Is It Time That Labor Unions Become a Thing of the Past?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Is It Time That Labor Unions Become a Thing of the Past?
MANAZE's avatar

MANAZE

Senior Member

1,055 posts
Feb 18, 2010 2:20 AM
its not the union its the people running the unions. If you have bad people running it then you'll have a bad union. Unions are a great thing when ran right. And if your in a union that is running bad, maybe you should get your facts straight and run for President of the union so you can get it back on the right track. It is a business but at the same time if no one is working there is no business.
Feb 18, 2010 2:20am
MANAZE's avatar

MANAZE

Senior Member

1,055 posts
Feb 18, 2010 2:21 AM
Also for all those saying that unions out lasted there stay, many unions today are still fighting to get better laws passed for all working people. If they couldn't fight for us than who would?
Feb 18, 2010 2:21am
Sykotyk's avatar

Sykotyk

Senior Member

1,155 posts
Feb 18, 2010 2:53 AM
Who's lobbying congress to relax workplace rules, safety, pay, benefits, etc? Certainly not the employees. But, without unions, who'll lobby congress to continue to protect the employees,... certainly not the employers.

We're not even personnel anymore. We're human resources, a commodity that can be easy replaced.

A company's goal is to make money. Not to protect the worker. And if there were no unions, non-union jobs would see a precipitous decline. A rising tide floats all boats. Without the carrot of a union job enticing workers, the non-union employers would have no reason to attempt to match the pay and benefits.

The vast majority of Americans will never make more than $50k in their lives (based on 2010 dollars), but many are dead set on protecting the wealthiest among us in the sheer hope that one day they might be so lucky to be that wealthy. It's despicable.

Sykotyk
Feb 18, 2010 2:53am
S

Swamp Fox

Senior Member

2,218 posts
Feb 18, 2010 6:07 AM
Our system of government is based on protecting everyone. When you do that, you obviously run the risk of protecting a few folks who don't really deserve to be protected, but we can't just exclude those we don't like. In the matter of labor unions, while it is true that labor unions have, on occasion, protected those that are unsavory, do you want to be the one who decides the next group that we will exclude from protection? Some day it might be you and me added to someone's exclusion list. I don't think I'm quite ready to go back to an era where workers are at the mercy of management solely. There are a lot of other issues in addition to minimum wage. In the old Russian Communist regime, the policy was to sift through thousands of people looking for the enemies of the State and punishing them. Or, in other words, we will punish many innocent people in the process of finding the enemies of the State. Here, we fall on the side of protecting those same thousands, and running the risk of allowing some who are obviously guilty to use their rights to protect themselves. I would think that labor unions, while they have been greedy at times and there have been other problems as well, have provided many of our citizens with retirement scenarios that would not be there were it not for the power of collective bargaining....and while we're at it, if the contracts were so greedy and destructive, why then did management sign off on them? Is it always going to be the fault of the workers? Where is management's responsibity for unwise contractual agreements? I would say that labor unions have a significant role to play in keeping the playing field level.
Feb 18, 2010 6:07am
ManO'War's avatar

ManO'War

Senior Member

1,420 posts
Feb 18, 2010 10:48 AM
I don't get this whole "job security" concept. Why does a company have to keep someone that it doesn't want? The employee has the right to seperate himself from the company at any time, for any reason...so the employer should have that same right.

And it should be the employers right that if they can find someone to do your job better, then they can replace you with no questions asked.
Feb 18, 2010 10:48am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 18, 2010 10:52 AM
Companies are not started for the purpose of employing people. That's simply a benefit to the economy.
Feb 18, 2010 10:52am
D

DESCENTdmc

Senior Member

372 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:34 AM
ManO'War wrote: I don't get this whole "job security" concept. Why does a company have to keep someone that it doesn't want? The employee has the right to seperate himself from the company at any time, for any reason...so the employer should have that same right.

And it should be the employers right that if they can find someone to do your job better, then they can replace you with no questions asked.
So you'd be fine with your employer letting you go just for the sole purpose that you make too much money and they could pay 2 new hires the same amount that they pay you, then they could fire them when they start making more money, well that is if they get raises at all.
Feb 18, 2010 11:34am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:35 AM
ManO'War wrote: I don't get this whole "job security" concept. Why does a company have to keep someone that it doesn't want? The employee has the right to seperate himself from the company at any time, for any reason...so the employer should have that same right.

And it should be the employers right that if they can find someone to do your job better, then they can replace you with no questions asked.
Agree. Job security lies in maintaining a set of skills that are marketable in a ever-changing marketplace. No one owes you a job, it's totally up to you to have something that an employer values.
Feb 18, 2010 11:35am
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:37 AM
Con_Alma wrote: Companies are not started for the purpose of employing people. That's simply a benefit to the economy.
Companies are benefited by employing people. It's a two way street.
Feb 18, 2010 11:37am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:37 AM
DESCENTdmc wrote: ...
So you'd be fine with your employer letting you go just for the sole purpose that you make too much money and they could pay 2 new hires the same amount that they pay you, then they could fire them when they start making more money, well that is if they get raises at all.
This scenario means that someone else is bringing more value you to the employer than you...so yes.

"When they are making more money" should be a component of that person having more experience and thus being more efficient, productive and thus bringing more value.
Feb 18, 2010 11:37am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:39 AM
ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote:
Con_Alma wrote: Companies are not started for the purpose of employing people. That's simply a benefit to the economy.
Companies are benefited by employing people. It's a two way street.
No doubt. I wouldn't suggest that there is not a benefit of having employees. My point is that the purpose of a company is not to employ people but rather that the employees are a function of generating the output.
Feb 18, 2010 11:39am
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:45 AM
Con_Alma wrote:
ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote:
Con_Alma wrote: Companies are not started for the purpose of employing people. That's simply a benefit to the economy.
Companies are benefited by employing people. It's a two way street.
No doubt. I wouldn't suggest that there is not a benefit of having employees. My point is that the purpose of a company is not to employ people but rather that the employees are a function of generating the output.

True. What I'm suggesting is that it's not so much of the idea that you should feel grateful to your company for having as job anymore so that they should feel grateful for you for making them money. Most people agree with the mantra of “be happy you have a job”. I don’t.. I see it as be happy I’m not with your competitor.
Feb 18, 2010 11:45am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:49 AM
We don't employ anyone who doesn't want to be with us. The extent that I am happy they are employees is the amount that's in their compensation. If an additional amount of happiness is sought they should seek it out. If they find it I would encourage them to seize it.

Human capital is very valuable. It is also readily available. The value of it is determined by both the absolute benefit brought and how readily available it is.
Feb 18, 2010 11:49am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:53 AM
ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote: What I'm suggesting is that it's not so much of the idea that you should feel grateful to your company for having as job anymore so that they should feel grateful for you for making them money.
My employees making the company money is a basic job expectation. If they aren't doing so, why would they be here?
Feb 18, 2010 11:53am
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:54 AM
Con_Alma wrote: We don't employ anyone who doesn't want to be with us. The extent that I am happy they are employees is the amount that's in their compensation. If an additional amount of happiness is sought they should seek it out. If they find it I would encourage them to seize it.

Human capital is very valuable. It is also readily available.The value of it is determined by both the absolute benefit brought and how readily available it is.
Which is why I don't buy into the idea that you can make yourself valuable with your skills as we've seen suggested on this thread, b/c everyone is replaceable... at what cost is the only question.
Feb 18, 2010 11:54am
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:54 AM
DESCENTdmc wrote:
ManO'War wrote: I don't get this whole "job security" concept. Why does a company have to keep someone that it doesn't want? The employee has the right to seperate himself from the company at any time, for any reason...so the employer should have that same right.

And it should be the employers right that if they can find someone to do your job better, then they can replace you with no questions asked.
So you'd be fine with your employer letting you go just for the sole purpose that you make too much money and they could pay 2 new hires the same amount that they pay you, then they could fire them when they start making more money, well that is if they get raises at all.
I love when union supporters(read: morons) try to defend unions by using illogical examples like this one. I reverse the question to you, why should a company keep an employee when they can hire another employee that will do the same work at half the cost?

From what I've found, the only people that actually support unions anymore are the people who benefit with higher salaries, better benefits, etc. with inefficient unions. They are also the same people who will bitch and moan when they get laid off indefinitely and end up working at McDonalds/welfare because they were making the company they worked for uncompetitive in a global market.
Feb 18, 2010 11:54am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:56 AM
ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote: ... b/c everyone is replaceable... at what cost is the only question.[/i]
At what cost indeed. There is a point of diminishing returns when replacing someone would cost more than keeping those who you employ. There is value in keeping them.
Feb 18, 2010 11:56am
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:57 AM
queencitybuckeye wrote:
ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote: What I'm suggesting is that it's not so much of the idea that you should feel grateful to your company for having as job anymore so that they should feel grateful for you for making them money.
My employees making the company money is a basic job expectation. If they aren't doing so, why would they be here?
B/c you know damn well that it may be 3 additional hires before you get someone else who makes you money.
Feb 18, 2010 11:57am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:59 AM
...but if they are not making you money or at least filling a role that assists you in making money then they are costing you money. The risk reward just isn't there. There may be a potential greater reward in seeking a new employee...if it takes three hires until I get that value it may be worth such risk.
Feb 18, 2010 11:59am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Feb 18, 2010 11:59 AM
ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote:
queencitybuckeye wrote:
ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote: What I'm suggesting is that it's not so much of the idea that you should feel grateful to your company for having as job anymore so that they should feel grateful for you for making them money.
My employees making the company money is a basic job expectation. If they aren't doing so, why would they be here?
B/c you know damn well that it may be 3 additional hires before you get someone else who makes you money.
At my size, if I need three chances to hire the right person for the job, I'd be in some trouble at the least, and out of business at the most.
Feb 18, 2010 11:59am
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Feb 18, 2010 12:05 PM
Here's my view on it.. I like my job, but ultimately it's money that makes me happy. A company has every right to set their pay scale accordingly. I also have every right to determine what I think I'm worth. If another company thinks I'm worth more then you go there. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether I like my job or not, and more so with earning potential. It's not inconceivable that your worker is happy with his job and not his pay. It's your choice to decide if your worker is worth matching pay from another company.
Feb 18, 2010 12:05pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Feb 18, 2010 12:08 PM
queencitybuckeye wrote:
ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote:
queencitybuckeye wrote:
ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote: What I'm suggesting is that it's not so much of the idea that you should feel grateful to your company for having as job anymore so that they should feel grateful for you for making them money.
My employees making the company money is a basic job expectation. If they aren't doing so, why would they be here?
B/c you know damn well that it may be 3 additional hires before you get someone else who makes you money.
At my size, if I need three chances to hire the right person for the job, I'd be in some trouble at the least, and out of business at the most.
Then your employee's worth should be valued much more so than a larger company, correct?
Feb 18, 2010 12:08pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 18, 2010 12:10 PM
I don't disagree with that at all. If the sole reason for working is money then if more comes along you should go. You may be providing a greater value to that employer than you do to me.

It's been my experience however that money is not the sole benefit that people receive by being employed....especially the more money one makes. I have seen people take positions that pay less for reasons of happiness.
Feb 18, 2010 12:10pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Feb 18, 2010 12:21 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ wrote: Then your employee's worth should be valued much more so than a larger company, correct?
Not really, it just means I have less margin for error in my hiring decisions than a larger company might have.
Feb 18, 2010 12:21pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Feb 18, 2010 1:11 PM
It might not be the sole benefit, but it's the most important. If money isn't an issue, I can think of a better time filler than working.
Feb 18, 2010 1:11pm