6 ms·
Much of this is not due to goodwill of owners, but unions.
by _pmf_ 7y ago
Much of this is not due to goodwill of owners, but unions.
- vianneychevalie 7y agoWhy not both?
- simonh 7y agoThese are specific examples, not general trends, so you should be able to cite evidence that these examples were due to union pressure.
- ufmace 7y agoNote that union boosters tend to want to push the narrative that all business owners and managers are evil caricatures of greedy capitalists who wouldn't give workers anything but scraps if not for the valiant unions protecting them. Not saying it's never true, but know when to be wary of union people claiming this and avoiding the point that unions sometimes obstruct efforts to keep the company alive and not lay anyone off during hard times by demanding strict adherence to negotiated agreements on hours and wages.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoA pay cut would be an "over my dead body" issue for many unions. Edit: Since this apparently does not go without saying, the feedback loops in a union are all wrong for taking that kind of risk (remember, the pay cut does not guarantee company survival). People willing to rock the boat with calculated gambles like that do not rise to positions of authority in a union.
- Vespasian 7y agoThat depends on where you are. If I recall correctly, In ~2009-2010 German automotive unions worked together with management and employees and negotiated widespread reduction of work hours in order to prevent layoffs. Of course unions/employee representatives have a different place here(e.g. half of members of the board of directors are elected representatives of employees.)
- xondono 7y agoThat's a quite specific german phenomenon that does not replicate much outside, specially around europe. France, Spain, Italy, etc... Tire-burning trouble starts with just mention of the possibility
- icebraining 7y agoThe Volkswagen Autoeuropa plant in Portugal did this, and as far as I know it went very well.
- bluGill 7y agoWhere I work the non-union staff are not laid off in downturns, only the union staff.
- djinnandtonic 7y agoIf your company does business in the United States, they're violating the law. https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employers/discriminating-against-employees-because-their-union https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employers/d... Section 8(a)(3) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer, "by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment[,] to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization." (An employer that violates Section 8(a)(3) also derivatively violates Section 8(a)(1).) For example, you may not - Discharge, constructively discharge, suspend, lock out, lay off, fail to recall from layoff, demote, discipline, or take any other adverse action against employees because they support the union or engage in union activities.
- bluGill 7y agoThis is nothing to do with union membership: when sales are down we slow the production line (everything is just in time) and part of that is letting go people on the production line who are not needed at the slower pace of operations. They will be recalled if sales improve. You have to be union to work on the production line (that is in the contract), so there is no discouragement of membership.
- tlavoie 7y agoWhat about companies where different parts of the company have differing work arrangements? For instance, my telco has some union workers in specific roles, as well as non-union retail staff, and a "management professional" category. If union people were getting laid off, it would be due to the role, but of course there would be no non-union workers in that role.