, like forgetting to chart something in which you did. If you didn't put it in the chart, a lawyer can chew them up and spit them out as not done, if not charted. It is hard, especially beyond eight hours, to concentrate on paperwork, which puts you immediately to sleep, being exhausted anyway.

I say it is time for reasonable labor unions to make a come back!!

Wildflower63 I am so sorry to hear your plight but alas I have had to pay dearly in similar ways.

My approach in those situations has been to join the union and become active and then to slowly try to implement change. That process is really a hard row to hoe.

When working in both union and non-union shops I have been taken advantage of knowledge wise. Only to go uncompensated financially. Really so discouraging.

A good friend of mine is director of one the large nurses union in the US and I know from the problems he has discussed with me there are many, many problems in the health care profession - especially for the direct care providers.

I'm posting because I find the topic interesting - certainly not to change minds. Respectfully here are some thoughts from a different point of view. The labor practices you mention Wildflower are, I think in part, due to consumer demand for affordable care and your companies efforts to compete for their market share. Not about enslaving the American public. Please let me explain,

A union has the power in our industry to tell the company how it will run its business. For example in our industry, a union can say to our company, 3 people have to run that press, not two. This is not based on safety, these machines practically run themselves. With the additional cost of benefits, huge cost, this is not just about salaries. Unfortunately, it adds up very quickly, and has had devastating results to chagrin of hard working Americans.
A business can choose not to hire union labor.

When you are a business who has union labor competing with a non-union business, you can not last long with the financial constraints unions enforce upon you. For example, do most consumers want to pay $1 at WalMart or $5 at Albertsons for the same product. Businesses realize this disparity, and like Sofia said, they will make changes to compete. I believe original union cashiers made between $15/hr and $20/hr or higher at Alberstons (not including benefit packages). They take your groceries and run them through a scanner etc. I don't believe that Albertsons will continue to pay union labor $20/hr + large benefit packages for this type of job. I believe they will find a way to circumvent this process and these jobs will reduce or disappear. Why? Because we as consumers are driving the market for more and more low cost consumables and most others products today. It seems we, as consumers are giving the non-union business more power and a larger chunk of the market. This has sent a big message. Thus the trend.
In my state, and personal experience the labor market drove salaries. For example, say a business wanted to hire a Customer Service Representative that has a certain level of experience and education. Although you would love to pay say minimum wage per hour for this position, the potential employee can go into the market and receive $13/hr + benefits for this position. So in order to attract this type of talent, you must pay $13 per hour to start with, with attractive benefit packages, raises and growth potential. If in Sofia's example a janitor, who currently makes $5/hr and wants to make $20/hr, then it would be up to the person to increase their value to any potential employer warranting the $20/hr. Perhaps, additional education, additional skills, additional experience or a change of occupation? I'm not saying its a crime to want to be a janitor, I'm saying enforcing a company to pay $20/hr for this when the market pays $5/hr is not a solution for the future labor market of working Americans.
There are definitely low paying jobs "below living wage" jobs that our state has started to write laws about raising the "minimum wage" limit to a "living wage". Which is a good thing. We should all be entitled from our hard work to have the basics, better than the basics in life.
Unfair labor practices happen and are against the law. The Labor Board has police officers that investigate charges, of overtime abuses etc. Companies who are found in violation pay big fines, restitution and are routinely checked and rightly so. I hate companies that make up the rules as they go along.
I concede, this is only a small part of a much larger issue, but the problem of keeping jobs in the US as opposed to the cheaper labor in other world markets is and should be a high concern of the US labor force. Companies will continue to compete for their share of the market, and as long as we as consumers drive that to lower and lower prices, the unions may find themselves with many hardworking and paying members out of a job, because it was just too expensive to keep the jobs locally. This is a trend, happening all too frequently. Just a thought....

jacquie, what country are you in? I see that you have mentioned my state in your post but this statment: .

No union has any power except that which is given to it by the employees it represents. Without membership, voluntary or not, there is no power.

In addition, in your statement you cite a number of management rights and have incorrectly attributed them to union rights. I do not understand how you have come to these conclusions?

Hi Joanne.
I live in the United States. Sorry, if I didn't make that clear. I work currently in the printing industry. I worked for a union shop, whose owners purchased a new printing press. When it arrived, we were told by our union, that 3 people had to run the new press. It did not ask me for my opinon. It sat for 6 months.
I'm sorry Joanne, I need some coffee, pronto - management rights? No need to explain if you don't want to, I just wanted to help. I like the forum format - in my own mind, it helps me think of better solutions for the future.

This is a helpful discussion I hope I did not seem to be to confrontational. If I did please forgive me.

Thanks, jacquie, for fleshing out the other view.

This is just some of what is availble regarding management right's in the US.

29 USCS § 141 (2000)

§ 141. Short title; Congressional declaration of purpose and policy

(a) This Act may be cited as the "Labor Management Relations Act, 1947."

(b) Industrial strife which interferes with the normal flow of commerce and with the full production of articles and commodities for commerce, can be avoided or substantially minimized if employers, employees, and labor organizations each recognize under law one another's legitimate rights in their relations with each other, and above all recognize under law that neither party has any right in its relations with any other to engage in acts or practices which jeopardize the public health, safety, or interest.

It is the purpose and policy of this Act, in order to promote the full flow of commerce, to prescribe the legitimate rights of both employees and employers in their relations affecting commerce, to provide orderly and peaceful procedures for preventing the interference by either with the legitimate rights of the other, to protect the rights of individual employees in their relations with labor organizations whose activities affect commerce, to define and proscribe practices on the part of labor and management which affect commerce and are inimical to the general welfare, and to protect the rights of the public in connection with labor disputes affecting commerce.

National Labor Relations Board-Administrative regulations, 29 CFR Part 100.

Announced purposes of Labor Management Relations Act (29 USCS § 141) are to prescribe legitimate rights of employees and employers, to prevent interference by either with legitimate rights of other, and to define and proscribe practices on part of labor and management which are inimical to general welfare. National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees v Carey (1977, CA2 NY) 557 F2d 278, 94 BNA LRRM 3106, 81 CCH LC P 13132.

Structure and Jurisdiction of the Labor Management Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Board: http://www.missouri.edu/~labored/1997-2.html

Oh and I fogot welcome to A2k jacquie.