Vancouver Forum: UNIONS-GOOD OR BAD? - Vancouver Forum

Bad. Just look at Telus service as an example of what unions do.

I think they continue to be a necessary evil.....  if you look at the worse employers (from an employees perspective) I think you'll find most if not all of those are NON union.  There is of course also the other end of the spectrum, when the Union gets too powerful....

They've lost their political clout becasue the government has supplanted their most important functions.

Unions are bad.
However, Federal gov't should stop so much labour immigration.

^Livin' the white trash Canadian dream and lovin' it!! Circlin' long weekends on the calendar!! Sittin' at Timmies with the boys!! You've got it made!!!

who gets paid more a nurse or a millwright ??

El Duce

Posted - 11/18/2006 2:36:46 PM ^Livin' the white trash Canadian dream and lovin' it!! Circlin' long weekends on the calendar!! Sittin' at Timmies with the boys!! You've got it made!!!

For $32 an hour???  Where's the white trash I sign up?

PDR- if ya want a job...cleanup/utility person starts at $23.50
if ya have a lumber grading ticket-$28.86
if ya electrician-$33.00
If ya wanna drive a forklift-$25.50
those are some of the wages i know...i work on the planer side of things...

in the sawmill wages are a bit higer...i believe a sawfiler gets 35 an hour..a barker operator gets 33 an hour....

i work in the interior of B.C....if anyone is interested i'll give ya'll the fax # to the company, their always hiring!!

Thanks.  I have a job I really like and it pays in the mid $20's/hr...it's interesting, mentally challenging and it doesn't involve "manual labour" (after all, I'm not getting any younger!) so I'm pretty happy.

I think the topic should be unions, good AND bad. If it wasn't for unions, we'd all be working six days a week with no breaks, no holidays and even more unlivable wages than some of us already have.

On the other hand, lazy incompetent people wouldn't be carried on the backs of those who work hard, union job or not,.

So for those of you who think the unions are not so great (or think they are great) is this from experience? I want to hear your experience/story.  and can you tell us which unions it was..thx.  Just one more thing....did  you always get the support from your union?  Fair representation?

what do you think?

The real world, on 18 November 2006 - 07:36 AM, said:

rr

Companies get the Unions they deserve ,

if they treated their employees properly there would be no need for Unions ...

but some smart ass accountant in any company is always willing to show the owners how they can get a few more percentage points of profit on the bottom line if they squeeze their employees for additional profits by cutting wages or decreasing benefits or increasing hours at no additional pay and Unions are the outcome of the additional squeezing ...

So who won ?

Employers will always be more evil than the unions, especially in North America.

I work in a unionized job, but my position is perfect to screw both the employer and the union. LOL.

Unions are basically like corporations. They monopolize and then steal from the employees by making lame excuses.

and from another point of view re USA :

Why unions are good

In much of industrial America, workers toiled under very unsafe conditions, earning extremely low pay and enjoying little to no legal protection. Unions were successful in bringing about many improvements for such workers, such as more reasonable working hours.

They have generally served workers well by helping them avoid being exploited by employers.
Even in these days, unions have a strong impact. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union members in 1999 had median weekly earnings of $672 (that's $34,944 per year) while non-union workers had median weekly earnings of only $516 ($26,832) (source).

Why unions are problematic
Much as I'd rather not accept it, while unions have done a lot of good and have helped workers avoid exploitation, they also seem to have helped workers exploit employers.
Perhaps it has been a gradual shift over time, with unions slowly accumulating more and more power.

Unions do have the power to impede a company's ability to compete and thrive.
A firm might be in desperate trouble, yet its unions may be unwilling to bend or compromise in order to help the company survive.
Many employers find themselves left very inflexible when they have union contracts to abide by, But with the recent economic downturn have been a lot more receptive of ways to help their employers get contracts that help the union workers by being flexible ...

Some problems with unions:

• Anti-competitiveness. The Socialstudieshelp.com website suggests that, "some unions. are victims of their own success. Unions raised their wages substantially above the wages paid to nonunion workers. Therefore, many union-made products have become so expensive that sales were lost to less expensive foreign competitors and nonunion producers."
• A decline in the value of merit. In many union settings, workers can't advance much or at all on their merits, but must generally progress within the limits defined by union contracts. Employers may have trouble weeding out ineffective employees if they belong to unions. In theory, at least, unionized workers might become so comfortable and protected that they lose the incentive to work hard for their employer. And outstanding employees might lose their get-up-and-go if there's no incentive to excel -- or worse, if they're pressured by the union to not go the extra mile.

Is there a problem?

So there's both good and bad associated with unions.

I suspect that most businesses, and even many or most investors in said businesses, would prefer that the businesses be union-free. But that's easier said than done.

Is ownership an answer?

One strategy for companies to avoid unions taking hold on their premises might be to ensure that as many of their workers as possible are as satisfied as possible.
That's simple and makes sense, but it can become mighty difficult to maintain as a company grows huge.
Another option is to convert employees into owners -- via stock ownership or profit-sharing,
for example. If workers have a real stake in a firm's bottom line, they may be more sympathetic to management's point of view and more eager to work extra hard to help the firm succeed.

That's not a perfect solution, though. Starbucks (NYSE: SBUX), for example, is known for awarding stock options.
Yet some of its workers in the U.S. and Canada have organized into unions, while others would like to.

Consider also Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV), which has long made employees part-owners via profit-sharing and stock options. It hasn't escaped having unions in its midst.
Yet, as this Foundation for Enterprise Development case study notes, "A few years ago the pilots' union at Southwest struck an extraordinary deal with the airline to freeze wage increases for 10 years in exchange for an increased proportional allocation of stock options. The flight attendants' union has since also signed a similar agreement that is unprecedented in the industry." And Southwest has continued to thrive in its notoriously tough industry.

American Airlines, whose parent company is AMR (NYSE: AMR), also decided to issue stock options to its employees, making the announcement in April -- and just a week or so ago it reported a long-elusive (though tiny) profit. Are the two items related?
Perhaps, at least to some degree. Though it's worth pointing out that stock options aren't necessarily always attractive. If they're for stock of a shaky company in a wobbly industry, they may not be worth much at all. (Bill Mann noted earlier this year why investors might want to walk away from American Airlines.)

The healthcare crisis
If ownership isn't the best answer, perhaps healthcare coverage might be. Along with compensation issues, healthcare is a major factor in the recent strike of grocery workers in California. The unions don't want to lose ground on the healthcare package workers currently receive.
The grocery chains are crying that they're being pinched as they fight the threat of Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) -- yet some have been recording increases in sales and earnings lately. Kroger (NYSE: KR), for example, posted a 3% increase in sales and a 16% increase in earnings between fiscal 2001 and 2002.

What's really going on? I suspect that both sides fear a slippery slope:
Workers fear that if they give in a bit on healthcare, they'll eventually lose it all. (And with healthcare costs skyrocketing lately, that's a valid concern.)
Employers fear that they're already on a slippery slope as they fight the encroaching behemoth that is Wal-Mart.

The Wal-Mart situation

Wal-Mart itself is interesting, when you consider unionization. Thus far, in its not-that-short history, it has escaped having most of its workers belong to unions.
But a passionate fight is being waged right now, as workers struggle to establish a union.

This raises interesting questions for us investors: Should we root for the union, as it might lead to more livable wages for employees and might keep more of Wal-Mart's million-plus employees enjoying healthcare benefits?
Or should we root for Wal-Mart, figuring that a union will almost certainly put pressure on profits and might threaten the company's ability to sustain its track record of formidable global growth?

I'd like to tell you what I think of the Wal-Mart situation, I see both sides of the issue.

I would like to see Wal-Mart unduly restricted by union stipulations. I recognize that although it's enormous, its net profit margins aren't that hefty, at around + 4%. That doesn't leave lots of room for adding expenses (though of course there is some room).

But at the same time, I wouldn't want employees to be taken advantage of simply because Wal-Mart is big enough to do so.

I admire generous companies, ones that treat their workers well. I'd want Wal-Mart to be like that , as many folks would argue it is not currently, fair or even generous to workers.

I suppose what I'd like to see is a more perfect solution than a traditional union or successful union-busting.

Questions that remain

So after this brief foray into union considerations, we are left with more questions than answers.


If unions are no longer so critical, should they disappear, and if so, how?

They currently enjoy many protections by law.

If unions are indeed still vital, how worried should we be that less than 15% of our workforce belongs to unions, and that this figure has been dropping? Why ?

• Comments ????

Don't like the place where you work? Quit and go work somewhere else rather than strong arming the employer. The majority of union members are useless shits.

Unions are good, if you want job security -- however you should be active in voting, since they represent you as people, and do only get control when you vote. (unions have voting periods where you can voice your opinion about how they perform)

the current government is trying to lobby that unions are bad, however you should want one in your work place to negotiate raises, because the current business trend it to not follow basic labour laws and reduce your pay.

This post has been edited by Wires: 19 November 2009 - 02:04 AM

Harry Balls, on 19 November 2009 - 01:54 AM, said:

Productivity numbers seem to disagree with you.

Wires, on 19 November 2009 - 02:02 AM, said:

Not always. I'm at a sub-contractor, and our guys are asking for more money than we bill our customers, and I won't be surprised if they get it. If that happens, most of the company will fold next year.

There's a lot of propaganda going around, a lot of the guys do not even know what has been tabled at negotiations, and they're bitching because the comitee won't give them answers and is just telling them to strike.

The ideology behind unions is good, but like everything else they are subject to human corruption.

Goat Boy©, on 19 November 2009 - 07:17 AM, said:

Best answer by far.

i <3 my union

lol, not really, but they have made for some pretty sweet benefits.

Goat Boy©, on 19 November 2009 - 07:17 AM, said:

I think workers fail to understand that THEY are the union. You can be as involved as much or as little as you want. I have a hard time sympathizing with people who couldn't be bothered to be active.

RealWoman, on 19 November 2009 - 11:54 AM, said:

It's a mistake to judge from 1000 miles away.....

In a perfect world, perhaps. The situation here is rather fragmented though.

Goat Boy©, on 19 November 2009 - 11:58 AM, said:

When I was working in my office rather than remotely, I was involved in every committee our bargaining unit offered - safety, bargaining, benefits ... I was a shop steward. I understood every single going on and worked hard at making sure members of my unit did as well. It's not hard but it involves effort.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need unions.

RealWoman, on 19 November 2009 - 12:16 PM, said:

So in that particular office, everybody did what they were supposed to, nobody broke/bent the rules, people got upset when others poked their noses where they weren't wanted, but allowed them to anyway......

That doesn't speak for every office. The rules/laws aren't always followed, and in the case of the workplace, in both employer & union I'd venture they're broken more often than not.

Goat Boy©, on 19 November 2009 - 01:10 PM, said:

My employer was abusive, hence the reason we unionized in the first place.

But again, I don't know the specifics of your dealings, but I still have little sympathy for those unwilling to get the information and act. It's a collective.

Unions were absolutely necessary in the late 19th and early 20th century. They helped workers obtain a decent wage, and benefits. But, over time, they became too powerful and they have worked hard to destroy the countries, and the jobs that kept them going.

There is no possible way that a company can have a wage and benefit structure like the UAW had, and still compete on the world market. It simply can not be done. The unions, as much as anyone, drove G.M. and Chrylser into bankruptcy. Now, they are determined to take down Ford. They refuse to give Ford the same wage and benefit package that their competitors have.

As a result, in a couple of years, Ford will be in bankruptcy court, the unions will lose their contracts, and this will be the death knell for powerful unions.

They simply got too greedy, demanded too much and they killed off their own goose that laid the golden eggs.

The machinists union at Boeing has done the same thing. They demanded totally unrealistic wage and benefit packages, so Boeing is moving the production to a "right to work" state, where the unions have zero clout. They will still pay their workers a much higher than average wage (over $20 an hour), give excellent benefits, but will have labor costs some 40% less than they had in Washington.

The Union simply refused to be reasonable, so they lost everything.

Typical stupid thinking of the unions.

And before any of you union folks knock me, I have been a union member. I have belonged, at various times in my life to:

1. The Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union (They literally did absolutely nothing for us at all, but take our dues of $5.00 a month).

2. The Teamsters Union (I worked part-time on a loading dock while in the Army). I was forced to join the union after 30 days. The only benefit I got from them was to pay them an initiation fee of $108 and $15 in dues a month. This DECREASED my income.

3. The Service Employees Union I was working at a hospital when it was unionized. The nurses voted overwhelmingly against the union, the non-professional staff voted it in. The Union immediately signed a contract with the hospital, giving every employee an average of 10 cents an hour in raises. They set their union dues at $30 a month, which resulted in a net loss to the average employee of $12-14 a month. The nurses then voted to withdraw from the union, and they threatened a strike if we did it. We went anyway, and they didn't strike.

This kind of stuff is why most unions have been declining in membership. They no longer have the best interests of the workers in mind, they are all about greed and power.

In the US, if you were to exclude the government employees unions, less than 5% of the workforce are now union members. When you add in the government employees (including teachers, etc.) then it comes to about 13%.

Look at the salaries of the major union leaders. They get salaries that are comparable to the heads of major corporations. Greed, that all that drives them.

The Old medic, on 20 November 2009 - 10:38 AM, said:

I agree with this. True 'Collective bargaining' is gone. A union is now a corporation (Including capital assets) that you hire to look out for your interests. You may or may not be satisfied with your purchase.

RealWoman, on 19 November 2009 - 12:16 PM, said:

Good answer RW but you beat me to it .... That was supposed to be my response.

This post has been edited by MJCD: 20 November 2009 - 11:02 AM

The Old medic, on 20 November 2009 - 10:38 AM, said:

People have been saying unions are unnecessary since the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

2008 US stats for unionization
In 2008, union members accounted for 12.4 percent of employed wage and salary workers, up from 12.1 percent a year earlier, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of workers belonging to a union rose by 428,000 to 16.1 million. No stats are available for 2009 as the year isn't over.

In Canada, the head of the labour movement salaries in the $120,000 to $150,000 salary range. That is NOTHING compared to what heads of major corporations make. For comparison, check out the afl-cio's corporate pay watch for the salary of CEOs in your favourite companies: http://www.aflcio.or...watch/paywatch/

Goat Boy©, on 20 November 2009 - 10:43 AM, said:

Hire? You mean vote to look after your interests. AFAIK, membership still votes on collective agreements, strike action, etc. When a union stops looking after your interests, you vote on different leadership, vote to decertify, or vote in a new union.

RealWoman, on 20 November 2009 - 11:10 AM, said:

Same thing, different phrase. A group of people getting together, deciding to dedicate X Funds to bring in an outside entity to look after them.

I call it hire, you call it vote. Same thing int he end.

Goat Boy©, on 20 November 2009 - 11:12 AM, said:

Not really but I am afraid I am not in the mood to play the wording game today