Unions


beefche
 Share

Recommended Posts

Are you saying it was the unions that rejected Six Sigma programs? And what do you mean Toyota introduced Six Sigma? Come to think of it, what are you saying...that post really left me confused. I'm not sure if you're arguing for or against Unions, and I'm not sure if you're placing the blame for poor quality on management or labor.

Toyota introduced Six Sigma and they are not unionized - they have incentives for their employees to come up with better ways of doing things. In fact, all managers have to work the assembly line so that they really know what is going on. There is a great article in the Harvard Business Review about this very thing. Six Sigma was about improving productivity - which would usually eliminate jobs but increase productivity and quality.

Of course, the unions don't want any jobs eliminated. If they are, they go into a job pool which gives the worker the same pay but they do a different job (this could include much lower paying jobs) - To me, it is disturbing that there is no clause in a union contract for when the economy goes down - White Collar get cut, but Blue Collar do not? I am definitely against unions. Again, there is no incentive for members of unions to do a good job, improve things, improve productivity, etc. No way are you going to suggest something that could make a company more efficient. I think that the only people that are pro-union are those that are in a union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That attitude is exactly the problem with American motor companies. The unions blame the management. The management blames the unions. And now they're both going under. So I guess you can celebrate...the UAW won't be around much longer.

Unfortunately, I doubt that is true. But hopefully, they will have less power. Too much power is never a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way are you going to suggest something that could make a company more efficient. I think that the only people that are pro-union are those that are in a union.

I'm not in a union, Pup.

I'd like to point out for most of your arguments that "Correlation is not causation". That's just a fancy schmancy way of saying "Just because two things happen simultaneously doesn't mean they're related."

It's why we can't make arguments like "Fascists eat breakfast. You eat breakfast. Therefore, you're a fascist."(With the exception of pure ad hominem attacks).

The long and short of my argument? Blaming a group of workers who come together for mutual protection when a company starts doing badly is akin to blaming your dog when your household starts doing poorly: Just because he's part of the household doesn't mean he was the contractor who built it, or the freezing rain that caved the roof in or the government collecting the back taxes on it. He's just a dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The long and short of my argument? Blaming a group of workers who come together for mutual protection when a company starts doing badly is akin to blaming your dog when your household starts doing poorly: Just because he's part of the household doesn't mean he was the contractor who built it, or the freezing rain that caved the roof in or the government collecting the back taxes on it. He's just a dog.

I agree with this, the reason my husbands workplace has very few union members is because they are treated exceptionally well, they have excellent holiday and benefits, my husband is encouraged to take paternity leave, when someone has a family member die or is very ill they are ordered to take time off, great Christmas Bonus (share of the profits relative to yearly wage) etc Every other year we get a weekend in a posh hotel

Because they are treated well the people who work for the company actually work hard to keep the company afloat

The companies over run with unions are the ones that need them in my experience.

-Charley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying...I am not blaming the people - but the union itself that has ridiculous requirements and whose goal is not the health of the companies they use. They don't care about the health of the company, they just care about their jobs (they don't seem to realize that the two depend on each other) Detroit and Michigan in general has been in a recession a lot longer than the rest of the U.S. The main industry happens to be the auto industry and if the relation between the unions and the auto industry was so great, jobs wouldn't be passed down to Mexico and other countries. The higher the quality the more money the companies get which shields them from the extra fees taken from the unions. I am never pro-union and it hasn't changed just because of the current situation.

American cars need to be heavily discounted - I paid a lot more for my Honda, but I get exactly what I want. The definition of Quality is getting what you expect - sadly with a lot of American cars, that didn't ring true and I am sure that there are members of the unions that are great, but there are also those that aren't but the companies can't get rid of them. Business is all about making money - profit to be specific and sadly, American companies haven't been able to do that especially when you have to comply with union requirements.

Sorry, but I have a business degree, my parents are entrepreneurs and so I don't have sympathy for unions or the car companies. I see it from the other side. If you work hard, you are rewarded. :)

I'm not in a union, Pup.

I'd like to point out for most of your arguments that "Correlation is not causation". That's just a fancy schmancy way of saying "Just because two things happen simultaneously doesn't mean they're related."

It's why we can't make arguments like "Fascists eat breakfast. You eat breakfast. Therefore, you're a fascist."(With the exception of pure ad hominem attacks).

The long and short of my argument? Blaming a group of workers who come together for mutual protection when a company starts doing badly is akin to blaming your dog when your household starts doing poorly: Just because he's part of the household doesn't mean he was the contractor who built it, or the freezing rain that caved the roof in or the government collecting the back taxes on it. He's just a dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I have a business degree, my parents are entrepreneurs and so I don't have sympathy for unions or the car companies. I see it from the other side. If you work hard, you are rewarded. :)

Much like the railroad workers of last century were rewarded for connecting the entire continent together. They were given such high salaries that th... Wait, wait... No. Many of them were maimed and killed by poor workplace safety laws. Didn't the Unions make a major push for workplace safety?

Oh, well. Probably a fluke. I know! Miners. They work hard for their money and were rewarded commeasurately with... Uh... Wait, no. They were working for credit, which was basically legalized slavery.

Actually, now that I think about it, until American Workers demanded to be treated like human beings, the wealthy who ran the companies treated them pretty shoddily.

Wow. You might think that businesses are run by humans and, since most humans are selfish, they will get as much as they can for as little as they can in most situations. Hey! Come to think of it, wouldn't that work in reverse as well? Wouldn't leaders of powerful coalitions of workers -also- act selfishly?

Maybe it's just a case of two selfish groups working to cancel one another out, only because 90% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the people, maybe my sympathies don't lie entirely with people who say wealth naturally redistributes itself.

Because it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! You are really passionate about this - but you are part of a Union to be completely honest. I mean no disrespect by this but you are in Canada which is Socialist and you have a Universal Healthcare Plan. Would you not say that is a union? If the government decided to get rid of it tomorrow you don't think that there would be rioting? I am not talking about history, I am talking about now. The unions had a purpose 100 years ago, they no longer do. They hinder those that want to excel and they elevate those that don't. It is hard to have a discussion about American Unions with you because you live in Canada. I agree to disagree with you.

For me, the reward is doing my job well and that is what gratifies me, perhaps I am the exception rather than the rule because I don't equate happiness to money. No matter what, most people always feel that they are entitled to more money. Perhaps the word entitled needs to be taken out of the equation because it is what got the unions into the situation they are in today.

Much like the railroad workers of last century were rewarded for connecting the entire continent together. They were given such high salaries that th... Wait, wait... No. Many of them were maimed and killed by poor workplace safety laws. Didn't the Unions make a major push for workplace safety?

Oh, well. Probably a fluke. I know! Miners. They work hard for their money and were rewarded commeasurately with... Uh... Wait, no. They were working for credit, which was basically legalized slavery.

Actually, now that I think about it, until American Workers demanded to be treated like human beings, the wealthy who ran the companies treated them pretty shoddily.

Wow. You might think that businesses are run by humans and, since most humans are selfish, they will get as much as they can for as little as they can in most situations. Hey! Come to think of it, wouldn't that work in reverse as well? Wouldn't leaders of powerful coalitions of workers -also- act selfishly?

Maybe it's just a case of two selfish groups working to cancel one another out, only because 90% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the people, maybe my sympathies don't lie entirely with people who say wealth naturally redistributes itself.

Because it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been in commission sales for the last 30 years I don't understand the mentality of being a union member. Well I do understand it, my brother is in a union and it frustrates the living daylights out of him. He is a supervisor. He can't get rid of someone unless they almost kill somebody. If they come to work drunk they get a warning. If they are high from drugs they get a warning. Have to give three warnings before put on probation, can only be on probation for six months, keep your nose clean and slate is wiped clean and then you can come to work drunk or high again and go through the process. They work half speed and you can do nothing, they miss work and others have to pick up the slack and you can do nothing. Yep the Union protects the worker that is for sure. I believe that a union discourages productivity.

Ben Raines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unions have far outlived their purpose. They are now a curse on us and our economy. I would rather be without a job than join a union.

Education, Big 3 Auto, Airlines, to name fail because of.... UNIONS! Honda, Toyota, BMW all have plants here and make a nice profit. Private schools thrive with LESS money than the public school systems get. And the airlines that are non union also thrive.

Anybody see a pattern! Instead of Unions being encouraged and backed by this darn card check that is sure to come... they should be outlawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fancy myself a conservative, though perhaps a moderate one. For much of my life I was against unions. Ironically, my mother and father both benefited from union jobs. Today I'm more ambivalent. I see the abuses--big unions using dues for unrelated political causes, and the overeagerness to protect incompetent or slothful workers. On the other hand, Adam Smith, author of Wealth of Nations, was right in saying that employers have the natural advantage of power and wealth when negotiating the price of labor, so it's reasonable that workers organize some counter-balance with collective bargaining. Also, while it may be true that the Big-3 pay too much for labor and for retirees, but it demonstrates incredible incompentence on management's part that they only realized it now, in the era of govt. bailouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miners. They work hard for their money and were rewarded commensurately with... Uh... Wait, no. They were working for credit, which was basically legalized slavery.

They even used to end up owing the company store money after a 70 hour work week down in the mines. Did you know that Tennessee Ernie Ford's song Sixteen Tons was based on the workers experiences in Helper, Utah.

Think of all the little Mormon children working long hours in unsafe factories, had the union movement and their reforms failed.

=========

Does anyone see Detroit's car concept of "planned obsolescence" in making cars that broke down so you would need to buy a new car as contributing to their woes?

:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody see a pattern! Instead of Unions being encouraged and backed by this darn card check that is sure to come... they should be outlawed.

Yes, JC. We should outlaw... Outlaw... Uni...

I can't even finish that sarcastically. You honestly support strikebreaking and union busters? Because that's what the police would become if unions were outlawed. That's.... Wow. When people said that there were still people like you that existed, I generally thought they were exaggerating. You seriously condone smashing the constitution(If you're American) and denying people the right to free assembly? And if you aren't American(As I am not), you seriously support using the police as -union busters-?

Have you ever studied history? Do you know what that led to? You recognize that people with your attitude resulted in riots, fires, deaths and flat out anarchy when people demanded their rights from companies?

I mean... Seriously, disagreeing with unions is one thing. Saying that, in a truly global economy, unions result in higher unemployment - All that would be fine.

But saying you support -outlawing- Unions. That's... Wow. Good on you. You have actively shocked me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know that unions were guaranteed by the US Constitution. Right to assembly, sure but that if you work in certain industries and the union has organized a closed shop you are required to be in the union or you can't work there. You are charged dues to help fund political campaigns, etc. Oh and also to support mob organization. Anyone who doesn't think that The Mob is involved in the unions I believe is blind. No one in particular but that is how I feel.

Ben Raines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know that unions were guaranteed by the US Constitution. Right to assembly, sure but that if you work in certain industries and the union has organized a closed shop you are required to be in the union or you can't work there. You are charged dues to help fund political campaigns, etc. Oh and also to support mob organization. Anyone who doesn't think that The Mob is involved in the unions I believe is blind. No one in particular but that is how I feel.

Ben Raines

I agree, Ben - Unions have certainly had real problems in them: They've allowed lazy workers to run rampant without being fired, they've pushed companies to bankruptcy and they've become involved with the mob.

Managers have involved themselves in rampant mismanagement, stock fraud and near slave-labour conditions (See Nike shoes for examples of children working sixteen hours a day for pennies).

The problem lies not in Unions, but in ourselves. Unions, like any other group, have become corrupt when being exposed to power. Unions gained power and so many became corrupt.

EDIT: I forgot to put my point! My point being: Unions are not inherently evil. They have done a lot of good and will one day do what they should have again. Both management and worker has been corrupt when given power. This is normal. However, they act as a check to -other- corrupt people.

PS: A Union is just an expression of the Right to Assembly. Rules that came about when Unions started, like forcing a worker to join it, came about because of popular voting for particular unions. They warned companies that they wouldn't tolerate 'scabs' and so these rules came about. The blame for that can be placed squarely at the feet of the average joe worker who worried they'd just be fired and replaced with non-union workers. It's sad, but true.

Edited by FunkyTown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this quote I just read would be relevant:

Obama would not put a timetable on issues important to organized labor, what he called his promise to "put an end to the kinds of barriers and roadblocks that are in the way of workers legitimately coming together in order to form a union and bargain collectively." Among other things, he has promised support for a card-check system for unions trying to organize a new workplace and for adding labor and environmental protections to the North American Free Trade Agreement. "I don't want to anticipate right now what sequences will be on these issues," Obama said.

You gotta love adding protections to "Free Trade"--does that make sense to anyone? I stand by my critique of government debasing language and of speaking in Orwellian terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe my sympathies don't lie entirely with people who say wealth naturally redistributes itself.

Because it doesn't.

True! True! At least, not in an economic system where the government prevents it by mercantilist policy from being redistributed.

This is what is so strange to me. I hear people go on and on about how much they want to see that "wealthy 10%" lose their lofty status and the other "90%" brought economically upward. But then these same people support a government effort that takes money from the "90%" and gives it to the "10%". What gives?!?!?

Taking up this current example of GM, the argument for the bailout rests mainly on the livelihood of the 266,000 American workers employed there. But what about the thousands of Americans employed by Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and others. Is it fair to them? Are we taking tax money from a Toyota worker so that a GM worker can keep working for a tanking company? Perhaps a Toyota family will now not see a wage increase that would have resulted by the new market share with the death of GM.

What would happen if GM folded? The product choices of American car buyers would narrow. This would raise market share for the surviving options. This could actually LOWER manufacturing costs in the overall auto market, but the number of people employed does not necessarily have to go down. Especially as overall unit volume increases in the future. Many of these GM people could move over to Toyota, or Hyundai, or somewhere else.

A recent NPR article on the Iowa workers who made 20th century GE and Maytag products mentioned how even with three decades of efforts by government to save them from foreign competition they still could not compete. As the number of lay-offs mounted, companies building wind-mill generators moved in and began hiring them. Today that industry is growing and the manufacturing of 40 meter wind-mill blades is not likely to be outsourced in the near future because of the difficulty in shipping them.

Yes, the situation of the decline or death of a large employer is troubling, especially to families depending on the income therefrom. But the sooner we admit that we cannot prevent the inevitable, the sooner people will be able to move on to bigger and better things.

My father-in-law was laid-off when a competing company bought his employer out. He found another position with a different manufacturer who 5 years later was also bought by that same company which had previously laid him off, whereupon he was laid-off again! In the second lay-off, he received a hefty severance package. He then went to a third employer, who now pays him more than ever. He used the severance to pay off debts. He laughs and shakes his head in awe about his whole situation.

On the subject of unions, why do FedEx employees have better pay and benefits than UPS? FedEx is non-union, UPS is union. UPS has had lay-offs in the past, FedEx has had almost none. Why have the FedEx employees not unionized? Take a close look at their benefits and pay and you'll see why.

-a-train

Edited by a-train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True! True! At least, not in an economic system where the government prevents it by mercantilist policy from being redistributed.

This is what is so strange to me. I hear people go on and on about how much they want to see that "wealthy 10%" lose their lofty status and the other "90%" brought economically upward. But then these same people support a government effort that takes money from the "90%" and gives it to the "10%". What gives?!?!?

Taking up this current example of GM, the argument for the bailout rests mainly on the livelihood of the 266,000 American workers employed there. But what about the thousands of Americans employed by Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and others. Is it fair to them? Are we taking tax money from a Toyota worker so that a GM worker can keep working for a tanking company? Perhaps a Toyota family will now not see a wage incfease that would have resulted by the new market share with the death of GM.

What would happen if GM folded? The product choices of American car buyers would narrow. This would raise market share for the surviving options. This could actually LOWER manufacturing costs in the overall auto market, but the number of people employed does not necessarily have to go down. Especially as overall unit volume increases in the future. Many of these GM people could move over to Toyota, or Hyundai, or somewhere else.

A recent NPR article on the Iowa workers who made 20th century GE and Maytag products mentioned how even with three decades of efforts by government to save them from foreign competition they still could not compete. As the number of lay-offs mounted, companies building wind-mill generators moved in and began hiring them. Today that industry is growing and the manufacturing of 40 meter wind-mill blades is not likely to be outsourced in the near future because of the difficulty in shipping them.

Yes, the situation of the decline or death of a large employer is troubling, especially to families depending on the income therefrom. But the sooner we admit that we cannot prevent the inevitable, the sooner people will be able to move on to bigger and better things.

My father-in-law was laid-off when a competing company bought his employer out. He found another position with a different manufacturer who 5 years later was also bought by that same company which had previously laid him off, whereupon he was laid-off again! In the second lay-off, he received a hefty severance package. He then went to a third employer, who now pays him more than ever. He used he severance to pay off debts. He laughs and shakes his head in awe about his whole situation.

On the subject of unions, why do FedEx employees have better pay and benefits than UPS? FedEx is non-union, UPS is union. UPS has had lay-offs in the past, FedEx has had almost none. Why have the FedEx employees not unionized? Take a close look at their benefits and pay and you'll see why.

-a-train

I find myself agreeing with much of what you say, A-train. My only concern with much of what you say is that it's impossible to argue against something that has never in the history of man been had. I'm wary of the 'perfect world' scenario of true Libertarian ideals much as I'm wary of Communism(Which, in a perfect world, would be fantastic as well).

Arguments aside, I honestly don't care to be right or wrong. I just want a fix that works for the economy. Our current system is broken, because it's dependent upon a system of dizzying highs and lows. This makes it impossible to provide effective planning for retirement for anyone but the richest of us.

My concern with the idea of 'pure capitalism' is that there will always be an aristocracy, whether given by blood, wealth or social station. I can prove this because, in every society on earth since the dawn of time, Anarchy(And what you're proposing is self-regulating anarchy) has only existed long enough for a single tyrant to take control.

What's to prevent a company, or group of companies, to form a coalition designed to undersell its competitors and create a monopoly? They can undercut prices for the competitors long enough to make them go out of business, then jack them up again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you would have them sit at home and make ZERO wages?

-a-train

The children? Yes. Darn straight I would have the children sit at home, or go to school, or be provided the same benefits I had growing up.

I would like it if the adults earned fair wages that are livable without resorting to sending children to work for 16 hour days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's to prevent a company, or group of companies, to form a coalition designed to undersell its competitors and create a monopoly? They can undercut prices for the competitors long enough to make them go out of business, then jack them up again?

This is called by the anti-trust movement "predatory pricing". The notion is that a company (or group) with some "war chest" of capital, will cut prices to such a low level, that even IT does not profit. This effort is designed to ruin other businesses in order to establish monopoly and monopoly prices (prices much higher than what would exist under natural competitive market conditions).

"Muckraker" Ida Tarbell wrote a whole chapter on the subject in her book The History of the Standard Oil Company. The chapter, called "Cutting to Kill", asserted that Standard was engaged in such practices, and made the notion popularly known to the masses.

However, this notion is "theoretical nonesense" to economists. (Thomas Dilorenzo)

There has yet to be a single demonstrable historical instance of it. Standard Oil was actually losing market share while it continued to drop prices and it never raised them. What Standard Oil actually did, was give America really good oil products for really low prices through efficiency and innovation. It never did any price hikes. The allegations were that it charged less than anyone else, but as high as it could. (Sheesh, that's just terrible!) They were accussed of high and low pricing at the same time.

The reality is, that it takes violence to establish a monopoly. The mafia can do it, but not because of price controls, but because of hit-men and wise guys. They literally bury their competition.

The only way to do that legally is through government. All the real monopolies were established and maintained through government programs or fiats.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The children? Yes. Darn straight I would have the children sit at home, or go to school, or be provided the same benefits I had growing up.

I would like it if the adults earned fair wages that are livable without resorting to sending children to work for 16 hour days.

See, I knew you'd come around to free-market capitalism at some point. :lol::

-a-train

Edited by a-train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahah. Okay, Austro, I will give you that one. "Adding labor and environmental protections to the North American Free Trade Agreement."

NAFTA, while a -fantastic idea-, was so terrible in its execution that it just didn't work. And if there are tariffs and protections? It ain't Free Trade.

What WAS the idea of NAFTA? It is strange to me that a treaty made up of around 1000 pages of trade restrictions should be known as a "free-trade agreement".

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bailout for the Big 3 go far beyond trying to keep their jobs. If any of these of companies were to go under thousands of people would lose the warranties on their car(s). Also if one of them was to go under you would see other layoffs from the vendors that supply them. Tire manufacutures to freight companies would layoff because of the lost of revenue. Also don't forget the dealerships that would fold up overnight due to one of them closing down.

What would propose to do to help the layoffs of one company much less several. The number given for GM is 266,000 american workers. Not only are they going to get laid off but the GM employees in Europe, Canada, and Mexico would be out of jobs. The layoffs would impact the economy globally not just locally.

I hate the fact that I have to use my taxes toward a bailout for the Big 3, but I don't know if there is a better plan. I do believe that if the bailout is passed there needs to be many stipulations placed on the bill and an investigation on the management should be done. One stipulation that should be on the bill is that the company should have to do more in researching alternative energy sources and cleaner emissions. I also believe that management should be fired based on the outcome of the investigations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share