Unions: The Business Killers

In light of the recent actions of both of our countries potential bailout of the Big 3 automakers, I figured it would be a good time to bring up the issue of Unions.

Those that are pro-union often say that Unions are champions of the workers; that they provide better work conditions, higher wages and protect workers from being overworked.

What they don't realize is their good intentions come at a heavy price. That price is paid by the business and at the end of the day onto the consumer.

What if a business wants to fire a worker who is lazy, or unproductive, or not needed anymore? Well the union says you can't do that, that would be infringing on the workers rights. And if a union does allow a company to fire an employee they have to go through a huge bureaucracy to see it through.

Shouldn't a business owner be allowed to choose who he wants to hire or fire? Afterall it is his money that he pays the workers with. Shouldn't he be able to choose how he spends it? No, says the union, we make that choice.

Why would I want someone else to speak for me if I think I deserve a raise? Shouldn't I make that case to the business myself? If the business does see me as a valuable employee, shouldn't they be allowed to give me a raise without going through a third party bureaucracy?

How much money do these unions make? What do they spend it on? If every employee is forced to join a union and having to pay union fees is that not itself a business?

Unions have the power to block innovation in the name of job security. An example of this is the growing number of jobs that can be done cheaper, faster and more efficiently through automation. The union says no to this technology in the name of protecting a would be obsolete job. The consequence of that is quality suffers because the business now has to keep doing this a more inefficient and costly way and to stay competitive in the market, it now has to use cheaper materials. ie GM

But look what happens when a company like Ford builds in places that don't have unions. Ford's most advanced assembly plant operates in rural Brazil

Bottom line is Unions destroy business because they themselves are a business that suck the blood out of successful businesses like a parasite.

Thoughts?

Unions were meant to protect people, from evil exploitative filth.
And they once did that.
Now of course like everything else, they went to the other extreme.
And bankrupt business's and cause people to become unemployed.
Kind of like the womens liberation movement.
They wanted equal rights for women, eventually they got that.
Now women have more rights than men.
And they still say women don't have enough rights.
People it seems just don't know there boundaries and limitations when it comes to these things.
They just don't know when to stop.

Let me tell you a little story about unions. My father has worked at company for 26 years. He spent 20 of those years welding and working the at the production level making trailers for a very successful business in my hometown. Every 7 years they expand their factory because of its success. It is also one of the largest employers in my hometown. He eventually made it to foreman and had taken on alot of responsibility. He is now making money that he never dreamed of when he first came to came to Canada from Mexico in the early 80s.

Anyway a couple of years ago, a couple of employees got this idea that the company was not paying them enough. So they threatened to install a union. Needless to say the company was not very happy, along with my dad.

They eventually brought the union in. Their first job was to check if the employees were indeed underpaid compared to other workers in the province. Their findings were that most of the employees were actually overpaid!! Those employees got their wages cut and also now had to pay union fees. On top of that the employees stopped getting their quarterly profit-sharing check and had their christmas and summer vacation bonuses cut.

Also now they had the problem of not being able to fire unproductive workers. There were a couple of employees that nobody wanted there because they were lazy and unwilling to work any harder because these guys knew that as long as they did the bare minimum, they could not get fired. Funny my dad had to come up with some ingenious ways to make these guys quit. When my dad was successful the rest of the workers actually thanked him and bought him gifts.

Now for the last two years the workers have been trying to get rid of the union because they see how screwed over they were and how much of a scam it is. They have been unsuccessful so far because of the bureaucracy but I am sure they will succeed soon enough.

reply to post by AgentOrangeJuice


I don't know about the stuff about the women's movement. That's for another thread.

But I am not so sure that businesses have really exploited workers. And even worse I don't think it was unions that brought "better working conditions."

Now alot of people will bring up the whole "businesses are exploiting workers in third world countries" and love to bring up chineese sweatshops. People often forget that our fathers and our fore fathers broke their backs in what we would consider today horrible conditions. Whether it be mining, on the field, or even in the sweat shops of the late 1800s early 1900s. They certainly wouldn't call themselves exploited. They called it a job in which they were paid to spend on things of their choice.

I would argue that technology as well as the price of that technology is what gave us better working conditions. For example back in the days of my grandfather, they did not have a thing called an air conditioner. It was only until the price of that technology came down in price to a point where a business could afford it that they would spend money on it realizing the obvious benefits of being able to keep workers happier and more productive than they otherwise would have been.

The point is today's equivalent to the sewing machine sweatshop is the call center cubicle or the data entry office. Is that not an improvement? Was that because of unions?

[edit on 8-12-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

reply to post by Cool Hand Luke


Employment laws vary depending on your location . Employment law is being amended in New Zealand to give a new employers the ability to hire on a ninety day trial period and not face a wrongful dismissal suit . As I understand it sexual harassment and anti discrimination laws still rightful apply thou . Larger company's which hire a minority of the working population have the likes of clueless human resource manages to sort out matters relating to who gets hired .

Nobody should be forced to join a union or be denied the chance to do so if it arises . Its after 1am I need to get some sleep I might go into a few other factors when I have some spare time .

reply to post by Cool Hand Luke



Well yes, actually unions were instrumental in bringing about better working conditions, among other things. I don't know about Canada, but in the US the unions had their place at one time, and still do to a point.

Personally I'm not pro or anti-union. From my perspective, however, it seems they have gotten too greedy over the years, and the companies have given in to them too much and too often. Sure, the US automakers are responsible for their current state, but the UAW should accept some culpability too.......wages and benefits $30/hour more for an average assembly line worker than at a Japanese plant in the south. They forced the companies into this wage+benefit price by strikes and threats of them over the years. They are just as guilty as the management.

In this case the union has out lived its usefulness because they have priced US cars out of the market. Shame on them as well as anyone.

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by Cool Hand Luke

 

Employment laws vary depending on your location . Employment law is being amended in New Zealand to give a new employers the ability to hire on a ninety day trial period and not face a wrongful dismissal suit . As I understand it sexual harassment and anti discrimination laws still rightful apply thou . Larger company's which hire a minority of the working population have the likes of clueless human resource manages to sort out matters relating to who gets hired .

This is an interesting point to make. Because these days we have many laws protecting workers that feel they have been wrongfully treated. My opinion is that individuals already have the tools without unions if they have a grievance with a company.

Nobody should be forced to join a union or be denied the chance to do so if it arises .

Exactly. But unfornately many unions don't see it that way with legislation that was passed in many states in america called "The right to work." Meaning you have a choice to work for a company with or without joining a union. Unions tried to use their political clout and their money to try and block this legislation from going through and still publicly denounce the legislation as some sort of "Big Business conspiracy" when nothing could be further from the truth.

Originally posted by Hugues de Payens

Well yes, actually unions were instrumental in bringing about better working conditions, among other things.

I'm still not convinced that this is true. I still make the case that better jobs, competition for those jobs, and technology have brought about better working conditions. But we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I don't know about Canada, but in the US the unions had their place at one time, and still do to a point.

I don't understand why we have unions in Canada. The reason I say this is because we have what you would call a nanny state up here. Meaning you are taken care of from cradle to grave with health care, welfare, unemployment insurance, social insurance... etc with many laws protecting workers anyway. The only reason to have a union is to demand higher wages and use force (strikes) to achieve those goals.

For example, the Nurses Union (we are completely socialized health care in Manitoba) seems to strike at least once every two years to demand higher wages and more benefits. The crazy thing is that they are very well paid, have their schooling subsidized and have one of the best pensions I have ever heard of. But it is never enough. These unions always claim that the business that they are working for are greedy, but why don't they ever look in the mirror? Especially with the nurses union because that hurts all canadians because we pay them through our taxes.

Personally I'm not pro or anti-union. From my perspective, however, it seems they have gotten too greedy over the years, and the companies have given in to them too much and too often. Sure, the US automakers are responsible for their current state, but the UAW should accept some culpability too.......wages and benefits $30/hour more for an average assembly line worker than at a Japanese plant in the south. They forced the companies into this wage+benefit price by strikes and threats of them over the years. They are just as guilty as the management.

Exactly.

In this case the union has out lived its usefulness because they have priced US cars out of the market. Shame on them as well as anyone.

And that is the real shame here. Because of the shift of focus off the product to line their pockets (whether its management or the union) they have doomed themselves and consumers.

I'll keep my comments to unions with regards to skilled labor such as plumbing, pipe fitting, electrical, etc.

First and foremost, the early labor movement established the 40 hour work week and the concept of overtime. As have been stated, many safety standards today's worker takes as normal was driven by the labor movement.

I'll bid union jobs for building all sorts of stuff against non-union companies all the time. I'm busy and I know my overhead. Trade workers from apprentices to journeymen are better skilled at what they do than non-union workers who did not go through an approved training course. IMHO, this just makes them a more productive worker, for what I do.

I can send a guy back to his shop if he isn't working or just a dumb ass. I'll let his shop owner do his thing towards bad workers. Usually, you'll see a union member with a bad attitude or bad habits starved out of the skilled labor market. Cutting a guys hours can be a real motivation for improvement, especially when you look at how much skilled workers are paid.

I have no problem telling the guys, you are professionals, do your job and everyone makes money. And to me, that's what it's about.

If you want to build a business that means you have to pay people two bucks an hour so you can take the profits you want, then move to India, you can hire someone for two bucks a day there. Frankly, I don't want to live in a country that allows such exploitation. I don't hear that the share holders are making too much or the CEO is, I don't see people marching to protest corporate perks. This is a class argument, and one on the side of the robber barons of old, it hasn't changed in generations. White collar, blue collar, rich, poor, connected and those not, who's side are you on? Economic creative destruction is fine as long as you are not the one being destroyed for some future worker or economy. If I want to take my company and move it to China, it is mine to do with what I please, that is my right even if I throws out 200 workers leaving them without jobs. It's my right to do even though it will cause massive stress on hundreds and even thousands of people, marriages breaking up under the stress of bills, family moving to chase jobs, kids leaving their friends, families loosing their homes, and on and on. But I have the right to put a few million more bucks in my pocket regardless of the stress and pain it will put on the workers and their families. Is it right to do that to my fellow humans, no. Does it support my country or community, no. Is it right in the eyes of God or righteousness, no. But I'll get a new 3rd or 4th vacation home somewhere and a stash of cash that will last the lives of my grandchildren. That is the American way! If the rich had their way in this country, our society would look like India, with beggars in the streets and people living on 2 dollars a day in shanty towns, if we the people would let them get away with it and one tool we the people have had, has been the unions. Get off their back and start looking at who really steals the wealth of this planet.

Originally posted by hinky

First and foremost, the early labor movement established the 40 hour work week and the concept of overtime. As have been stated, many safety standards today's worker takes as normal was driven by the labor movement.

That is a myth

I'll bid union jobs for building all sorts of stuff against non-union companies all the time. I'm busy and I know my overhead. Trade workers from apprentices to journeymen are better skilled at what they do than non-union workers who did not go through an approved training course. IMHO, this just makes them a more productive worker, for what I do.

I have no problem with Associations, that require you to have specific training in a certain field so that employers or contractors know what they are getting. But here, most the times, you don't have to negotiate with a union as to what you pay the individual you hire. Instead you put up a job, post what it will pay and the skill required to do that job. So in that way, you are in control and not the union. But here is the thing, you have a choice to hire a nonunion worker if you want to. Unions do not have the monopoly on skilled workers, there are many out there. But you choose to hire union workers because like you said you know what your getting.

I can send a guy back to his shop if he isn't working or just a dumb ass. I'll let his shop owner do his thing towards bad workers. Usually, you'll see a union member with a bad attitude or bad habits starved out of the skilled labor market. Cutting a guys hours can be a real motivation for improvement, especially when you look at how much skilled workers are paid.

Not to mention what bad references do to a resume. If someone continues to do a terrible job, the market will find out and severely decrease their chances of getting hired. But way too often unions will hire these people because for them more members = more money.

I have no problem telling the guys, you are professionals, do your job and everyone makes money. And to me, that's what it's about.

Exactly, I am merely making an argument that when you have an a group that can demand to get a higher wage than what employers are willing to pay them, they have stepped over the line into telling you what to do with your business. And your business is your business, not theirs.

Unions are no different than the businesses themselves. Both are necessary and both can go overboard and hurt the other. To single out the unions is a subtle form of class warfare in my opinion. Things are going bad in America so it must be the Unions?? Rich bankers on Wall Street did this to America with the help of too much deregulation by both parties the last 25 years. The system is so corrupt that a Wall Street CEO can run his company into bankruptcy and still get a multi-million dollar BONUS. If most of us screw up our jobs half as bad as those idiots, we'd get fired(as it should be). Unions have been weakening for decades now and were still willing to give concessions so if you're going to attack a single group who's played a part in this catastrophe, you've got the wrong target in your sights if you're picking on Unions.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by hawkeye1717]

One, the statement that Ford is the reason for the 40 hour work week is obviously propaganda to anyone who ever studies labor history.

Second. A Union is nothing more than when a group of people decide to sell their labor as a group rather than an individual. This is the EXACT same thing as a "merger" which businesses do all the time. It is so strange how people claim that unions are evil/unproductive/spawn of satan/destroyer of equilibrium yet businesses merging is "the free market". A common double standard of those who have no real understanding of economics.

The statement that union's demanding "too much money" for work crosses the line...yeah....
Where there is freedom you can demand as much as you like...NO UNION can make ANY BUSINESS pay a wage....PERIOD. If an employer wants to sign a union contract, they are free to, if he doesn't want to, no one can make him. Workers then have the right to quit/strike and that is about it. Hatred of union's is the hatred of the freedom of men to negotiate their wages as they please, and that includes as a group.

Let me repeat my statement for the hard headed, UNIONS CAN NOT MAKE A COMPANY PAY A WAGE OR SET A STANDARD THEY DO NOT AGREE TO! PERIOD. If a company does not like the contract offered they can hold out, and if an agreement is not reached, the members can then quit.

Again, classic freedom hating in 1984 newspeak.

Originally posted by hawkeye1717
Unions are no different than the businesses themselves. Both are necessary and both can go overboard and hurt the other.

I agree

To single out the unions is a subtle form of class warfare in my opinion. Things are going bad in America so it must be the Unions??

No I am merely stating cause and effect. Look at the steel industry (or lack thereof) in the US. Because the companies could not make themselves competitive any more, they could no longer make profit. No profit = No company = No jobs.

Rich bankers on Wall Street did this to America with the help of too much deregulation by both parties the last 25 years.

Name one thing that was "deregulated" in the last 25 years with regards to the banking industry.

The system is so corrupt that a Wall Street CEO can run his company into bankruptcy and still get a multi-million dollar BONUS.

This is a myth. I can be the greediest person in the world and I will not raise my wage $1. Why do CEO's make so much money? Why do sports stars earn so much money? Because they are good at what they do. If a CEO does not make a company more money or more efficient, they are fired. But if a CEO is good at protecting investors billions of dollars, they will pay him a couple of million to keep them at their company.

If most of us screw up our jobs half as bad as those idiots, we'd get fired(as it should be).

Absolutely and they do get fired if they are not doing a good job for the company.

Unions have been weakening for decades now and were still willing to give concessions so if you're going to attack a single group who's played a part in this catastrophe, you've got the wrong target in your sights if you're picking on Unions.

You have to look at the reason why unions are having less and less of a voice. It's because every industry they are in, they make them uncompetitive and force them to shut down. (ie steel industry, GM, etc)

I know just a months ago at work, I was randomly called in to watch a video (do training and such - I'm a cashier so I was wondering what it is they could be training me about ) I was actually kind of surprised when I went in and had to watch a video pertaining to Unions, and how they try to get you to sign some card (I think it's a type of card?) In the video they went on and on about a few things such as they can call you for a strike at any time and can also visit your house unannounced. Though I haven't looked into Unions much further apart from what I saw in the video, then again I don't think a corporation like walgreens really needs it because of their pay amount.