Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Are current large American unions a good thing?; Or a bad thing?
Topic Started: Nov 17 2008, 10:55 AM (897 Views)
rowskid86
Member Avatar
Suck my Spock
Quote:
 
How can someone be threatened with their jobs if they are in the union? I'm genuinely curious.


Mel Please re read this that I post in that same Line

Quote:
 
This might not be true out the Detroit area, but Unions here pressure people to vote Democrat during election times, between filling your head with propaganda, or actually threatening your job if you don't.


This actually happened with my cousin while not UAW worker but still in a union member of a beer disturber was threatened because he was a republican. Because of his bush stikers for 2000 and 2004, and even with McCain was forced to park in a lot that is know to be ripe with auto theft. because they didn't want anyone to see anyone supporting them while people with Gore, Kerry, and Obama stickers could park where ever. Unions here back the Dem's every time all the time, and will do what ever to pressure it's Employee's to vote that way too.
My Uncle in the UAW had not as bad as a dealing with the Union there, but still got pressured to vote dem. Same with all the rest of the Family members and Friends of the family that worked either in the UAW or any other unions. And don't know if you know this but you never try to go against a Union. Bad things happen. Hell back 40 or so years ago UAW workers who went against the Union and where a "Big enough pain" to them sometimes Disappeared because of the heavy Mafia tie's.
Detroit is a very corrupt city in almost every asspect.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
^^^ It's a good thing the actual vote is private.

I think that is why Mel might not understand how one could get fired over thier vote. Plain and simple response is that no one should know what that vote is. If they do then you have a very very very serious problem with your voting system.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
rowskid86
Member Avatar
Suck my Spock
It is a good thing it is completely Private. The only real way the Unions know who you vote for is if you have any stickers on your car or signs in your yard. They do not like seeing Non Dem being supported.

This could be just a Detroit area/Michigan thing. It's one of the main reason's Michigan is mostly a blue state when it comes to Governor or Presidential elections. People in the unions are a big number there, I don't have any actual numbers but I think it's around 30% or so. which is a good chunk. And the unions are always supporting the democrats. you hardly see any unions back Republicans. IMO Unions should not be Political at all and back any candidate, doesn't matter which party.

That is my biggest beef with regular unions, the UAW thats part of it, but there is more.





DCS I know i was going to PM why i didn't like unions, I forget to PM you and I hope this helps explain why I do not like them.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
I agree with you Rowskid. Unions should not get involved in party politics. It happens here too. They usually favour the New Democrats, which is our party on the left.

Unions have done a lot of good in the past. They should stick to standing up for thier members rights and stay out of any further politics. This is one case where I would totally agree that the "leftists" have taken over and I would even go so far as to say there are communists in the leadership of many unions.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
As the President of our local Union, I would like to add my two cents. I believe that Unions are still needed in this country.

It is the purpose Union to work with the Employer to make sure the workers are paid a fair wage, have a clean and safe work environment and to be treated with dignity and respect.

I think we can all agree that is a noble cause. Unions need to evolve. Unions have become a big business and no longer effective as they once were.

US Auto Unions are going to have to adapt to the changing times. They may have cut wages and benefits to be competitive with the Japanese Auto makers or go out of business. It's that simple.

Agree with RowSkid. Unions have no place politics.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
fireh8er
Nov 19 2008, 05:02 AM
It is the purpose Union to work with the Employer to make sure the workers are paid a fair wage, have a clean and safe work environment and to be treated with dignity and respect.
Except US auto workers for Japanese companies are paid a fair wage, have a clean and safe work environment and it can be easily argued are treated with more dignity and respect than their US company counter parts.

As a result Japanese Auto Companies are prospering in this down economy; while the big three US companies are on the verge of collapse which would be detrimental to the US auto worker.

So my question remains. While the "purpose" of a Union are to do all the things you mentioned; are they really "needed"? Or is their a better business model that US companies should adopt.

And if there is a better model, are the every existence of Unions a hindrance to the adoption of the better model?

One of the major problems with Unions is the atmosphere of hostilely that they be default instill in the employee employer relationship. They be default instill and air of "Them against us" between management and workers. Whether that altitude is passive or aggressive it still exists by default.

This "them against us" attitude serves to lead to unwanted effects that can include; loss of dignity and respect for workers; inefficacies and slow downs in business that only serve to hurt everyone; and the loss of opportunity for both workers and the cooperation.

This is why the Japanese companies are able to work so well with their work force to create a business that US companies can't touch. There is no "them against us" attitude; there is respect and dignity and employee empowerment granted to the work force by the management. Management views the work force as an assent not an enemy it needs to control in order to run the business.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Nov 18 2008, 06:53 PM
^^^ It's a good thing the actual vote is private.

I think that is why Mel might not understand how one could get fired over thier vote. Plain and simple response is that no one should know what that vote is. If they do then you have a very very very serious problem with your voting system.
Yea, but people shouldn't have to fear when wish to publicly support any one or any institutive.


And than there is this Democratic 'Card Check' bill that will remove the voting privacy of union members on union issues. Most likely to pass early in the next government.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Dan have you considered that not all employers may be as good as the Japanese motor companies you keep mentioning? IF the employer does not provide things like a decent wage, safe and clean conditions etc. then a union may be necessary.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Nov 19 2008, 12:50 PM
Dan have you considered that not all employers may be as good as the Japanese motor companies you keep mentioning? IF the employer does not provide things like a decent wage, safe and clean conditions etc. then a union may be necessary.
Yes, your correct; But as the Japanese example shows, its a better business model to conduct business as they are conducting business.

The end result is that those companies who do not adopt this better business model will eventually be driven out of the market.

Further still as each new business adopts this better business model the pressure for other to follow suit will compound until all practice this model or go out of business.

Unions by their existence retard this process.

The Japanese do not operate this manner because they are a better breed of human beings; with an evolved scene of compassion compared to the rest of us. They conduct themselves in this manner because it is the best business approach. They where fortunate to come into the market later in the game, they where able to see the mistakes the other world companies made and improved their business practices to match what they where seeing. They saw how detrimental to business unions where and decided to build a business model that excluded them. In order to insure that unions did not spring up in their factories, they by default offered employees fair benefits and decided to work with them as partners rather than as a commodity. The result is evident, they have been rewarded for their practices. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that given the chance the US companies would not follow suit; in fact they would be required to or close their doors.
Edited by Dandandat, Nov 19 2008, 01:21 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
As I mentioned earlier you cannot in the UK "build a business model" that excludes unions. You are not allowed by law to discriminate against someone because they belong to a trade union. Yet even without this 'ability' Japanese car manufacture has been successful here compared with British and American owned firms.

The existence of unions themselves I dont think is the problem. The relationship between the union and the employer and the actions and mindset of the union can be.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Nov 19 2008, 01:52 PM
^^^
As I mentioned earlier you cannot in the UK "build a business model" that excludes unions. You are not allowed by law to discriminate against someone because they belong to a trade union. Yet even without this 'ability' Japanese car manufacture has been successful here compared with British and American owned firms.

Union members can get a job at US Japanese factories, they wont turn these people away because they are a union member. They will simply ignore the union and treat the union member as an individual. The union member can take orders all they want from the union (ie go on strike and ect) but the company the person is simply missing work. Since most workers in US Japanese factories do not belong to a union, that individual union members influence (ie strike and ext) will be very limited.

I don't know how Japanese factories operate in the UK, it may be similar

Quote:
 
The existence of unions themselves I dont think is the problem. The relationship between the union and the employer and the actions and mindset of the union can be.


I would have to disagree; the very existents of a Union denotes confrontation, that in turn breeds an "us vs them" mentally between workers and employers.

Sure the relationship can change to one of partnership, as in the case of the Japanese factories in the US, but than the union becomes irrelevant.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
I dont think what you describe would be legal within a UK context so the Japanese firms must modify the way they work somewhat here.

I dont think unions become irrelevant if they enter partnership with the employer. That is the best way for them to advance the interests of their members. I also think it can be good for a business if a union exists within this sort of environment as it is a way for the employer to keep in touch with the concerns of the workforce, it provides services to employees and it can help root out bad or unsafe practice which a good employer will not want.

Also with regards to these Japanese factories their relative success may not only be down to better industrial relations but the quality of management may have something to do with it. They may simply be better run firms that are making better decisions. Surely its hard to say just how big a factor unionisation is as it is not the only variable.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
ds9074
Nov 19 2008, 12:50 PM
Dan have you considered that not all employers may be as good as the Japanese motor companies you keep mentioning? IF the employer does not provide things like a decent wage, safe and clean conditions etc. then a union may be necessary.
Bingo! :thmup:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Nov 19 2008, 04:16 PM
I dont think unions become irrelevant if they enter partnership with the employer. That is the best way for them to advance the interests of their members. I also think it can be good for a business if a union exists within this sort of environment as it is a way for the employer to keep in touch with the concerns of the workforce, it provides services to employees and it can help root out bad or unsafe practice which a good employer will not want.

They become irrelevant through redundancy; if the employer is committed to meeting the needs of the workforce than the workforce no longer needs an advocate, they can go directly to management to get their needs addressed.

Further still both worker and mangier can tailor issue resolution to small or individual levels rather than needing to cause sweeping and unneeded change on a large scale. Keeping problem solving efficient and low cost.

Example: a single employee needs to have a certain day of the week off every week to care for an ailing family member.

In a union situation the employee would need to go to the union with his problem, and than the union would need to negotiate some kind of flex time program for all employees in the company and the company would than need to formaly agree.

In non union but committed employer situation, the individual need only speak with his immediate supervisor and together they can work a solution out. So long as the rest of work force believes that management will work with them in their time of need than they will not object to the special treatment, because in realty it is not special treatment but a special set of circumstances.

The union becomes redundant.


Quote:
 
Also with regards to these Japanese factories their relative success may not only be down to better industrial relations but the quality of management may have something to do with it. They may simply be better run firms that are making better decisions. Surely its hard to say just how big a factor unionisation is as it is not the only variable.


Sure it is only one variable; but its not like this line of thinking come out of left field.

Plenty of research shows that in this case unitization is a leading contributing factor to the difference in performance. Yes its one variable but it is a very big one.

Yes you are also correct, management style also plays a part in the equation. But lets not kid ourselves the US auto companies may be loosing to the Japanese, but they still have a lot of money with which to higher the best management in the world.

Even considering that Japanese managers may still be more astute, but it is illogical to believe that they are super managers compared to subtended US managers. It is more logical to assume that the playing field is somewhat even.

If management ability truly was the issue, it would stand to reason that at least one of the major US auto companies would higher a super manager and than have their company turned around. The fact that all US companies are doing poorly while all Japanese companies are doing well indicates the problem is more systemic than simply bad management. Bad management explains why one company does bad among many.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
fireh8er
Nov 19 2008, 05:01 PM
ds9074
Nov 19 2008, 12:50 PM
Dan have you considered that not all employers may be as good as the Japanese motor companies you keep mentioning? IF the employer does not provide things like a decent wage, safe and clean conditions etc. then a union may be necessary.
Bingo! :thmup:
Safe and clean conditions fireh8er??? Com'on! YOUR union doesn't exactly past the muster on that one! :P

Show me a union any employee that thinks he's paid enough, has enough benefits, or works in a safe enough environment. ;)

Give someone a 1000% raise and it won't take him long to come up with a list of reasons that it should have been 2000%.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus