NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050723/ap_on_bi_ge/labor_rift

Apparently not all is well in Unionville!

Unions are, like any beurocracy, often attempting to outgrow their usefulness. They can create rules which stifle productivity. Union rules! bah! Really the point of a union is pretty straight forward. It is not to get the largest benefit, not to get the most jobs, it is to insure fair working conditions and compensation. Simple. End. Done. They have far exceeded that neccessity - reuslting in gross inefficiency. Protecting people with poor work ethic/results - driving labor costs to the point where it becomes cheaper to build factories overseas and ship the products half way around the world than to continue domestic operations and employment - demanding higher and higher dues from membership to pay for things beyond the scope of what a union should be participating in.

Unions also made the error of becoming politically affiliated. (Politically active and politically affiliated are two different things.) By 'taking sides' they essentially shut out or at least turned off roughly 50% of Americans.

They allowed a monopoly over the union system. There is no competition betweeen auto worker unions because there is only one. This is, in effect, price fixing. They used their monopoly to set unreasonably high costs. Without competition there is gross inefficiency for everyone.

Unions are barely an echo of what they once were. At the rate things are going they may soon rest in peace.

Can I laugh, or would that upset you?

For the win.

Unions, who once had a noble and lofty goal at their outset, have now become corrupt, shiftless, and much too powerful.

Can I laugh, or would that upset you?
Why would your cackling be upsetting to anyone?

For the win.

Unions, who once had a noble and lofty goal at their outset, have now become corrupt, shiftless, and much too powerful.

Amen to that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050723/ap_on_bi_ge/labor_rift

Apparently not all is well in Unionville!

Unions are, like any beurocracy, often attempting to outgrow their usefulness. They can create rules which stifle productivity. Union rules! bah! Really the point of a union is pretty straight forward. It is not to get the largest benefit, not to get the most jobs, it is to insure fair working conditions and compensation. Simple. End. Done. They have far exceeded that neccessity - reuslting in gross inefficiency. Protecting people with poor work ethic/results - driving labor costs to the point where it becomes cheaper to build factories overseas and ship the products half way around the world than to continue domestic operations and employment - demanding higher and higher dues from membership to pay for things beyond the scope of what a union should be participating in.

Unions also made the error of becoming politically affiliated. (Politically active and politically affiliated are two different things.) By 'taking sides' they essentially shut out or at least turned off roughly 50% of Americans.

They allowed a monopoly over the union system. There is no competition betweeen auto worker unions because there is only one. This is, in effect, price fixing. They used their monopoly to set unreasonably high costs. Without competition there is gross inefficiency for everyone.

Unions are barely an echo of what they once were. At the rate things are going they may soon rest in peace.

All I have to say is.... ;) :) ;) :)

Nothing will turn someone anti-union like living in a city controlled by the unions.

Yale University was set to build a cancer center worth close to a billion dollars in the middle of New Haven, CT a few months ago. This would have made our city one of the top research centers in the world and employed thousands of people. Unfortunately, the unions decided to stage a power play and make demands before ground was even broken. These demands consisted of the usual: employees have to commit a felony in order to be fired, $21/hour wages for unskilled labor, etc.

Yale balked at the union demands and froze construction on the cancer center. Later, the project was cancelled entirely.

Good job, guys.

I'm strongly anti-union after being screwed over by the MTA (bus system) union. I don't work for them or anything at all. But I'm a common passenger. I don't have a car. How the hell can I get around when those idiots were on strike! I hope unions continue their disappearance. They were once a good idea, but not anymore since they are ruled by corruption.

[url]
Unions are, like any beurocracy, often attempting to outgrow their usefulness.

wow, very nicely put, I may quote that sometime. The best example of how unions are going to far, is our local grocery store. The forced union fee is $30.00 a month, effectively taking more money then government to over half the employee's. The Union president also is makeing over $200,000 a year, well over the store manager. The union scared me out of working there.

wow, very nicely put, I may quote that sometime. The best example of how unions are going to far, is our local grocery store. The forced union fee is $30.00 a month, effectively taking more money then government to over half the employee's. The Union president also is makeing over $200,000 a year, well over the store manager. The union scared me out of working there.

$200,000 for the president of a union of a grocery store? WTF?

Hey, he's there to protect the average worker by taking 1/3 of there salary. He deserves the money! :headbang:

And just to make sure you understand, he doesnt actuelly do anything. He doesnt work in the store or anything, hardly any non-management have seen him.

Nothing will turn someone anti-union like living in a city controlled by the unions.

Yale University was set to build a cancer center worth close to a billion dollars in the middle of New Haven, CT a few months ago. This would have made our city one of the top research centers in the world and employed thousands of people. Unfortunately, the unions decided to stage a power play and make demands before ground was even broken. These demands consisted of the usual: employees have to commit a felony in order to be fired, $21/hour wages for unskilled labor, etc.

Yale balked at the union demands and froze construction on the cancer center. Later, the project was cancelled entirely.

Good job, guys.

A stunning illustration of union good-intentions gone horribly wrong. Thanks.

Unions also made the error of becoming politically affiliated. (Politically active and politically affiliated are two different things.) By 'taking sides' they essentially shut out or at least turned off roughly 50% of Americans.
This is flawed. If one party in a two-party system is against unions and the other supports them, why shouldn't unions take the right (left?) side for them? Any worker who supports the unions' goals would not vote for the anti-union party anyway, would they?

Unions are barely an echo of what they once were. At the rate things are going they may soon rest in peace.
This may be true, unfortunately. And once there is the inveitable gradual deterioration of workplace conditions and employer abuses, unions will rise again.

This is flawed. If one party in a two-party system is against unions and the other supports them, why shouldn't unions take the right (left?) side for them? Any worker who supports the unions' goals would not vote for the anti-union party anyway, would they?


This may be true, unfortunately. And once there is the inveitable gradual deterioration of workplace conditions and employer abuses, unions will rise again.
'bout time you showed up. I've been waiting for someonw to breath some life into this thread. I'm amazed there isn't more interest in labor relation.

You make a critical flaw in your briefly (too briefly) stated presumption;
"If one party in a two-party system is against unions and the other supports them, why shouldn't unions take the right (left?) side for them?"

Tell me which party (lets keep it to the US) has come out and said 'we are the anti-union party' in defining their platform? Are you suggesting that one party does not support labor? That is a brave assertation to make. Be careful to make sure your response is on firm and verifiable footing.

wow, very nicely put, I may quote that sometime. The best example of how unions are going to far, is our local grocery store. The forced union fee is $30.00 a month, effectively taking more money then government to over half the employee's. The Union president also is makeing over $200,000 a year, well over the store manager. The union scared me out of working there.


Is it the UFCW representing this place?

You make a critical flaw in your briefly (too briefly) stated presumption;
"If one party in a two-party system is against unions and the other supports them, why shouldn't unions take the right (left?) side for them?"

Tell me which party (lets keep it to the US) has come out and said 'we are the anti-union party' in defining their platform? Are you suggesting that one party does not support labor? That is a brave assertation to make. Be careful to make sure your response is on firm and verifiable footing.
I don't know enough, or sufficiently care about US party politics to prove anything, but I would suppose that there's a self-interest based reason why unions support the Democrats. I would conclude from this that the Republicans are less union-friendly.

Just to let you know where I am coming from, I think that in some parts of the Western world, unions are too powerful (France for example) and in some places they are corrupt organisations that have royally betrayed their founding principles of helping the workers.

Thanks for the opinions Swimminpool. There is a history of relationships between organized labor and the DNC (and the mafia for that matter) but there is no opposition party hostile to labor. The DNC was just more willing to accomodate the unions demands. As we now know - that can result in the good ol' "too much of a good thing".

I frankly am not completely hostile to unions. I was really hopeing for a more lively discussion of this topic - particularly considering the huge number of so called 'socialists' here. This is a topic which should be near and dear to them. It would seem they prefer to ponder the hypothetical to real world events.

Bummer.

As far as ;
"I think that in some parts of the Western world, unions are too powerful (France for example) and in some places they are corrupt organisations that have royally betrayed their founding principles of helping the workers."

I have to agree - as per my first post. I think a little competition would do them some good. Interesting that in this new article the LAST line is
"Others said competition might be good for the labor movement. "

I mean hell! That's a pretty important concept for just one line!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050725/ap_on_bi_ge/labor_rift