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 (895 Views)
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
It was only meant as a comparison. Workers can easily become "slaves" if not properly protected by laws. Unions are largely responsible for these laws coming into existence and my point was that without unions we could slide back and the protective laws could be rescinded.

For proof of how cruel employers can be just look at the treatment of illegal workers. There is plenty of documentation of how some employers skirt the laws by employing illegals in horrendous conditions. Stating that there is no need for unions because employers are somehow nicer now then in the past is simply an untrue statement. When given the opportunity there are always those who would exploit. I think that unions are an integral part of the system that keeps this cruelty to a minimum.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 08:46 AM
It was only meant as a comparison. Workers can easily become "slaves" if not properly protected by laws. Unions are largely responsible for these laws coming into existence and my point was that without unions we could slide back and the protective laws could be rescinded.

For proof of how cruel employers can be just look at the treatment of illegal workers. There is plenty of documentation of how some employers skirt the laws by employing illegals in horrendous conditions. Stating that there is no need for unions because employers are somehow nicer now then in the past is simply an untrue statement. When given the opportunity there are always those who would exploit. I think that unions are an integral part of the system that keeps this cruelty to a minimum.
As I explained, Unions where incremental in creating the laws which now protect the worker. It is not the law that protects the worker not the unions, as is evident by the plethora of functional non-union employer/employee relationships that exist. If it where true that the unions are the protection, than all these relationships would be non-functional doe to the absence of a union.

The issue of illegal workers are yet another non sequitur; illegal's by the very nature of being in a country illegal are not afforded the protection of many laws not just work related laws. And frankly in some respects they choose to live in a state of non-protection be choosing to live in an area where they are illegal.

Father more to change this realty illegal's don’t need unions; they need advocates in their host nations government who are working to make them legal, or at the very least seen to be a group protected by the laws in the host nation. Once this is accomplished they will be protected by the host nations laws, including their work related laws. The unions aren't needed for this task

Finally no one has made the argument that employers are nicer than they have ever been. Only that now there are lawful protections in place that govern them.

However since your brought up the "niceness" issue; the Japanese Auto companies certainly are "nicer" as an employer than the historically traditional employer. And what is better is that they aren't being "nicer" because they have a bigger heart or something, but because they have discovered that it is a better business model, more profitable, to be the "nicer" employer.

This is a complete paradigm change from the historically traditional employer mentality that in order to maximize profits you must cut costs in labor related benefits. A paradigm that led to all the work related atrocities we once needed unions to protect the worker against.

So now not only does the worker have the law on their side; they also have the free market on their side; only further making the union obsolete.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
whitestar
Dec 2 2008, 08:00 AM
fireh8er
Dec 2 2008, 04:41 AM
Moderator Comment

Can we get back to the topic of the thread?

We were discussing whether Large Amercian Unions are a good thing.

If you want to discuss slavery, that's fine. All I ask, is that you start another thead.

We are discussing Large American Unions here.

End of Moderator Comment
With all due respect to a board mod and a fellow member fireh8er, it seems to me you have jumped the gun somewhat... the matter of slavery was merely a comparision, right or wrong.. thats what it is. Seems as though you have stepped from firm control of a volitile forum to micro managing the content of each post and opinions
Whitestar,

I'm sorry you feel that way. You are entitled to our opinion. I'm not trying to micro manage anything. I'm merely trying to keep the thread moving. I fully understand that slavery was used as a comparsion. We were discussing Large American Unions. I believe we are comparing apples and oranges.

Just for the record, I have been a union member for twenty six years and president of my
local union.


Minuet
 
It was only meant as a comparison. Workers can easily become "slaves" if not properly protected by laws. Unions are largely responsible for these laws coming into existence and my point was that without unions we could slide back and the protective laws could be rescinded.


I totally agree.



Minuet
 
For proof of how cruel employers can be just look at the treatment of illegal workers. There is plenty of documentation of how some employers skirt the laws by employing illegals in horrendous conditions. Stating that there is no need for unions because employers are somehow nicer now then in the past is simply an untrue statement. When given the opportunity there are always those who would exploit. I think that unions are an integral part of the system that keeps this cruelty to a minimum.


Agreed.
Edited by fireh8er, Dec 2 2008, 10:49 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 10:12 AM
The issue of illegal workers are yet another non sequitur; illegal's by the very nature of being in a country illegal are not afforded the protection of many laws not just work related laws. And frankly in some respects they choose to live in a state of non-protection be choosing to live in an area where they are illegal.

Father more to change this realty illegal's don’t need unions; they need advocates in their host nations government who are working to make them legal, or at the very least seen to be a group protected by the laws in the host nation. Once this is accomplished they will be protected by the host nations laws, including their work related laws. The unions aren't needed for this task

Finally no one has made the argument that employers are nicer than they have ever been. Only that now there are lawful protections in place that govern them.

However since your brought up the "niceness" issue; the Japanese Auto companies certainly are "nicer" as an employer than the historically traditional employer. And what is better is that they aren't being "nicer" because they have a bigger heart or something, but because they have discovered that it is a better business model, more profitable, to be the "nicer" employer.

This is a complete paradigm change from the historically traditional employer mentality that in order to maximize profits you must cut costs in labor related benefits. A paradigm that led to all the work related atrocities we once needed unions to protect the worker against.

So now not only does the worker have the law on their side; they also have the free market on their side; only further making the union obsolete.
Give the lady a break Dan... I believe it is a fair point Min has made.. workers without protection and the abuse begins.. no need to anaylize the whole subject of illegal immigrants
I have given you a perfect example of the reality of Industrial Relations when unions are weak and laws are slanted towards the employers.. the average joe gets squeezed, American, Australian or any other nation.
If you rely on Govt protection they will turn on the worker in favour of the employers when things go south.. Get the economy up and running by aiding business at all costs, including at the expense of the individual worker.
The free market you mention is about supply and demand right? plenty of work, not enough workers.. the worker has an advantage but when the bad times hit.. too many workers not enough work, the screws are turned.
You asked a question Dan.. but seems like your mind was set before the post was made
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
whitestar
Dec 1 2008, 07:02 PM
Dandandat
Dec 1 2008, 12:08 PM
There are plenty of employer/employee relationships that get on just fine with out unions. So how do you rationalize the statement that so long as their are employer/employee relationships there will always be a role for unions.
Your right, there are plenty of employer/employee relationships that get on just fine without unions. I myself have been self employed for most of my life and therefore have not needed to be a union member and my employees have never felt the need to join a union.
Though I may be a fair employer, the need for unions still exist as there are employers who will treat their employees with contempt.

"It is the work protection laws that protect all. "

That sounds fine and dandy untill those laws are swept away, which is what happened here with our last govt. "Work choices" was the catch phrase... employees were stripped of rights that had been won over a century of conflict. The govt claiming our Industrial Relations laws were archiac and holding back employment growth, a new regime of laws were needed for the 21st Cent... out went the right for annual leave, overtime rates, unfair dismissal, minimum wage, even a lunchbreak was threatened.. working conditions were to be negotiated between employer and employee at the commencement of employment and set in a contract.
The result of this new Industrial Relations regime was predictable, the employers returned to unethical behaviour and the employee was at the mercy of the bosses once more.
The next election was the only chance for the people to judge the govt on the sweeping changes to I/R... thank god for democracy, a govt that had a glittering economic record over 12yrs with an economy that was the envy of the industrialized world... booted out... "work choices" was the end of them, the opposition promised to repeal the new I/R regime and rebuild the old, that's all the people needed to know and they voted the govts arse outta there

In my opinion you would have to qualify the wrongness in the abolishment of the work place rights that you say where striped way.

For example
Like it or not those thing you mentioned do lead to uncompetitiveness in to days market which leads to job loss not job protection.

Example; mandatory annual leave is nice; but in todays market place leave is better individually addressed by a employee for there employers rather than having laws governing the process. Some jobs and positions require less and different leave than others. The US does not have law dictated annual leave for example, yet I enjoy and the Japanese auto workers enjoy annual leave negotiated at the time of our higher with our employer.

Mandatory overtime works much the same way; where not ever position and every industry need work the same. It is inefficient to treated all position and every industry identically and that is where the uncompetitiveness comes from.

Yes as a worker who enjoyed these thing it is not desirable to loss them; it may even seem like your being treated unfairly. But is that really the case or is their a fair amount of fear of change that drives these feelings of unfairness as well?

Sure Unions can be instrumental in insuring that change is hard to accomplish; that the things one enjoys as an employee seldom changes, which then does lead to a certain sense of securely and feeling of fair treatment. But as the American Auto industry shows us this ridged way of conducting business is not ideal. Change although scary at times is a needed part of life; things that do not change and adapt stagnate and die. This is the natural order of things since the beginning of time. Unions as they are now buy and large are in place to insure the statuesque; they hinder needed change and make industries and companies unable to adapt to current conditions.

So you say the laws of protection where "swept away" but with more information it sounds to me like those laws where simply changed to meat current conditions. That’s quite different from being "swept away".

You said:

"working conditions were to be negotiated between employer and employee at the commencement of employment and set in a contract."

That is a change to the protection, not an abolishment of protection. I'll concede that with this change their may be the potential of abuse. But I'll also argue that abuse was possible in the old way of doing things. I would also argue that this change can in fact benefit a potential employee as well. It opens the door for hazard pay to be negotiated at the time of employment and other benefits for jobs and industries that are inherently dangerous; instead of the loss of that job or industry because it is inherently dangerous and can not meet past safety laws.


And finally your own example shows that when things went to far, when laws of protection where "swept away" it was not unions that protected the people, but democracy. The people changed the laws back to what they felt where acceptable; unions where not needed to strong arm the government, you simply changed your government.

Laws are more than words on parchment. They are the codification of the collective will of society, you can strike down the words left on parchment easily as moving your pen; but you can not change the collective will of society that easily. Those protections codified with words on parchment in what we call laws can’t simply be "swept way" as is evident by your recent change in government.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
whitestar
Dec 2 2008, 10:49 AM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 10:12 AM
The issue of illegal workers are yet another non sequitur; illegal's by the very nature of being in a country illegal are not afforded the protection of many laws not just work related laws. And frankly in some respects they choose to live in a state of non-protection be choosing to live in an area where they are illegal.

Father more to change this realty illegal's don’t need unions; they need advocates in their host nations government who are working to make them legal, or at the very least seen to be a group protected by the laws in the host nation. Once this is accomplished they will be protected by the host nations laws, including their work related laws. The unions aren't needed for this task

Finally no one has made the argument that employers are nicer than they have ever been. Only that now there are lawful protections in place that govern them.

However since your brought up the "niceness" issue; the Japanese Auto companies certainly are "nicer" as an employer than the historically traditional employer. And what is better is that they aren't being "nicer" because they have a bigger heart or something, but because they have discovered that it is a better business model, more profitable, to be the "nicer" employer.

This is a complete paradigm change from the historically traditional employer mentality that in order to maximize profits you must cut costs in labor related benefits. A paradigm that led to all the work related atrocities we once needed unions to protect the worker against.

So now not only does the worker have the law on their side; they also have the free market on their side; only further making the union obsolete.
Give the lady a break Dan... I believe it is a fair point Min has made.. workers without protection and the abuse begins.. no need to anaylize the whole subject of illegal immigrants
Give here a break with what whitestar? Is it your contention that we can't have debate on this subject matter, that since I don't agree with Minuet that I must keep my mouth shut about it and not state my opinion or rebut her remarks. That is ludicrous and not becoming of this forum or the freedoms in which we have been speaking about here.

There is plenty reason to analyze the subject of illegal immigrants since the issue was brought into this discussion. One can't simply make a statement and expect everyone else to agree to its merits.

Quote:
 
I have given you a perfect example of the reality of Industrial Relations when unions are weak and laws are slanted towards the employers.. the average joe gets squeezed, American, Australian or any other nation.
If you rely on Govt protection they will turn on the worker in favour of the employers when things go south.. Get the economy up and running by aiding business at all costs, including at the expense of the individual worker.


I adressed this in my last post.

Quote:
 
The free market you mention is about supply and demand right? plenty of work, not enough workers.. the worker has an advantage but when the bad times hit.. too many workers not enough work, the screws are turned.



No the free market is not simply "supply and demand"; that is but only one thread in the tapestry we call the free market.

Your ideas, that work supply and work demand are the sole drive to employee/employer relations, is as obsolete as unions are. It once was true that employers sought to maximize profits by minimizing workers benefits. This old paradigm is being replaced by the model demonstrated by the Japanese. It is now being excepted that treating a worker well maximizes efficiency and so maximizes profit.

Your argument is from a time gone by.


edit;

As a side note; as far as supply and demand go regarding labor. The world is actually entering a period where labor supply is falling while demand is rising. The baby boomers are looking to leave the work force, child birth has been down in western countries limiting new entrants into the labor force. And do to government intervention China will soon be experiencing a steeply aging population.

As far as supply and demand go, this is one of the best times to be a worker.

Quote:
 
You asked a question Dan.. but seems like your mind was set before the post was made


Whitestar; of course I had on opinion on the subject before I made this post. So did you. What exactly is your point?
Edited by Dandandat, Dec 2 2008, 11:34 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
^^^^ Tell that fairy tale about workers being needed in the current economy to all the auto workers being laid off in Ontario and see what kind of reaction you get.

Your theories just don't work in the real world Dan. I have shown that when given opportunity there are always employers that will take advantage. Unions are a nessesary evil. They are not perfect and I could even agree that they are too powerful. But I could not imagine doing away with them altogether. They are the glue holding things together. We have seen plenty of examples of what happens with the big corporations get too much power - they do influence the government and could easily influence labour laws - the only thing stopping that is the unions. They are a counter balance that is badly needed.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 11:15 AM
Your ideas, that work supply and work demand are the sole drive to employee/employer relations, is as obsolete as unions are. It once was true that employers sought to maximize profits by minimizing workers benefits. This old paradigm is being replaced by the model demonstrated by the Japanese. It is now being excepted that treating a worker well maximizes efficiency and so maximizes profit.

Your argument is from a time gone by.
Well said.

Unions seem to be struggling to remain relevant.

The illegal worker analogy doesn't apply as work conditions are relative. What we consider unacceptable conditions and wages may be equal to the best conditions where they're from.

The slavery analogy may have been more appropriate if the slave owners had been cast as the union bosses. They get rich while each worker gets the same benefits, food and shelter, regardless of their output.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
RTW
 
The illegal worker analogy doesn't apply as work conditions are relative. What we consider unacceptable conditions and wages may be equal to the best conditions where they're from.


That wasn't an analogy. It was an EXAMPLE to show that some employers will not be generous or benevolent unless basically forced to by law. No matter what the economic conditions. Dandandat claims that the Japanese have proven that being good to your workers will reap benefits for the companies - yet ignores the fact that exploitation still exists.

RTW
 
The slavery analogy may have been more appropriate if the slave owners had been cast as the union bosses. They get rich while each worker gets the same benefits, food and shelter, regardless of their output.


This entire paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. In what reality are the slaves equivalent to the owners? I don't know any unions whose pockets run as deep as the corporations they work for. Can you provide an example of a union boss who is as wealthy as a major corporate shareholder? When was the last time a shareholder was laid off so that a worker could get a raise?

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 11:53 AM
^^^^ Tell that fairy tale about workers being needed in the current economy to all the auto workers being laid off in Ontario and see what kind of reaction you get.

Your theories just don't work in the real world Dan. I have shown that when given opportunity there are always employers that will take advantage. Unions are a nessesary evil. They are not perfect and I could even agree that they are too powerful. But I could not imagine doing away with them altogether. They are the glue holding things together. We have seen plenty of examples of what happens with the big corporations get too much power - they do influence the government and could easily influence labour laws - the only thing stopping that is the unions. They are a counter balance that is badly needed.
What fair tale would that be? in other words what part of my post are you directing this comment towards?


And just because one industry is no longer viable in one geographic region does not preclude the fact that labor demand is on the rise. Those auto workers in Ontario, simply need to find another vocation. It sucks, but that's life, you can't expect the world to always and for ever to want to buy cars from Ontario. Life just doesn't work that way, its ever changing and we need to change with it.


And your sentence doest even make logical sense; unless their has been some massive robotic revolution in the world, workers are needed in ever economy. As for as supply and demand go it has never been a better time to be a worker, supply is dropping and demand is rising, this is a documented (and commonsense for that mater) fact. You should not base your world view on business and the economy one a singular industry or a narrow time frame like the current resection. Those Ontario workers, if they are adaptable enough, will find work else ware, and some time in a year or so the resection will end. Such fleating examples are hardly enough to argue aginas the fact that the pool of labor is srinking around the world.

Quote:
 
Your theories just don't work in the real world Dan. I have shown that when given opportunity there are always employers that will take advantage. Unions are a nessesary evil. They are not perfect and I could even agree that they are too powerful. But I could not imagine doing away with them altogether. They are the glue holding things together. We have seen plenty of examples of what happens with the big corporations get too much power - they do influence the government and could easily influence labour laws - the only thing stopping that is the unions. They are a counter balance that is badly needed.


Expect my theories are working in the real world. In the "real world" despite not having unions the Japanese auto worker is prospering and the American auto industry is collapsing.

Laws are the instrements holding things together.

As I explained already labor laws are the instruments holding things together not unions. Where unions the instrument holding things together a lot of us with out unions would be being taken advantage of. That is simply not true, it is the laws that are protecting people. Unions where simply a means to that end and are no longer needed.

As Whitestar showed in his example above it is democracy, the vote of the people, that is the counter balance to any cooperate influence on government.

And as I have stated, this cooperate influence on government is not as menacing as it was decades ago. Cooperation are now coming to believe that they should treat their works well as a means to maximize profits and its working. Those that don’t adopt this business model will go out of business.

There for unions are not badly needed and since you agree they are too powerful and aren't perfect, that leads to only one conclusion – that unions are obsolete. They are no longer needed to protect the work force and they do cause problems. No value added and value diminished by their presence.

Edit: added

Quote:
 
That wasn't an analogy. It was an EXAMPLE to show that some employers will not be generous or benevolent unless basically forced to by law. No matter what the economic conditions. Dandandat claims that the Japanese have proven that being good to your workers will reap benefits for the companies - yet ignores the fact that exploitation still exists.


No it does not ignore the fact that exploitation still exists. Of course it still exists.

What the Japanese example shows it that those companies that treat their workers well have a competitive advantage over those who do not. In business when a competitive advantage exists it is only a matter of time until the disadvantaged company goes out of business or adopts the practices of the advantaged company.

Yes exploitation still exists, but because it is now shown to be fact that a company who adopts good worker related practices will be the company that services exploitation will diminish on its own as companies go out of business or adopt good worker related practices.

This new out look on business coupled with the laws that are already in place are what make the unions irrelevant. Its not that unions can't advocate for the worker, I have never made that argument, it is that they are no longer needed. They are not longer needed because there are now new and better mechanisms in place.

Yes even with these new and better mechanisms in place; there is and will be exploitation.

But even now with unions in place there is still exploitation.

Their for the existence of exploitation can't be used as a measure; because it exists either way. The question than becomes which of the two 'unions' or 'laws coupled with the new paradigm' is the most effective way to insure workers rights?

That is why the auto industry is such a prime example, hypothetical's aren't needed, the contest is playing out for all to see and it is clear who the winner is.
Edited by Dandandat, Dec 2 2008, 02:14 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain
Quote:
 
Give the lady a break Dan... I believe it is a fair point Min has made.. workers without protection and the abuse begins.. no need to anaylize the whole subject of illegal immigrants

Quote:
 
Give here a break with what whitestar? Is it your contention that we can't have debate on this subject matter, that since I don't agree with Minuet that I must keep my mouth shut about it and not state my opinion or rebut her remarks. That is ludicrous and not becoming of this forum or the freedoms in which we have been speaking about here.


No Dan, not at all. It's the debate I enjoy, especially with you Dan as you are not short of a compelling argument and you refrain from personal attacks, my apologies if I came across as pushy. It was written as though a face to face conversation if you can picture that.
The slavery comparision was not quite on target but I thought the illegal worker without protection of any kind hit the mark and upon reading your response my first impression was that it was dismissive but of course your entitled to express your opinion as long as it agrees with mine.. :doh: I mean.. EVEN if it does NOT agree with mine (excuse that mistake, I was grinding my teeth and lost concentration)

will continue with the debate soon :handshake:
Edited by whitestar, Dec 3 2008, 03:42 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
whitestar
Dec 3 2008, 03:37 AM
Quote:
 
Give the lady a break Dan... I believe it is a fair point Min has made.. workers without protection and the abuse begins.. no need to anaylize the whole subject of illegal immigrants

Quote:
 
Give here a break with what whitestar? Is it your contention that we can't have debate on this subject matter, that since I don't agree with Minuet that I must keep my mouth shut about it and not state my opinion or rebut her remarks. That is ludicrous and not becoming of this forum or the freedoms in which we have been speaking about here.


No Dan, not at all. It's the debate I enjoy, especially with you Dan as you are not short of a compelling argument and you refrain from personal attacks, my apologies if I came across as pushy. It was written as though a face to face conversation if you can picture that.
The slavery comparision was not quite on target but I thought the illegal worker without protection of any kind hit the mark and upon reading your response my first impression was that it was dismissive but of course your entitled to express your opinion as long as it agrees with mine.. :doh: I mean.. EVEN if it does NOT agree with mine (excuse that mistake, I was grinding my teeth and lost concentration)

will continue with the debate soon :handshake:
I see, sorry than for my over reaction
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain

Quote:
 
In my opinion you would have to qualify the wrongness in the abolishment of the work place rights that you say where striped way. For example
Like it or not those thing you mentioned do lead to uncompetitiveness in to days market which leads to job loss not job protection.

Example; mandatory annual leave is nice; but in todays market place leave is better individually addressed by a employee for there employers rather than having laws governing the process. Some jobs and positions require less and different leave than others. The US does not have law dictated annual leave for example, yet I enjoy and the Japanese auto workers enjoy annual leave negotiated at the time of our higher with our employer.

Not sure if I can qualify Dan, there was no way the govt could convince the general public that we needed to be more competitive while the economy was running red hot (pre meltdown). For most Australians it's about "a fair go", your familiar with Australia and may understand that phrase. We well settle for no less then what we believe to be fair and those conditions you mention are basic, we could not see any fairness in a system which required an average worker to be placed in a one on one negotiation with a multi-million dollar company or any business, especially when the next downturn came along. The average worker would vary in negotiating abilities and the person opposite would be placed in that job for just that ability of negotiating the best deal for his employer or even as a business owner would be experienced to the highest degree. Not to mention the pressure of the next applicant who may undercut your terms though there were provisions for advisers to be part of the negotiations (outside of unions) but the complaints still mounted.
Despite the truth in what you state of fair treatment of workers leading to higher production there are still many who have yet to catch on. The examples that were aired after "work choices" was introduced were a stark reminder of the readiness of many employers to once again return to sheer and utter explotiation of workers once the laws of protection were removed. Even while the economy was running red hot there appeared to be particulaly vulnerable sections of the workforce, female, young aged and mature aged workers in particular. The problems you have mentioned with conditions such as annual leave and overtime rates were already being addressed with some room for flexibilty allowed in the laws from industry to industry.

You accuse my thinking as out of date... I have seen the reality of it and accuse you of being nieve to the dangers, relying on govt and benevolent employers.

Quote:
 
So you say the laws of protection where "swept away" but with more information it sounds to me like those laws where simply changed to meat current conditions. That’s quite different from being "swept away".


When you "change" something so it is unreconizable, it is "swept away". Current conditions? our economy was already running at full steam, if anything they would suit an economy such as the US in 2007 and all of us in 2008, but we are still avoiding the recession monster (barely) and will weather this out while still enjoying a modestly growing economy without your "modern" view of I/R

You keep mentioning the US auto industry, from my perception they are suffering from being left behind in terms of innovation and saddled with some sort of residue from the heady days of union demands of ongoing payments to former employees. Don't forget the whole US economy is now officially in recession, even the japs will be selling less cars, which usually leads to job shedding.

Quote:
 
You said:

"working conditions were to be negotiated between employer and employee at the commencement of employment and set in a contract."

That is a change to the protection, not an abolishment of protection.


It is more than change but it was not quite abolishment, "work choices 2" we were given a warning of by govt leaks if they had won the election was!






Edited by whitestar, Dec 4 2008, 10:52 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
whitestar
 

Not sure if I can qualify Dan, there was no way the govt could convince the general public that we needed to be more competitive while the economy was running red hot (pre meltdown). For most Australians it's about "a fair go", your familiar with Australia and may understand that phrase. We well settle for no less then what we believe to be fair and those conditions you mention are basic, we could not see any fairness in a system which required an average worker to be placed in a one on one negotiation with a multi-million dollar company or any business, especially when the next downturn came along.


What you think is fair is what your think is fair; such a thing can not be debated.

However the question remains is what you think is fair best all around.

Quote:
 
The average worker would vary in negotiating abilities and the person opposite would be placed in that job for just that ability of negotiating the best deal for his employer or even as a business owner would be experienced to the highest degree. Not to mention the pressure of the next applicant who may undercut your terms though there were provisions for advisers to be part of the negotiations (outside of unions) but the complaints still mounted.


On the scale of midsized to large corporations the negotiations you invasion here would be unmanageable and to costly. Employers would not seek to bottom-line negotiation with every single potential employee that comes through the door and managers have a lot more to worry about then to shop for the perfect mark. It would simply be to inefficient to operate in this manner and any employer who engaged in such practices would find uncompete them selves out of business.

Instead the likely outcome would be fore companies to set terms prior too shopping for employees. The potential employee would them simply need to decided whether they like the terms or look else where for employment. Further more the terms will be set broadly for a range of applicants a certain levels of the company. No real negotiation skill would be needed on the part of the potential employee or even the guy across desk.

On top of that; as a company wished to maintain their work force, they will make connections automatically.

It can be thought of as a "phantom" union in a way.


Quote:
 
Despite the truth in what you state of fair treatment of workers leading to higher production there are still many who have yet to catch on. The examples that were aired after "work choices" was introduced were a stark reminder of the readiness of many employers to once again return to sheer and utter explotiation of workers once the laws of protection were removed. Even while the economy was running red hot there appeared to be particulaly vulnerable sections of the workforce, female, young aged and mature aged workers in particular. The problems you have mentioned with conditions such as annual leave and overtime rates were already being addressed with some room for flexibilty allowed in the laws from industry to industry.

You accuse my thinking as out of date... I have seen the reality of it and accuse you of being nieve to the dangers, relying on govt and benevolent employers.


Any and all change comes at a price and does not come seamlessly. Nor would I propose to outlaw unions over night as that would most differently be a disaster.

But it would be illogical to for ever perpetuate a losing strategy simply because we are afraid of getting a little dirty.

Thos companies who haven’t caught on yet that a happy worker is a productive worker will go out of business because they wont be able to compete. Others who have not yet caught on will chose to catch on for fear of going out of business. It would not happen over night and yes in the mean time their will be exploitations.

But truthful there are exploitations now, not to long ago we had a about sweetshops and one point was brought up that they exist in your country even with the statuesque way of doing things.

The question is where do we go from here? In what direction do we move. For me I'd like to move in the direction where employers and employees can have a productive relationship and costs are kept down because they do it with no middle man. There is plenty of data that suggests it would work, and plenty of examples where it has worked. What is needed now is for more people (employees and employers') to join in.

Naive? Is not the correct work. Idealistic perhaps would be better. Naïve suggests that what I have stated is born out of foolishness, when in fact its born out of a well educated opinion.

Quote:
 

When you "change" something so it is unreconizable, it is "swept away". Current conditions? our economy was already running at full steam, if anything they would suit an economy such as the US in 2007 and all of us in 2008, but we are still avoiding the recession monster (barely) and will weather this out while still enjoying a modestly growing economy without your "modern" view of I/R

You keep mentioning the US auto industry, from my perception they are suffering from being left behind in terms of innovation and saddled with some sort of residue from the heady days of union demands of ongoing payments to former employees. Don't forget the whole US economy is now officially in recession, even the japs will be selling less cars, which usually leads to job shedding.


You do realize that roam was not built in a day?

The initiatives meant to increase competitiveness are in response to what happened yesterday; they are in response to what is going to happen tomorrow. Just because your economy is adequate now doesn’t mean it will always be; just because it appears you are competitive now doesn’t mean you will always be.

Globalization is actuality a very very new phenomenon and national economies haven’t fully transitioned yet. One day they will and that is the day you need to forecast when judging whether your nation is competitive or not; that is the dilemma of the world leader and why their jobs are so hard.

The US auto industry is important because it is a sign post of what is to come; yes they are behind in innovation doe to the rigidity of their cost structure which is saddled by the ill effects of unions. And the auto industry is at the forefront of globalization, as the rest of us ketch up to them we will soon see the folly of our ways.

What happens when China stops just making trinkets and doodads? When the Chinese become engineers and architects; yet do the work for half the price then their counterparts in the west? That’s when the proverbial sh!t will hit the fan. The transition is happening now, and being fat and happy in the present is not going to help us in the future.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain
Quote:
 
Naive? Is not the correct work. Idealistic perhaps would be better. Naïve suggests that what I have stated is born out of foolishness, when in fact its born out of a well educated opinion.

Gotta disagree Dan, I use "nieve" in the context of innocence, lacking in experience, rather than foolish. A newly graduated uni student with the best academic education available is still "green behind the ears" when they hit the real world, experience is the real key. I have experienced your academic view. You must have read from the same text book as our last conservative govt, mirrowed almost word for word.
You mention globalization but I don't think you can reshape the economic infrastructure of a 1st world nation to compete with emerging 2nd world nations such as China and India, can't be done. Their standard and cost of living is so low we 1st world nations could never compete, when China does gradute from trinket manufacturers to industrial tiger it is inevitable that we must move on to other means, transform from industrial to technological, it is already happenning. The concept of globalization is not new here, our govts over the last 2 decades (no matter the political colour) have been slowly reshaping our economy with globalization in mind, tariffs and the like are almost a thing of the past. It has been painful, we have lost traditional industries to cheaper overseas imports and has caused much division but we also now export rice to asia, muscle cars to the US, ice to Iceland.. err.. maybe not ice to Iceland but you get my drift.
China and other present emerging nations will also have to make the same transition when Industrialization lifts their standard and cost of living to a point they cannot compete with other nations who will be classed as emerging economies with cheap labour and low regulation, that is the reality of an evolving world economy.
Quote:
 
But it would be illogical to forever perpetuate a losing strategy simply because we are afraid of getting a little dirty.

If you take our embracement of globalization, obviously not afraid to get a little dirty. We have drawn the line in the sand, we will not give anymore ground on the matter of basic conditions (though I enjoy none of them as self employed).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus