NationStates Jolt Archive

In your job, are you employed through a collective bargain with the whole workforce, whether it be Union organized or not, or are you employed through a private individual contract?

I bring this up in particular because their is a big debate because the election soon in my country about industrial relations, between worker based unions and big business and the Liberal govt, who behind in the polls are under threat by the new Labor leader, Kevin Rudd. Trade unions in Australia argue, and I agree, that individual contracts allow employers to isolate and alienate employees and force them to give up work conditions, days off etc so they will get the job, and that unions are the only way to guarantee job security and conditions.

Was your employment done in consultation with a trade union, or did you sign a individual contract with set your pay, entitlements etc from employment?

Contract - Boss gave a document and that's it ...

In this case, I do get along with boss.

I'm on a common law contract. I did manage to get a few of the conditions altered before I signed it, due to help from the union.

I would prefer a collective agreement.

In a service economy most people will fall under individual contract. Manufacturers - labor - often will have a collective bargaining agreement, particularly if they work for a large employer. Collective bargaining - for all of it's shortfalls, does simplify the process for the employer. Instead of negotiating 10,000 contracts it negotiates one.

In a service economy most people will fall under individual contract. Manufacturers - labor - often will have a collective bargaining agreement, particularly if they work for a large employer. Collective bargaining - for all of it's shortfalls, does simplify the process for the employer. Instead of negotiating 10,000 contracts it negotiates one.

Would you concede that collective bargaining, as in it's the entire workplace together as the 'employee' decreases the chance for a clever entrepreneur to try and individually isolate employees and force them into agreements that would give up awards, entitlements, sick days etc? Because instead of going into an office with 5 employer bosses who can say if you don't accept this contract your out of a job, you negotiate with the union and workforce as a whole, so the power is in the workers hands.

I'm an IT person so union power in that industy is not too strong, but in my case - replacing IT people is not easy so I'm lucky. Anyway, in my job - I get to buy IT stuff cheap as part of my job for me and the company.

These AWAs hurt the people who don't have any real power - those with jobs you can turn over staff quickly. As for negotiation, is a bit like - here's your agreement ... sign it unless the boss really needs you and is willing throw in bonuses.

I have a part time job where I am employed at will, no contract, no union.

Hubby has a contract, but nearly everyone else at his job is at will.

I have a part time job where I am employed at will, no contract, no union.

Hubby has a contract, but nearly everyone else at his job is at will.

In Australia, you'd be called a casual worker.

In Australia, you'd be called a casual worker.

most employment in my state is at will, whether it's part time, full time, or whatever.

I don't have a written contract and no union. The company I presently, has a better benefit package and pay than the company I previously worked for which has a union. A union, at least in the US cannot guarantee job security. If you don't believe that just ask all the union airline employees that have been laid off, had their wages cut, and/or lost their pension fund.

Unions do have their place, but they are not the be-all and end-all for workers.

The problem with taking this attitude is that you think all employers are evil bastards out to screw an employee every chance he gets.

Take a moment to think about it from the other side. Unions basically attempt to hold a monopoly on labor. Which is better - a situation where everyone can make choices, or one where there is a monopoly? Here is a hint - monopolies are bad.

Look at the auto industry in the US and you see a perfect example why unions are a bad thing. Some of the largest companies have been utterly destroyed by union workers demanding massive compensation - basically extorting it out of the company by saying you either bankrupt yourself to pay us in the hopes that maybe you can survive despite the cost, or we will destroy the business ourselves. Those that do survive are faced with absurd labor costs which eliminates profit. No different than protection money paid to the mob (and in many cases, unions and organized crime go hand in hand).

Workers, if they do not like the job, can get another one. Managers on the other hand, if they do not like the union contract, are faced with the only choice being comply or go bankrupt.

The problem with taking this attitude is that you think all employers are evil bastards out to screw an employee every chance he gets.
Well, yes. And their customers. It's what being a business is all about.

Workers, if they do not like the job, can get another one.
I hate this argument with a passion. If only it were that easy.

I'd say that individuals should be permitted to freely choose between collective bargaining and individualized contracts. There's positives and negatives to both options.

Would you concede that collective bargaining, as in it's the entire workplace together as the 'employee' decreases the chance for a clever entrepreneur to try and individually isolate employees and force them into agreements that would give up awards, entitlements, sick days etc? Because instead of going into an office with 5 employer bosses who can say if you don't accept this contract your out of a job, you negotiate with the union and workforce as a whole, so the power is in the workers hands.

Only in that the workers have successfully formed a monopolistic enterprise. Just like any other type of corporate monopoly they can dictate prices and quality for the services they provide, because there is no alternative to offer competition.

It raises the price, lowers the quality and is overall bad for the consumer. Good for the provider, but bad for the consumer.

I'd say that individuals should be permitted to freely choose between collective bargaining and individualized contracts. There's positives and negatives to both options.

Yeah, this. If all agreements were collective, no one would be able, and no company would be to hire someone, to work for less than the sum negotiated by the unions, which would be harmful for the unemployed.

Yeah, this. If all agreements were collective, no one would be able, and no company would be to hire someone, to work for less than the sum negotiated by the unions, which would be harmful for the unemployed.

Extremely.

So much of the leftiness of the union movement is mere self-interest cloaked in some propagandistic rhetoric of common workers standing up to the big, bad mean businessment who wear top hats and smoke cigars.

The problem with taking this attitude is that you think all employers are evil bastards out to screw an employee every chance he gets.

Which is the case 99% of the time.

Take a moment to think about it from the other side. Unions basically attempt to hold a monopoly on labor.

No; unions counteract the monopoly the companies get.

Look at the auto industry in the US and you see a perfect example why unions are a bad thing.

Look at the late 1800s-1914 time period and you'll see why they are good.

Those that do survive are faced with absurd labor costs which eliminates profit.

Allowing a man to feed his family. SO absurd. :rolleyes:

No different than protection money paid to the mob (and in many cases, unions and organized crime go hand in hand).

Um, no. Just no. There's a big difference there. One kills people and the other legally secures payment so their families don't go hungry.

Workers, if they do not like the job, can get another one.

At this point, I laugh in your face because you clearly don't understand the situation because it's not that easy.

Extremely.

So much of the leftiness of the union movement is mere self-interest cloaked in some propagandistic rhetoric of common workers standing up to the big, bad mean businessment who wear top hats and smoke cigars.

We need balance really, we can't have employers paying peanuts because the law allows to them to so or unions become like mafia thugs. The right balance of union collectives, employee individual rights and employer rights has to be struck.

We need balance really, we can't have employers paying peanuts because the law allows to them to so or unions become like mafia thugs. The right balance of union collectives, employee individual rights and employer rights has to be struck.

What's that? Common sense, without adherence to dogma on these forums? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

What's that? Common sense, without adherence to dogma on these forums? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

I'm a leftie but also a capitalist with sense of social justice :D

No; unions counteract the monopoly the companies get.

One company should never have a monopoly on employment in an industry. If they do, then our anti-trust laws kick in.

Allowing a man to feed his family. SO absurd.

Actuallly, no one's family is getting fed, because the company will face bankruptcy, which would result in widespread unemployment.

At this point, I laugh in your face because you clearly don't understand the situation because it's not that easy.

I'll eagerly join you. I despise the "tough luck" attitude of many right-wingers on these sorts of issues, because as you say it really is "not that easy". Which is why, as Jerusalem said, a balance needs to be struck.

Here is a hint - monopolies are bad.Not for the people who are in them.

Not for the people who are in them.

But for society in general, most definitely.

In your job, are you employed through a collective bargain with the whole workforce, whether it be Union organized or not, or are you employed through a private individual contract?

I bring this up in particular because their is a big debate because the election soon in my country about industrial relations, between worker based unions and big business and the Liberal govt, who behind in the polls are under threat by the new Labor leader, Kevin Rudd. Trade unions in Australia argue, and I agree, that individual contracts allow employers to isolate and alienate employees and force them to give up work conditions, days off etc so they will get the job, and that unions are the only way to guarantee job security and conditions.

Was your employment done in consultation with a trade union, or did you sign a individual contract with set your pay, entitlements etc from employment?
In the State of Georgia, there is a term called employment at will. This means that either I or my employer can terminate my employment when we want. That's fine by me and him.

I've worked at contract jobs before and usually there is a clause that allows either party to terminate the contract, much as in employment at will.

I've also worked jobs where I was represented by a union -- the millwright and machinery erector's union to be precise.

Union representation is for the mediocre. If all you want is a check at the end of the week, then that's fine. If you want to be paid for your value, then you need to forget about union representation and bargain with your employer directly.

Would you concede that collective bargaining, as in it's the entire workplace together as the 'employee' decreases the chance for a clever entrepreneur to try and individually isolate employees and force them into agreements that would give up awards, entitlements, sick days etc? Because instead of going into an office with 5 employer bosses who can say if you don't accept this contract your out of a job, you negotiate with the union and workforce as a whole, so the power is in the workers hands.
You need to present the other side. Individual negotiation with employers is a way to get MORE sick days, MORE vacation days, MORE pay. No unions pay merit bonuses, none pay performance based raises.

But for society in general, most definitely.All the more reason for everyone in the working class to be in a union.

The idea that every worker should be forced to be in a union is something I find baffling, to say the least. It's a case of the government actually protecting a monopoly, rather than fighting it. Sometimes it may be advantageous for a worker to be in a union, sometimes it may not be. I for one am glad to live in a right to work state where union membership is not mandatory.

The idea that every worker should be forced to be in a union is something I find baffling, to say the least. It's a case of the government actually protecting a monopoly, rather than fighting it. Sometimes it may be advantageous for a worker to be in a union, sometimes it may not be. I for one am glad to live in a right to work state where union membership is not mandatory.I didn't say they should be forced to be in a union.
But if not being part of the union is bad for you, why not join one?

I didn't say they should be forced to be in a union.
But if not being part of the union is bad for you, why not join one?

No, you didn't. But there are many states where union membership is mandatory by law.

All the more reason for everyone in the working class to be in a union.

I'm starting to get some more insight into liberal thought. The idea that you can group people into classes is a pretty darned useful one. Especially if you can get the people that you want to group into a class thinking like a herd and not like an individual. Liberals, more than anyone I've ever seen, really take to this concept.

Which is the case 99% of the time.

Employers seek to maximize their profits; thus, they will pay their workers the minimum amount which is feasible to do.

No; unions counteract the monopoly the companies get.

Actually, we have anti-trust laws in the US which prevent companies from acquiring a monopoly. On the other hand, the same does not hold true for labor. Although, originally, laws such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act were used to prosecute unions, that changed as liberal presidents who knew nothing of the economy ascended to power.

Look at the late 1800s-1914 time period and you'll see why they are good.

Actually, unions had very little influence during that time period; generally, the government sided with business in order to crush strikes and other forms of protest. All they did was impede the pace of economic growth slightly with their stubborn policies.

Allowing a man to feed his family. SO absurd. :rolleyes:

Unions consistently bargain for much more than the minimum salary necessary for a worker to feed his/her family. Your appeal to pity is a logical fallacy.

One kills people and the other legally secures payment so their families don't go hungry.

There you go again. It's as if you either support unions or are in favor of seeing children starve. The truth of the matter is that unions are run by greedy workers who want to toil less and earn more; they are capable of bullying their bosses into bowing to their demands through intimidation of potential strike-breakers, government help, and other tactics.

Employers are not out to screw over the employee - that is not why they are in business. Bosses want to make a profit - this means getting the best productivity they can. If a worker is productive, they will pay a lot of money and often offer great bonuses and perks to keep that worker happy and productive. When a worker is a useless slacker, he is not producing much and is therefore simply not worth much money.

I have actually found that employers generally are fairly generous (with the few exceptions of places I only did a half-assed job). Almost every job I've had has offered me more money and better terms when I mentioned something about looking for another job or wanting to do something different. Guess that must be because I am part of the global conspiracy - I am one of those secret cabal destined to be an employer myself one day, and thus earn the super secret benefits.

When you artificially set labor costs higher than they should be, employers hire fewer people because the marginal return of that one worker is less than the mandated compensation. There may be a willing worker who is willing to do that job at below union rates, and the employer could make more profit with higher production (though not enough to justify union levels of compensation), you are left with the potential employees being unemployed and the employer making less product than is optimal. The economy is left with lower production and higher unemployment.

When union contracts prevent terminating employment, the employer see hiring extra workers to be a large risk, and will thus avoid it. At will employment allows employers to take a risk on putting on an extra shift to see if he can sell more, or opening up a new product line, or whatever. If it is not profitable, he can decide that it was a foolish decision and shut it don - the union contract means if it the gamble doesnt turn out, it will be disastrously expensive, and thus not worth giving it a try. Either way, union restrictions limit the economy. All unions do is discourage employment and distort the economy - union workers are better off, but everyone else (from employers to potential employees to the economy as a whole) is made worse off

At will employment allows both employees and employers to decide for themselves what they want and what they are willing to do to get it. Employees are not slaves - they have a choice. Likewise employers have a choice - like any other good, if you raise costs too high you will discourage consumption.

A great example of unions (look, I'm even avoiding the Teamsters union which is well recognized as actually being fully integrated with organized crime) is the United Auto Workers. They forced companies to sign ridiculous contracts by simple extortion - be unreasonably generous and hope you can make it a few more years or we will kill the company right now. Delphi used to be one of the biggest companies around, but the UAW pushed too hard and drove it into bankruptcy. Total compensation (wages, plus health benefits, plus pension plan contributions, plus other perks) was estimated at approximately $65/hr. They pushed and pushed until it finally died.

Had they not been faced with ever increasing union demands, they could have been a highly profitable company employing even more workers to this day. All of the UAW factories were forced into absurd contracts and have been suffering ever since.

Do not give me the bullshit line about how 'its not that easy' for employees to just work somewhere else. Why should a business have any less choice in who to hire and for how much than you should in who to work for and for how much? There are plenty of jobs - if you cannot find one, stop saying 'all employers are evil bastards out to screw over the little guy' and realize that maybe, just maybe, the problem lies within you.

Just like in interpersonal relationships. If one person seems like an asshole, they probably are. If everyone is an asshole, you are probably the asshole.

Why do you think every employer is an asshole? It just is not true.
If you want a high paying job, you better be able to make the business at least as much as you cost. If you cannot, you are basically demanding charity.

I'm employed through neither. I have a casual, cash-in-hand, employment basis. It's fantastic.

Well... both, for next semester at least.

As a graduate student with a Teaching Assistantship as well as the occasional Part-Time Lecturer gig, I am a member of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). I get a very respectable salary (for a TA), which looks to increase by about 10% per year over the next four years as a result of our current contract negotiations--though I'll be gone by then, at the end of those four years TAs at my school will make about $30,000/year (on top of free tuition, of course). We also get full health, dental, and vision coverage. Again, fairly good for that kind of position, which is really a kind of financial aid.

Interestingly, this Fall I will also be working as an adjunct instructor at a nearby private university. The costs of living in the area are ever-so-slightly lower, but basically comparable. While my pay for teaching one class as an adjunct is respectable enough, the pay for TAs is absolutely atrocious: $12,500/year and absolutely no benefits. This is especially appalling when one considers that the private university actually has much, MUCH more money per student than the public university where I am getting my degree.

It should be obvious: no union there.

It should be obvious: no union there.

No, it's much more obvious than that: your salary comes from my hard-earned tax dollars. A private university does not have the luxury to impose taxes on the American populace in order to pay your salary while a public one does.

No, you didn't. But there are many states where union membership is mandatory by law.If you're talking about closed shops, the law made those illegal.
There are union shops, but you can work in those shops for 2 months before you have to join the union.

I'm starting to get some more insight into liberal thought. The idea that you can group people into classes is a pretty darned useful one. Especially if you can get the people that you want to group into a class thinking like a herd and not like an individual. Liberals, more than anyone I've ever seen, really take to this concept.Not exactly. People are grouped into classes based upon what they do. They don't do things because they are grouped into classes.
The working class is called such because they work for a living. This says nothing about how they may or may not think.
Incidentally, I am not a liberal, I'm a communist.

I think the main question to be asked is this: Would a single employee get better pay, conditions, entitlements etc if he negotiated with the employers alone with no power himself. Or would he get better results if the entire workforce negotiated on his behalf, so if the employer tried to sack him, he wouldn't be only loosing a single employee, he would be loosing his entire workforce.

I know that's a bit of a leap, but employees will generally get away with paying their workforce as little as possible with as little entitlements, sick days etc as possible in order to maximize profit, that's not to say their all evil bastards - but give them the power and they will take advantage of it, that is why union collective agreements are needed.

You need to present the other side. Individual negotiation with employers is a way to get MORE sick days, MORE vacation days, MORE pay. No unions pay merit bonuses, none pay performance based raises.

You are incorrect. I worked for a bank & was part of a union bargained collective agreement. Part of that agreement included performance based pay rises, assessed annually. The better you performed, the more you got paid. It was popular with management & the workforce.

You are incorrect. I worked for a bank & was part of a union bargained collective agreement. Part of that agreement included performance based pay rises, assessed annually. The better you performed, the more you got paid. It was popular with management & the workforce.
While that sort of agreement may be more common that I'm willing to give credit for, it certainly isn't the rule in union representation. I'll stand by my statement that union representation is for the mediocre. Anyone that is willing to give away their individuality because they think a group can do better for them, is not that ambitious.

I think the main question to be asked is this: Would a single employee get better pay, conditions, entitlements etc if he negotiated with the employers alone with no power himself. Or would he get better results if the entire workforce negotiated on his behalf, so if the employer tried to sack him, he wouldn't be only loosing a single employee, he would be loosing his entire workforce.

I know that's a bit of a leap, but employees will generally get away with paying their workforce as little as possible with as little entitlements, sick days etc as possible in order to maximize profit, that's not to say their all evil bastards - but give them the power and they will take advantage of it, that is why union collective agreements are needed.

Would a single employer get better profit and productivity if he negotiated with an employee alone, or would he get better results if all employers got together and negotiated collectively so that if an employee was asking too much they could make sure that employee could not find a job anywhere else?

It doesn't matter which side of the relationship it comes from, extortion is a bad thing. I am not saying that all union leaders are corrupt and selfish in order to pad their own coffers, but given the power they will take advantage of it and basically hold the employer hostage if they can.

You are forgetting that employers are not faceless bags of money - they have to make a profit to survive too. Union workers may be better off (at least in the short term), but what about the unemployed who would have been hired without the union artificially raising the cost of labor? What about the consumer who now has to pay a lot more for the item because unions drive up production costs? What about all the businesses that are lost because they are not practical with unionized labor costs?

Would a single employer get better profit and productivity if he negotiated with an employee alone, or would he get better results if all employers got together and negotiated collectively so that if an employee was asking too much they could make sure that employee could not find a job anywhere else?

It doesn't matter which side of the relationship it comes from, extortion is a bad thing. I am not saying that all union leaders are corrupt and selfish in order to pad their own coffers, but given the power they will take advantage of it and basically hold the employer hostage if they can.

You are forgetting that employers are not faceless bags of money - they have to make a profit to survive too. Union workers may be better off (at least in the short term), but what about the unemployed who would have been hired without the union artificially raising the cost of labor? What about the consumer who now has to pay a lot more for the item because unions drive up production costs? What about all the businesses that are lost because they are not practical with unionized labor costs?

With certain employees, I strongly disagree, you have to balance the power between the two, after all it's the employees giving their most valuable export - labor, they should reap the rewards.

With certain employees, I strongly disagree, you have to balance the power between the two, after all it's the employees giving their most valuable export - labor, they should reap the rewards.

They do reap the rewards - they get paid. Free exchange allows everyone to enter into agreements they find mutually beneficial. If someone is offered work, and does not like the agreement, they are under no obligation. Likewise, if a someone offers to do some labor but is demanding too much, an employer is under no obligation to hire them. This ensures that everyone is benefiting from the exchange.

When you go to get your hair cut, do you look for the best haircut you can get for the lowest price? If you do (and I bet that almost everyone does) then you are a hypocrite. Do you think it fair for all barbers to band together and demand a higher than market price for haircuts where even barbers who want to offer haircuts for less are prohibited from doing so (and people are prohibited from doing it themselves)? When businesses collude to keep prices artificially high, you call it illegal. What is the difference between that and unions?

Employers seek to maximize their profits; thus, they will pay their workers the minimum amount which is feasible to do.

.

Not if they expect to retain the productive ones...

I am directly employed by one company which has subcontracted my services to a co-operative group. The first company is an IT developer and services provider, the second - the co-operative is a confederacy that provides services to a bank that works with credit unions.

So that probably means both at the same time.

I am empolyed "at-will" which means my boss can fire me for any reason at anytime. Of couse it works both ways, I can quit for any reason and at anytime. I don't even have to give notice and there is nothing they can do about it.