3 ms·

> Do you not agree that different people can have different value to a company? I agree with that point. My point is that to management, you are a worker. You

> Do you not agree that different people can have different value to a company? I agree with that point. My point is that to management, you are a worker. You are an expense that is to be maximized for profit. That end will always be sought. You are stuck within the bounds of what they expect to pay someone for your role + wiggle room. >Collective bargaining is the definition of muscling, as your other alternative is losing your entire workforce, even those happy with their work and pay. Most companies are terrified of becoming unionized because of the new and often unwarranted demands that will be made as a collective, just because of that threat. Collective bargaining is legally protected and a contract stipulation employers agree to. Employers can just as easily engage in manager lockout and prevent employees from working if they feel the bargain isn't worth it. >Do you imagine that unions would agree to the reverse? If the total profits have declined for a sector, do you imagine they would agree to a wage deduction? The "collective bargaining" aspect of modern unions is only there as a threat to ever increase benefits to the employees whether they are warranted or not. To quote bsder: "Many of the steelworkers unions in the early 80's went out of their way to try to get people retired so that the younger people would still have jobs. They also worked very hard to get people transferred to other sites to reach the point where they could retire even if it meant sacrificing some salary. Or, for something more recent, many of the unions involved with Hostess took several rounds of cuts before finally standing up and taking a hard line that eventually led to the bankruptcy. And, it looks like Hostess is going to be better off because of it." >Base pay and working conditions are law now, and are not going to revert. If they did, I would be for unions, that is what they are good for. Minimum wage is law, standards are set up for most work places. Industry specific laws are in place, but they do not cover all industry specific workplace needs. Tomorrow, if Keyboard X comes out, and is proven to prevent CTS, you can bet that unions would advocate for making them available. > Does it? You can't think of any companies that offer good salary and benefits with no union? None? Of course I can. Do you think those niceties will last forever and for everyone? They are an expense to be cut as soon as possible. > I am for more legal protection of employees. Class and regional minimum salaries (and wages) for different types of jobs, national health insurance, living wage guarantees and unemployment guarantees, retirement guarantees, etc. Unions have been the vehicle for enacting legislation to provide these things at the national level. Industry will lobby against provisions if it will affect the bottom line. Having a dozen programmers call your representative won't change much in the face of lobbyists.

mhuffman 12y ago
We clearly disagree on many points about unions, and can go back and forth all day with examples to support either side. The hostess example is a good one, as they would not take a reasonable salary after the market turned, over 18,000 people lost their jobs, and now they get to re-emerge with no unions...I guess that is what you mean by better off. However, I would just like to point out, that companies do not go to people's houses and foist unfair job offers on them. There is a reason that companies have an advantage on negotiation in general, that is because there are not many companies, but there are many potential employees. It is the burden of the potential employee to stand out and demonstrate his or her value in that situation. Why should you have a job instead of someone else? Why should you make more? Why should you make less? In reality, they are good at getting floor-sweepers $32 an hour, while limiting other workers with ambition through seniority and contract prices for "classes" of people. They are good at getting employees to only do the minimum amount to fulfill their work obligation and be a slave to that corporation. After all, where else are you going to get those benefits and wages with no training or skills? In my opinion, unions have destroyed industry in America and led to the wealth disparity that we now have to deal with, by encouraging industry to seek cheaper labor in other countries that do not have unions. I already agree that unions helped American in the early part of last century, but have been an albatross since. If unions only petitioned for labor laws to protect all employees, not just union employees, and if union used collective bargaining to set a base wage (with each person's individual wages depended on his or her ability and work ethic), I would be all for them.

mhuffman 12y ago

We clearly disagree on many points about unions, and can go back and forth all day with examples to support either side. The hostess example is a good one, as they would not take a reasonable salary after the market turned, over 18,000 people lost their jobs, and now they get to re-emerge with no unions...I guess that is what you mean by better off. However, I would just like to point out, that companies do not go to people's houses and foist unfair job offers on them. There is a reason that companies have an advantage on negotiation in general, that is because there are not many companies, but there are many potential employees. It is the burden of the potential employee to stand out and demonstrate his or her value in that situation. Why should you have a job instead of someone else? Why should you make more? Why should you make less? In reality, they are good at getting floor-sweepers $32 an hour, while limiting other workers with ambition through seniority and contract prices for "classes" of people. They are good at getting employees to only do the minimum amount to fulfill their work obligation and be a slave to that corporation. After all, where else are you going to get those benefits and wages with no training or skills? In my opinion, unions have destroyed industry in America and led to the wealth disparity that we now have to deal with, by encouraging industry to seek cheaper labor in other countries that do not have unions. I already agree that unions helped American in the early part of last century, but have been an albatross since. If unions only petitioned for labor laws to protect all employees, not just union employees, and if union used collective bargaining to set a base wage (with each person's individual wages depended on his or her ability and work ethic), I would be all for them.