Are unions usefull?

[kvg]

After the Air Canada strike thread I thought I would get some opinions on weather people think labor unions are still useful. I personally think they are way past their time of being useful here in Canada at least. I have worked in a union and when I did that I actually found them to be counter productive. My friends and family that have worked and do work for unions have been forced into strikes where even if they get what they want the raise will never make up for their lost wages. I'm really interested to hear what the majority of beyond thinks about labor unions.

[Type_S1]

Unions are completely useless. They make it impossible for corporations to fire retarded employees and raise costs all around.

Why does it seem unions are present in the most unsuccesful industries around? ex. Airlines, manufacturing

Or why are they present in industries where people usually have no real skills? ex. construction, mining etc.

:dunno:

[flipstah]

Unions were useful. I don't think it is nowadays; cuts efficiency.

[vengie]

They WERE useful during the industrial revolution to bring about workers rights etc...

Nowadays they promote complacency and horrible work ethic.

[black13]

Depends.
It stops bully employers to simply fire whoever they just don't "like". Some companies wouldn't care much about safety or equal rights if not for them.
It does cut efficiency and like Air Canada or like the recent Caterpillar incident, employees can sometimes expect they can milk the company for more money when the company just wants to milk them and maximize profit.
I think if the company is run by good management that can treat their employees well then its not needed.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Type_S1
Unions are completely useless. They make it impossible for corporations to fire retarded employees and raise costs all around.

Why does it seem unions are present in the most unsuccesful industries around? ex. Airlines, manufacturing

Or why are they present in industries where people usually have no real skills? ex. construction, mining etc.

:dunno:

Good points.

When I was in my early twenties, I was a member of the CAW in Oshawa, On. Due to the CAW, the typical attitude was, "Do as little work as possible, and soak GM for as much as possible...and possible it was, as the CAW had GM by the balls.

It was also just about impossible to get fired. Shit, you wouldn't believe how many of the line workers were high or half drunk while assembling vehicles.

[flipstah]

Originally posted by black13

It stops bully employers to simply fire whoever they just don't "like". Some companies wouldn't care much about safety or equal rights if not for them.

I think if the company is run by good management that can treat their employees well then its not needed.

Companies that bully their way through usually doesn't last long or has high turnovers, which adds cost and will eventually bring them down.

Solved by the free market. Win.

[swak]

Originally posted by Type_S1
Unions are completely useless. They make it impossible for corporations to fire retarded employees and raise costs all around.

Why does it seem unions are present in the most unsuccesful industries around? ex. Airlines, manufacturing

Or why are they present in industries where people usually have no real skills? ex. construction, mining etc.

:dunno:

How are airlines unsuccessful... It would seem to me that the owner of Air canada is pretty well off.
... and construction = no skills? I beg to differ. Whats the difference between a good plumber and a shit one? maybe skill? (HOWEVER, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, i believe you're referring to general laborers, factory workers, etc... amirite?)

But i do agree that unions are complete and utter bullshit.
a complete waste of money from an employee's standpoint, and as stated screws the company over for having to keep useless employees.
... i got (IMO wrongfully fired quite a few years ago) from a union company... i connected with the union i had paid into about it and they said they couldn't do anything.
*Boss came up with some bullshit reason, Im 110% sure it was because me and him didn't really see eye to eye.

[Darell_n]

Deleted rant....

Unions are only useful if said worker is completely disposable. (like the clear wrap on a roll of toilet paper)

[black_2.5RS]

When I worked at TELUS in their call centre during University - it was awesome and no way I could get that kinda of money without unions. triple time on holidays, 1.5x on Sundays, evening shift bonus, free taxi home after 10pm and a bunch of stuff I can't remember (it's been over 15 yrs since I worked there) - but it was great (as an employee). I'm sure as management, it sucked as it was really hard to fire somebody or discipline without the unions getting involved.

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by Type_S1
Or why are they present in industries where people usually have no real skills? ex. construction, mining etc.

:dunno:

you don't think people in construction or mining have any real skills? that's crazy...

[Cos]

.

[CD007]

Originally posted by Type_S1
Unions are completely useless. They make it impossible for corporations to fire retarded employees and raise costs all around.

Why does it seem unions are present in the most unsuccesful industries around? ex. Airlines, manufacturing

Or why are they present in industries where people usually have no real skills? ex. construction, mining etc.

:dunno:



LOL!!!

[TurboMedic]

Originally posted by Type_S1
Unions are completely useless. They make it impossible for corporations to fire retarded employees and raise costs all around.

Why does it seem unions are present in the most unsuccesful industries around? ex. Airlines, manufacturing

Or why are they present in industries where people usually have no real skills? ex. construction, mining etc.

:dunno:

I'm unionized...you saying I have no real skills?

And trust me, when you work for the government, yes you need a union.

My unionized workplace doesn't promote based on seniority...Its competition so there is still a need to achieve everything you can. Seniority only accounts for when you pick vacation time and your work site

[ZenOps]

When times are good, unions are ok.

When real GDP production and growth is negative, unions are not ok.

The whole airline industry is actually a negative GDP, due to consumption of oil at a time when people are not producing enough to cover their consumption. IE: Spending $100 on gas to produce and refine less than 68.5 pounds of copper (the actual value of the US dollar based against a copper to oil ratio)

The pilots will have to fight to keep their jobs, as will any others in fields that require large amounts of fuel to survive. Nasa and the shuttle program was also a massive money spender that had little to no tangible intrinsic benefit. Astronauts are all looking for alternate jobs now.

[Maybelater]

I work with the Teamsters Union and I have thus far failed to see much evidence that Unionization has produced major productivity issues.

We have strict productivity quotas, if you can't consistently make 100% of the quota in your first three months of probation you're dismissed without Union protection. After probation getting below 100% of the monthly productivity gets you a warning, then suspension starting at 3 days and it is around about ten suspension you're dismissed (I've never heard of anyone getting that many suspensions though, they'll just end up quitting because the suspensions will get as high as fifteen day periods without pay).

You could if you wanted and not make your productivity quota and get a long-weekend. But that problem doesn't really happen as a result of the progressive system of suspensions. Sure you can abuse the system, get three day suspensions but if you're legitimately have a bad month and don't make your quota you wasted your three day suspension and are stuck with 5 days without pay.

I suspect if my work wasn't Unionized they wouldn't have such high standards and in exchange would just employ more people for lower pay. But I'd rather work hard and get paid more then take it easy and get paid less.


Imo, people seem to have this attitude that Unions are only formed because people want more money. My Union can't by law just randomly say "WE WANT MORE MONEY". A contract between the Union and the Company is drafted and ratified around every four years, this reflects wage increases (The increases always just reflect inflation, so I don't think its unreasonable to want to protect your buying power). If we were to strike before the contract expired the teamsters would risk legal action for lost profits.

In the past I wouldn't doubt lots of Unionization occurred due to Unions pretty much bribing people with promises of better wages. But in this day and age if a company Unionizes it is total fault of the company for failing to communicate effectively with employees to the point they sought out a Union to fight for them.


Labour union density was 67.5% in Finland, 67.6% in Denmark, and 68.3% in Sweden. In comparison, union membership was 11.9% in the United States and 7.7% in France.

Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination

Sweden has no minimum wage, the government doesn't need to regulate it because unions have insured that people are getting paid livable wages.

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by TurboMedic


I'm unionized...you saying I have no real skills?

And trust me, when you work for the government, yes you need a union.

My unionized workplace doesn't promote based on seniority...Its competition so there is still a need to achieve everything you can. Seniority only accounts for when you pick vacation time and your work site

What I said was a generalization and I really don't need to go into the details of why MOST(99%) of unions are completely useless.

I'm not sure what you do for a living...but most government employee's don't really have many marketable skills LOL. Look at the f'in 20 guys standing there jerking off on the side of the road, the 2 overweight chicks holding stop signs and the 5 guys on lunch break while one works in "construction" zones. :rofl: I think government employee's are completely overpaid for the most part considering some of the jobs my friends have and how little they do. There are some however who are genius's I am sure...but they are the .1%'ers.

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by swak


How are airlines unsuccessful... It would seem to me that the owner of Air canada is pretty well off.
... and construction = no skills? I beg to differ. Whats the difference between a good plumber and a shit one? maybe skill? (HOWEVER, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, i believe you're referring to general laborers, factory workers, etc... amirite?)

But i do agree that unions are complete and utter bullshit.
a complete waste of money from an employee's standpoint, and as stated screws the company over for having to keep useless employees.
... i got (IMO wrongfully fired quite a few years ago) from a union company... i connected with the union i had paid into about it and they said they couldn't do anything.
*Boss came up with some bullshit reason, Im 110% sure it was because me and him didn't really see eye to eye.

....Are you serious right now? Go look at how "profitable" airlines are. They are rated in the lowest profitable industries in the world, companies constantly going under and bailout's in the past...I would say they are a pretty terrible industry.

Yes you are right, tradesman were not who I was referring to. Laborers such as warehouse workers have unions...useless people for the most part with no real skills, construction workers(let's go lift things and be useless) have unions, the manufacturing industry has unions with a bunch of individuals who have no real skills. :dunno: I could keep going.

Instead of having a union why don't employee's get paid piece-rate for manufacturing companies so the people who deserve money get it? Instead unions makes sure employees can slack off and be high/drunk on the job and not get fired. :nut:

[Ebon]

Hate unions and would never work for one. If you can't have corporate monopoly, unions shouldn't be able to have a monopoly over the labour in an industry.

[swak]

Originally posted by Type_S1


....Are you serious right now? Go look at how "profitable" airlines are. They are rated in the lowest profitable industries in the world, companies constantly going under and bailout's in the past...I would say they are a pretty terrible industry.

Instead of having a union why don't employee's get paid piece-rate for manufacturing companies so the people who deserve money get it? Instead unions makes sure employees can slack off and be high/drunk on the job and not get fired. :nut:

... i just looked into it, and yes, you are right there.
Never realized this ever before. They seem well off from a public eye though. That's all. Just like GM, even though they have been bailed out... They definitely don't show it from a public layman's perspective.

... and i definitely agree again. Union workers are useless to say the least. If successful businesses can make it big without a union, its obvious they aren't needed.
Hell, companies are probably statistically more advantageous without unions (with the exception of the gov't).

[J-D]

I think they accomplish some good things, but a lot of bad things in the process. I've spoken to random city workers who make it pretty clear that they have absolutely no incentive to work hard as promotions are pretty much just based on how long you have worked there. I do tend to disagree with this opinion(as if I am going to be at work I may as well work hard - else I'd just get bored), but it seems fairly widespread.

[Rat Fink]

.

[heavyfuel]

I think it would benefit those working in retail chains, since they're so greedy and will go to the ends of the Earth to avoid giving decent hours, benefits, etc, and toss 'em away like a used kleenex after 15-20 yrs, so I'm all for protecting those people.

But for example, when I see elevator mechanics or other high paying skilled trades earning upwards of $50/hr to walk around the +15's and have coffee with everybody, and complain about this that and the other, that's where I fail to appreciate or understand any benefit of unions.

[Ven]

Unions are crucial, but they need reform. Giving all the power to the employer? No thanks. Expecting the Provincial Labor Board to help you out? You're brain dead. Everyone has been unfairly and immorally jerked around by an employer or will be, I promise it. Every employer has been jerked around by shitty useless employees but have their hands tied by old outdated agreement rules. Having a system where the workers and the management can come at an agreement on all aspects of the job, and both sides are accountable for that job is a sign of high democratic humanity in my opinion. The problem is they are unbalanced and unfair on both sides of the fence. The current system is broken and needs reform.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by TurboMedic
And trust me, when you work for the government, yes you need a union.

I am a government employee and am NOT unionized.

My department gets better raises than many of the unionized employees we work with.

[kvg]

I work of a company that has union employees in parts of Canada and they don't get paid as well an non union employees as well. I think it's because I get paid based on my performance and not an time served.

[speedog]

Been on both sides of the fence with regards to unions over the past 30+ years of my working life so far. In the 26.5 years I was at TELUS, I was in management and bargaining unit positions and also was the president of the local union here in Calgary of the most recent lockout/strike situation and now my wife and I have been the owners of our own small company for the past 4+ years with a handful of employees.

That said, I think I have a bit of insight on unions and can say they are both needed and not needed depending on the circumstances. At a big corporation such as TELUS, they are needed just to keep over zealous managers in check - the union's strength at TELUS in all other aspects is done, TELUS has done a very good job of effectively gutting any power the union folks had via a couple of real crappy contracts and there will be no fixing that in the future. As a past bargaining unit employee and a union rep, I saw too much management abuse that shouldn't have been including human rights violations that had to be fought where the eventually fired manager should've probably been put in jail and would have been there if it had gone to court. At the same time, I saw and had to defend slack assed bargaining unit employees - some of whom should have also probably been in jail for the shit that they did while on the job.

Owning our own small company now has opened our eyes up to a whole new set of problems - balancing our personal financial needs/dreams against a hopefully happy workforce, tough balance indeed. Certainly, I would never expect our employees to use their own vehicles for our company's business (as being discussed in another current Beyond thread right now) and I have actually cautioned one of our sons with regards to an exactly similar situation where he works.

We also now have two of our kids in the work force as part time employees while they go to school - both in a non-unionized workplace that so far has been quite accommodating with respect to their scheduling conflicts due to sports commitments, for the most part, their workplaces have been very good employers but then again, both of my sons have a great work ethic.

In the end, you will have slackers in any industry whether it's unionized or not - problem is that a unionized workplace just allows for these same slackers to remain employed for a while longer. But even in a non-unionzed workplace, it can be difficult to get rid of a slacker - one has to have valid grounds with which one can terminate an employee. Now I am not surprised at this thread's poll results so far, but for those who have had the fortune of not working in a unionized environment especially one where there is a prevalence of over zealous management - you should not be so quick to judge. Not everything is as it seems on the surface as you drive by that city dig site - been there, done that, moved on and am now doing it from a different angle.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[swak]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


You might as well be proving my point; unions are useless because the scope of their purpose has been moved into government regulations. Any company big enough to support a union usually has an excellent HR department that will hold the company to the standards and guidelines set out by the government (and far beyond, most HR departments at big companies are amazing when it comes to supporting employees). Smaller companies and businesses with just a few employees can't support the weight of a union anyway, so it is moot there... luckily government has been able to step in and enforce minimum standards when needed.

The Teamsters have a pretty long history of being a particularly malicious group with roots in organized crime (according to wiki and several other sources, so this is not slander). Personally I'd be highly intimidated by that union.

In other cases I also know people who lost everything because "the union" wanted to go on strike for a 50 cent raise despite the fact most of the members wanted to work. They played games by sending out incorrect voting station times and locations and it was suspected the votes were rigged anyway... of course they didn't disclose any of the results to anybody, not even their members. In the end they ended up running the company out of business and everybody lost their jobs. Go unions!

As far as minimum wages go; the government doesn't need to regulate minimum wage regardless of union or non-union. It all comes down to supply and demand, if somebody is willing to work for 4$ an hour, I say let em. Reality is most people who have any kind of skills won't work for that, and employers would have to raise their price. However a brainless job stocking shelves can be done by a high school student, I'd rather see a small business pay a student 4$ an hour instead of the owner not hiring anybody at all and doing it himself in the evening because it simply isn't worth paying somebody 9$ an hour for. The very fact that most people don't make minimum wage is an obvious sign it isn't the regulating factor in the job market.


I wont say where, but one of my first jobs ever was minimum wage (just found a pay stub the other day, and i was making a whopping $6.50/hr).
But while i was employed there, the gov't raised the minimum wage, and the f/t employees there were overjoyed. So i disagree when you say that its unnecessary. Most servers also anxiously await when the minimum wage rises. I think far more people than you realize make minimum wage, and having a set minimum wage takes away the position for businesses to exploit their workers (even if, and i agree with you here, they are worth $4/hr). Because, realistically, nobody can live off of $4 an hour. Its impossible, you'd make more bi-weekly off welfare than working 10-12hr days at $4/hr... and then taxes would go through the roof because of this.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by swak



I wont say where, but one of my first jobs ever was minimum wage (just found a pay stub the other day, and i was making a whopping $6.50/hr).
But while i was employed there, the gov't raised the minimum wage, and the f/t employees there were overjoyed. So i disagree when you say that its unnecessary. Most servers also anxiously await when the minimum wage rises. I think far more people than you realize make minimum wage, and having a set minimum wage takes away the position for businesses to exploit their workers (even if, and i agree with you here, they are worth $4/hr). Because, realistically, nobody can live off of $4 an hour. Its impossible, you'd make more bi-weekly off welfare than working 10-12hr days at $4/hr... and then taxes would go through the roof because of this.

I can finally say SugarPhreak said something intelligent that I agree with on this forum.

You bring up servers...you mean the same servers with no real skills that EXPECT a 15% tip on that of everything you order even if they are terrible.

It comes down to one basic principal...you get paid for what you are worth. If I can make my company millions of dollars a year with my skillset...I would expect I would get paid very well. If I have no skills other then basic bodily functions such as lifting walking and maybe be able to read well...how much value are you really adding to a company.

As for the server example...you need to know how to 1. speak english 2.be able to hear 3. right down an order...or if your REALLY talented, remember it. 4. relay order to the kitchen 5. lift, walk, set down 6. lift water jug or glasses with bevarages, walk, set down. 7. SMILE

Do you think that deserves an awesome wage?

[Maybelater]

Originally posted by Rat Fink

There are baggage handling monkeys for Air Canada who are getting paid more than AMEs. How the fuck does that work?

Can someone produce solid evidence of this?


Originally posted by Rat Fink

LOL at Denmark and Sweden having great wages. 70% of your income is taxed. Ya, real fucking awesome to live there. If you own a car you are doing well for yourself! If you own a house you are a fucking baller there.

Seventy percent taxation? Are you just whipping random numbers out there? Taxation is higher in Nordic nations then other Western nations. The OECD does lots of study on tax burdens and at total taxation on national GDP is about 10 to 20% higher on average.

Taxation on national GDP
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/8/47467566.xls

Canada (2009)

Central: 15%
State: 12%
Local: 3%

Combined: ~30%

Sweden (2009)

Central: 29%
State: 17%
Local: N/A

Combined: ~46%

'All-in' AW (Average Work) personal tax burden on income w/Social Security payments:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/21/2576404.xls

Canada:

Low: 15%
Middle: 22%
High: 29%

Sweden:

Low: 0%
Middle: 20%
High: 25%

Value added Taxation (GST):
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/13/34674429.xls

Canada: 5%
Sweden: 16%
Home Ownership in Europe:
http://i44.tinypic.com/f1h368.png
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/wp08211.pdf

Now that I've gone total off track, lets get back to the subject at hand. What I said about Unions protecting the wages of Swedish individuals wasn't a call for a greater social safety net. The average Swedes income is par with other Westerners.

My point is that Unions have allowed the government to play a smaller role in handling labour issues. Now for all you economic freedom lovers that if you ask me is a show of greater separation of government and the market since it is no longer the government but the workers responsibility to insure the economic viability of their occupation.


Originally posted by Ven
Unions are crucial, but they need reform.

All together, I agree. Unions need to insure productivity and competition in the work place whilst helping defend employees who are legitimately being stepped on.

Do I agree with seniority rights? Nah. Should the lazy be defended? No.
Do I agree that I can defend my purchasing power with periodic wage increases that reflect the national rate of inflation? Yes.

Do people really believe the government is going to defend them with any labour relations unless it is a 100% cut-and-dry case? Don't forgot your employer can afford a high paid lawyer to intimidate you too.


Originally posted by Sugarphreak


You might as well be proving my point; unions are useless because the scope of their purpose has been moved into government regulations. Any company big enough to support a union usually has an excellent HR department that will hold the company to the standards and guidelines set out by the government (and far beyond, most HR departments at big companies are amazing when it comes to supporting employees). Smaller companies and businesses with just a few employees can't support the weight of a union anyway, so it is moot there... luckily government has been able to step in and enforce minimum standards when needed.

Yep, but they also have teams of accountants who will convince upper-management that cutting everything will increase profits to point the job doesn't produce a living wage and/or upward mobility for the worker.


Originally posted by Sugarphreak

The Teamsters have a pretty long history of being a particularly malicious group with roots in organized crime (according to wiki and several other sources, so this is not slander). Personally I'd be highly intimidated by that union.

That is history. The Teamsters have distanced themselves and worked hard to repair those mistakes. Back in the days of Jimmy Hoffa corruption became a problem in the Teamsters Unions (all large organizations suffer from bad-seeds with power at times).


Originally posted by Sugarphreak

In other cases I also know people who lost everything because "the union" wanted to go on strike for a 50 cent raise despite the fact most of the members wanted to work. They played games by sending out incorrect voting station times and locations and it was suspected the votes were rigged anyway... of course they didn't disclose any of the results to anybody, not even their members. In the end they ended up running the company out of business and everybody lost their jobs. Go unions!

I'll admit it has likely happened. It is up to the Unionized employee to insure that their Union is in check. I would like to see Union reform in expanded democracy.

These days it doesn't seem that people understand they can actually vote their own Union out and replace it with one that actually wants to fight for you.


Originally posted by Sugarphreak
As far as minimum wages go; the government doesn't need to regulate minimum wage regardless of union or non-union. It all comes down to supply and demand, if somebody is willing to work for 4$ an hour, I say let em. Reality is most people who have any kind of skills won't work for that, and employers would have to raise their price. However a brainless job stocking shelves can be done by a high school student, I'd rather see a small business pay a student 4$ an hour instead of the owner not hiring anybody at all and doing it himself in the evening because it simply isn't worth paying somebody 9$ an hour for. The very fact that most people don't make minimum wage is an obvious sign it isn't the regulating factor in the job market.

Why do so many free-marketers don't consider Unions an element of the free market? If a collective bargain increases your staffs wages, then that is real market activity.

The market determines wages, okay, true. Does greedy upper-management who cuts wages and then gives themselves a bonus an example of free-market? Or an example of collective action to bring up a group within a companies standard of living and income?

If people in China are willing to work for slave-wages, thus destroying viability of many jobs in the West, is that fair competition? Should we all work for .50C/hr?

Yes, many people don't work for minimum wage. But many people work only a fraction over it and as a result don't actually qualify as a minimum wager. I'd rather see a student working hard at school and work getting a wage that allows them to enjoy life.

I have faith that people who work low-end jobs are almost certainly working in the process of long-term goals, long-term goals that produce real careers and incomes. I'd much rather see those people making an income that creates upward mobility and minimizes the amount of time they dedicate to work.

[swak]

Originally posted by Type_S1


I can finally say SugarPhreak said something intelligent that I agree with on this forum.

You bring up servers...you mean the same servers with no real skills that EXPECT a 15% tip on that of everything you order even if they are terrible.

It comes down to one basic principal...you get paid for what you are worth. If I can make my company millions of dollars a year with my skillset...I would expect I would get paid very well. If I have no skills other then basic bodily functions such as lifting walking and maybe be able to read well...how much value are you really adding to a company.

As for the server example...you need to know how to 1. speak english 2.be able to hear 3. right down an order...or if your REALLY talented, remember it. 4. relay order to the kitchen 5. lift, walk, set down 6. lift water jug or glasses with bevarages, walk, set down. 7. SMILE

Do you think that deserves an awesome wage?

No it doesn't deserve an awesome wage, as i also stated, that i believe these jobs don't necessarily deserve huge $$/hr, im just saying that the minimum wage is useful in ensuring that people can live with the basic necessities in life to live.
Did my job deserve $6.50/hr? Looking back, i think its fair for its time, as it required more skill than a server, but still nothing exceeding high school education (as i was in high school at the time).

But yes, i firmly believe that people should be paid for what they're worth, even if its $.01/hr, however, at the same time though you need to be fair as to provide them with enough money to live off of.
For one, you couldn't buy a loaf of bread at a penny an hour no matter how hard you worked.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Rat Fink]

.

[CD007]

Without unions you can count on more class separation.

[kvg]

It's amazing that the poll has had the option against unions stay at 62% give or take the whole time.

[Cos]

.

[TurboMedic]

Originally posted by sputnik


I am a government employee and am NOT unionized.

My department gets better raises than many of the unionized employees we work with.

And whats the size of your workforce? Unionization isn't about raises, as was stated before its more about keeping management in check which is needed

[Abeo]

Originally posted by Cos


One other thing to note. I find as people get older they get more risk adverse. Young crowd (beyond) wants to be baller, to out-shine, and to rake in the coin. A union does none of those things.

Now give these guys 10/15 years when a boss fires you because they dont like you and not because you deserve it. Add in that you have a kid, mortgage, and stay at home wife. Sometimes a union is nice just for that piece of mind. I can see the appeal although I wouldnt personally work for one.

I worked in a pro-union area (and industry). Many younger people there saw it as a path to freedom and high wages... then again, it was a low income and low advancement region, where jobs were tough to find. People hung onto union jobs like their life depended on it, and would fiercely attack anyone who they thought threatened that (justified or not).

I have to say, being inside a truck that was being rocked by a mob of union members calling me names was enough to cement my thoughts on unions (police just sat and watched this happen, too). They form a group to bully; bully management, bully individuals who don't want to be a part of their group, bully the public by holding them hostage for negotiations.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by TurboMedic


And whats the size of your workforce? Unionization isn't about raises, as was stated before its more about keeping management in check which is needed

400+

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I am not suggesting that people live in poverty by any means, more so that the minimum wage is kind of a lofty bar that employers and employees have to adhere to.

In all honesty, if I offered you a job paying 0.01$ an hour... are you going to take it? How about if I offered you a minimum wage job at this stage in your life?.

Common sense tells me if I want a full time employee, I will need to pay them enough that they are able to satisfy their needs and don't need to seek other work. If there is no other work available, the amount of pay required is pretty fucking low, given that some money > no money. So common sense should also tell you that people will in reality accept a job that pays less than their needs.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

Being that people’s needs go up and down, students living at home with mom and dad probably don't need minimum wage... they just need enough to buy some beer and put gas in their first car so they can do donuts when it snows. Where as a working professional with a family needs a lot more than minimum wage.

This is wonderful, until someone who isn't living at home and has actual bills to pay has to compete with these people for jobs. If there is no minimum wage, the teenagers will have a significant advantage.

The only alternative would be an even more "socialist" wage structure that takes into account social standing/personal circumstances.

If people need less than minimum wage to meet their needs, they will simply work less hours. A much simpler solution than hammering down the money available for those that don't live in their parents basement or creating some Marxist super-state.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

The job market is truly self regulating, if it wasn't we would have needed to start setting up minimum tiered incomes a long time ago. If they did that, I can guarantee you we would all be making a lot less than we do now.

It's self regulating from about the mid-point and upwards. Once you have skills to bargain with, you have actual leverage. If your only skill is that you have a functioning body, there is not a lot of leverage. I'm sure you'll respond about being able to find jobs at Macs for $17/hr, but lets remember that not everywhere is Calgary.

"But but but they should just get skills!" Yes, they should. However skills take time to develop, in the meanwhile it's downright sociopathic to pit people against each other to see who will accept the least amount of money in order to get those skills in the first place

-------

As far as unions themselves go, and whether they are corrupt or not, or if they are useful or not, the answer is.......sometimes.

As much as everybody craves a black and white answer, that's the reality

The unions at GM, government work, etc, are pretty flawed. They are no where near as bad as a lot of anti-union propoganda would have you believe, but they have a serious need of revamping

However, there are also unions that are on-point with how they do things. The electrical company on my last project was union, and they fired people all the time. The foreman was telling me it was a matter of filling out proper paper work and having legit reasons for firing them. Seems reasonable to me.

Also of note is the fact that the union companies were the only ones paying time and a half for over time. All the non-union companies were not because there was a work shortage in the area, so it was either work straight pay or go back on EI.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Go4Long]

a year ago I would have said without a doubt that unions are in the benefit of the employees (and generally not the company) now my opinion has changed.

Unions protect the stupid, and the lazy, and the assholes. I'm non union now, and seeing it from the other side I think the union is ridiculous.

Cases in point:

we have a union employee that is MAYBE on his best day average at his job. We're rolling out a new form that we want the union employees to fill out when the running trades give notice (complicated to explain, but regardless, it's a 20 second job to fill out the form). He filled out one of the forms incorrectly, and one of my fellow managers went to talk to him about it so that he could get the correct information. This guy takes the form, wipes his ass with it, crumples it up and throws it at him. This is a direct report doing this to a manager (even the next manager up the chain said he was surprised the manager hadn't put him through the window). We get the union involved (we have to) and they sit down and have a chat with this guy with a couple other managers present. The whole conversation the guy is saying "I know what I did was wrong...BUT" and making excuses like oh I didn't get a bonus (nor did the managers), I didn't get a raise (nor did the managers), the contract negotiations aren't going the way I want...

If not for the union this guy is out the door, no questions asked, no warning, no "memo in his file" which is what he'll probably end up getting, just get up, get out of the chair, and get the fuck out.

The union opinion tends to be viewed very differently when viewed from the position of a manager having to manage unionized employees.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
If there are menial jobs out there for people with no skills, then there are also jobs which garner more money out there as well. Those jobs have and always will be support jobs for the larger economic engine which keeps the majority of the middle class employed. When you stifle the engine by forcing companies to pay more than the market rate for basic unskilled labor, you drive up production and operating costs and you risk killing the machine, and it in turn killing off even more jobs.

As for acquiring skills... damn straight "they" should get them if they want to make more. We all start from the bottom, not because "the man" is a jerk, but because we are not of much of value at that time.

It is the cycle of life, the unskilled labor force of today does the mindless work that is required, but acquires skills and becomes the middle class of tomorrow. Then there are those that actually understand this concept and embrace it, thus becoming the upper class of tomorrow.

Trying to force those jobs to be sustainable long term so people can make a living on them is kind of silly. They are rotational jobs because people become skilled and move on.... even the dumbest of the dumb are capable of becoming skilled at something and actually being a more productive member of society as a result. However if you make them nice and cozy in a mindless job earning enough to get by on as some sort of charity act of the rich, the only thing they will become skilled at is Call of Duty.

Nobody is talking about making them 'nice and cozy'. There is a huge leap between having enough money for a place to live/food to eat/transportation and having enough money to have a good life.

It's a logic gap that I just don't understand. You seem so jealous of people on welfare/minimum wage, why don't you quit working so hard and go on welfare? Is it because you subconsciously realize that it's a dumb idea? That living in a 400 s.f. apartment with 4 other people, eating ramen noodles and taking the bus is a sucky life?

But I digress....you and I both agree that people should move on and attain skill set thus getting more money thus becoming more productive. Basic economics

Where we disagree is that I think it's a reasonable goal that for the year or two that it takes to gain even basic marketable skills, people should not have to work for less than a basic liveable wage. I'm not advocating for someone working at McDonalds to be able to afford a 3 bedroom house and a nice car, I'm saying that someone not being able to afford a room, food, and bus fare because they haven't had enough time in the work force is just sociopathic


As far as minimum wages stifling business, if a business plan is ruined by minimum wage requirements, it's a really shitty business plan. Having to rely on paying people less than what they need to eke out existence shows a complete lack of ability, planning and intelligence on the part of the business owner.

Sorry slavery isn't legal, deal with it

[Abeo]

Originally posted by Antonito
Sorry slavery isn't legal, deal with it

Anti-union = pro-slavery? Do you understand why this makes you look ridiculous?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Abeo


Anti-union = pro-slavery? Do you understand why this makes you look ridiculous?

No, anti-minimum wage = pro slavery. Do you understand that your inability to read and comprehend more than one word makes you look like an idiot?



Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Who cares if it is a shitty business plan, it isn't your place to be the judge and jury over somebody else's venture. Personally I think a lot of places pay shitty rates, yet people still work for them. What if we raised the minimum wage to 20$ an our so we can all live like socialist kings... can your company afford to pay everybody 20$ an hour? No? Too bad, they must have a shitty business plan and unintelligent owners. What if aliens came down and vaporized half the population?

What if Jesus came and gave everyone free gas?

What if pigs could fly?

Or what if we kept the minimum wage at or near it's current levels (adjusting for inflation) because without a bottom floor on wages the working class will be pushed into poverty?

There are costs to doing business that must be accounted for before you proceed. If the average price of gas is too high, you don't proceed. If the cost of one of the components you need is too high, you don't proceed. If you have any business sense, you would agree these are logical conclusions

So why is it that if the price of labour at a basic liveable wage is too high, the solution is to bitch and whine and cry so that people other than yourself should have to fall further into poverty rather than having a better idea?

This is why I always laugh at the idea of Randian producer dynamics. It so rarely relies on actual innovation and intelligence, and usually falls back on exploiting others to make up for a lack of the "producers" abilities


Originally posted by Sugarphreak

*slavery* :rolleyes: If you agree to work for somebody for 5$ an hour, that is your choice. Nothing to do with slavery at all.

That'd be great if it was an actual choice. Having to choose between working for less than your cost of living and not working at all is not a choice, it's coercion.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Freeskier]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
We all start from the bottom, not because "the man" is a jerk, but because we are not of much of value at that time.

They are rotational jobs because people become skilled and move on.... even the dumbest of the dumb are capable of becoming skilled at something and actually being a more productive member of society as a result. .

We don't all start from the same bottom though. Sure I had a 5.90 job as a library page at the louise riley library when I was 14. But I was buying skis, and arcade tokens. Not exactly supporting myself. What about those people who don't have the background, family support and education to move on from a job like that? It's hard to acquire skills while working 2 jobs to keep your kids fed? I see the minimum wage as a safety net for those who really need those jobs. Not the young people just earning some extra cash in school or to pay for a trip to europe in the summer.

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by Freeskier


We don't all start from the same bottom though. Sure I had a 5.90 job as a library page at the louise riley library when I was 14. But I was buying skis, and arcade tokens. Not exactly supporting myself. What about those people who don't have the background, family support and education to move on from a job like that? It's hard to acquire skills while working 2 jobs to keep your kids fed? I see the minimum wage as a safety net for those who really need those jobs. Not the young people just earning some extra cash in school or to pay for a trip to europe in the summer.

I worked 30 hrs a week minimum through uni and took student loans to get by. I am now graduating with investments, vehicle and looking for a condo. I have no sympathy for ppl who make excuses.... It's just laziness

[Freeskier]

I did those things too. Didn't work 30 hrs, but busted my ass in the summers and have some loans to pay off too. Now I have good career prospects in a field I'm enthusiastic about and my future is bright.

But misfortune does not equate laziness. Sure SOME people are lazy, but not everyone who works a minimum wage job is doing it because they don't want to put in the work. There are so many factors which set people a rung or two further down. Were you kicked out at 16? Did you accidentally knock a girl up? Any drug problems? Suffer any abuse? From a poor area (I mean POOR, not forest lawn)? Did your parents neglect to teach you a work ethic or personal pride? Its not always easy to break yourself out of a shitty starting situation. That's all I'm saying.

[Inzane]

Originally posted by swak
How are airlines unsuccessful...

You need to take a look at the number of major airlines that have gone under in the last 10-15 years. And some that are on the brink right now.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
As for you insistence that people are somehow slaves; Actual slavery doesn't involve the ability to up and quit a job at any given time... staying at a job is a personal choice, and therefore not slavery. I stay at my job so I can pay the bills too... that doesn't make me a slave.
This is such horseshit. You could walk out of your job at any given time, and even in the unlikely event that with your resume you couldn't get another job, you have a looooong way to go before you cannot afford to live

Someone already making just enough to live (or less if they are making less than minimum) can choose to either keep working, or....suck dicks in an alley? Go rob a 7-11? I guess they could go on welfare, assuming it still exists in your hypothetical feudal state.

So, give yourself those choices, and see how much more likely you are to stay at a shitty job

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

I love how you look at people like little helpless wounded ducks totally incapable of doing anything on their own instead of as peers. I really don't know anybody our age that makes minimum wage (well one person perhaps), that just goes to show that minimum wage is a stepping stone and fear of people not being able to get by is generally not an issue in the real world.

Why would we be talking about people our age? Are you really so incapable of relating to anyone that isn't in your exact situation at this precise minute?

That's the thing, you say you see people as peers, but somehow you have absolutely no empathy. So either you're a sociopath, or you're just ignoring the past to win an argument.

When I look back at making minimum wage and eating kimchi noodles, living in a sketchy neighbourhood and bussing it everywhere, I say to myself "wow, that sucked, but it was doable"

When you look back at making minimum wage and living in similar situation, you apparently say to yourself "wow, that was awesome, everyone that comes up in that situation should be paid way less, because harkekahdgkhadsglkh" and then I assume you start drooling on yourself.


This is indeed fucking ridiculous, you're actually arguing that the lowest paid people in society should be paid less! Not homeless people or government leaches, people who do actual work, usually much worse work than you've had to do in years. And this is supposed to help them, because.....I can't even guess.


Even ignoring people who end up in these jobs long term for whatever reason, why does that make it ok to make it so much harder for the year or two (or 5 or 10 if your plan to push the wages down goes through) it takes to pull yourself into a better situation through hard work?

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Type_S1


I worked 30 hrs a week minimum through uni and took student loans to get by. I am now graduating with investments, vehicle and looking for a condo. I have no sympathy for ppl who make excuses.... It's just laziness

:rofl: :rofl:

Nothing like having to get student loans to really prove how self sufficient you are

[scboss]

Unions are only good for jobs that require you to turn your brain off and even then people get hella lazy. I worked at a factory that had a union and it was ridiculous. People should be rewarded for hard work and consistency not how long they have worked for the company. I was making 27$ an hr and I thought it was garbage. Unions take the drive out of people and make working a grind.

Anyone can make it if they make goals and have a plan. If you make minimum wage you have no desire to make big $$$$. I wasnt even making minimum wage while working pt in university and it took me 2 days to get that job.

Why would you even want to work for a company that your scared of? Thats really the only reason to have a union right? :guns:

[syritis]

both union shop i worked for i absolutely hated. the management were bureaucrats, pretentious overpaid paper pushers with business degree's telling everyone how they're job is to be done without having a clue what that job entails. The employees are undeserving and lazy high school drama queens who don't give a fuck about working so long as the union wipes their ass for them. Zero ability to learn from the journeymen, they'll teach you the slowest way possible so you can't out perform them or make it apparent how slow they are working. Do to the union contract you couldn't even work your way ahead. as a third year apprentice I can see that neither shops were anywhere near the capacity they could have been working at. higher operating costs and less profit.

the big thing that gets me is why unions even exist. if you don't like your job. quit and find a new one. not that hard of a concept.

[hampstor]

Unions completely remove any sense of a team as a company and create a clear division between 2 groups of employees, "them" and "us".

Whenever I think of unions, this is the phrase that comes to mind: "that's not my job".

After I negotiated an early-pay discount on a contract, AP (unionized) sends payment out to the wrong address and the cheque is returned to us. 60 days later, I get a notice from the vendor that we're passed due on our invoice, and forfeited our early pay discount (IIRC, it worked out to about $50k for the early pay discount). I asked my AP contact why no one was notified the cheque returned and was told, "that's not my job" . WTF :banghead:

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by Antonito


:rofl: :rofl:

Nothing like having to get student loans to really prove how self sufficient you are

umm...don't see the joke in this...but by the way your post read you are an idiot with very...unintellectual views. Maybe you need to head back to a university and take some courses...I heard they have student loans for that.

If you learned how to read and comprehend maybe you would understand that I was trying to say that people have no excuses as to why they can't get an education or increase their skillset to better their lives. People that make excuses are just lazy as shit. I don't care if you knocked up a girl or have a substance abuse problem...those are both things people bring on themselves and it is a choice they make and they can deal with the consequences. I didn't have it easy but there is assistance like student loans to get you through if you are financially unstable and don't have anyone to help you. :dunno: Not saying that everyone can do it but everyone has choices in life and once you make the bad ones...see you later you can sell me my shoes and flip my burgers.

[1barA4]

Originally posted by Freeskier

We don't all start from the same bottom though. Sure I had a 5.90 job as a library page at the louise riley library when I was 14.

Apparently I'm a bit older than you; I worked as a page at the Central Library downtown when I was 13. My wage was $4.30 something an hour. I left at 16 for a job pumping gas at the Pineridge Husky for $5/hr (wow what a raise! But it also meant easy access to cigarettes, and the pub next door would serve us booze making us popular with the ladies lol)

On-topic, I feel unions are still necessary for what I consider 'public service sector' jobs - police, EMS, fire and health care (nurses et al). I think that some of those workers, in a non-union environment, could make a case for making a lot more money but in my wife's job, a sector of health care that is often neglected, even marginalized, I would guarantee that despite the amount of work her colleagues and her do, they'd get paid significantly less than nurses in another field (just by how the budget priorities work in the health region).

[Sugarphreak]

...

[FraserB]

We need a Sugarphreak and Antonio debate thread. We can keep a tally of the wasted manhours and the various strawmen. At the end of say a month, the "winner" gets a prize.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

This point is moot, I’ve been on both ends of this scale. I’ve always gone after suitable work for my needs. Fair enough. If when you had no money/skills and had to provide for yourself entirely you did not feel any significant fear of being unemployed, you're very brave. Foolish, but brave.


Originally posted by Sugarphreak
So if you can’t get a job you are going to resort to prostitution and robbery? That seems a little far fetched. Hence the rest of my quote that you chopped off about welfare. People need money. If they cannot work for that money, it's either welfare or crime. In a Randian world with no minimum wage, it'd be pretty easy to assume there would be no welfare either.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

When people get to our age they generally have had a chance to either gain work experience or wrap up an education, thus they don’t make minimum wage anymore. I thought that was fairly self explanatory. It is self explanatory, which is why it baffled my why you're bringing it up in a discussion about minimum wage. I thought maybe you were trying for the "well it doesn't affect you and I, so who cares?" angle, but it seems you're just peppering in non sequiturs while forgetting to actually be humorous

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

lol, and you have the winning argument? There are actually some pretty good stances to take to support min wage, but your slavery rant sure isn’t one of them! I have no empathy for people without skills or work experience if you must know, people who have acquired skills and education have earned it, negating that fact is absurd. Would you hire a 18 year old kid who has no experience with plumbing and no accreditation to replace your bathroom fixtures for the same price as a professional contractor with a reputation? Would you hire a me to paint your home for the same price as a local company? This is simple economics, people are valued based on skills and experience… not based on how much “they need the money”. Why would I do any of these things? Why are you talking about paying someone with no experience the same as someone with experience? Do you try to pay your plumber minimum wage? That would be ridiculous.

I'm not disputing simple economics, people who have the least skills get paid the least. I've never in any way disputed this. What we're arguing is whether that pay should be the bare minimum to live, or if it should be less than that. I think it makes sense to pay someone enough to have a place to sleep and eat so they can actually produce something of value, rather than pushing them to the brink of absolute destitution and then expecting them to still produce.

You have no empathy for people without skills? Do you believe in magic? Is it some sort of osmosis thing that's supposed to happen before someone applies for a job? At some point in everyones life (including your own), they have not had skills. Why you think that being in this timeframe negates their need to support themselves is beyond me


Originally posted by Sugarphreak

Interesting; I loved getting hired for jobs and having spending money. I bought a car, booze, got to eat out and hang out at pool halls with my friends… it was awesome. I honestly don’t regret it for a second, in fact I can recall some of the hardest work I’ve ever done and I feel pride in it… not shame. That has really got to suck that you look at it that way, kind of explains your bitterness on the subject. What does shame have to do with anything? I like my circumstances right now a lot better than I did when I had no money. That's not regrets, it's common sense. That's kind of the whole point of being in a capitalist society, and is the basic concept you always push: work hard, move up the ladder, get rewarded. If having very little money was equally as awesome as having lots of money, why did you bother getting a career? Are you not happier now?

You got to do those things? That is indeed awesome. Of course by your current stance, you should only have been paid enough to get/do half of those things. Doesn't that sound stupid? Do you have an inferiority complex where you think you've been overvalued in your life?

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

Actually if you read my posts you’d understand I am arguing that jobs that simply don’t exist because they are not worth minimum wage (well don't exist legally anyway) would be created and it would likely create another level of support for middle class jobs leading to even more job creation and wealth in the middle and lower classes. As it stands now those jobs are still being done, but under the table. Unfortunately all your workers rights and benefits are completely lost when it goes that route. Wow, creating a bunch of jobs that don't pay enough to be of any practical use. And all it requires is to lower the wages of everyone near the bottom of the wage scale, including those that would otherwise be employed at a liveable wage. What a boon to the economy :rolleyes:

[Sugarphreak]

...

[RawB8figure]

From my point of view they are useless.

Alberta health services union is a joke... If we need money for health care we should get rid of the unions, it would make you sick how people take advantage of the system. And the few that do there jobs do not get seen or recognized for there efforts and eventually turn into a useless union employee that exploits the system all while the tax payers keep funding this BS...

[03ozwhip]

man, i need my eyes checked, when i looked at the title, i thought it said "are unicorns useful" woooowww....anyways i work within a union and as an employee it has been very good, with the exception of how much they take off your pay lol

[1barA4]

Originally posted by RawB8figure
From my point of view they are useless.

Alberta health services union is a joke... If we need money for health care we should get rid of the unions, it would make you sick how people take advantage of the system. And the few that do there jobs do not get seen or recognized for there efforts and eventually turn into a useless union employee that exploits the system all while the tax payers keep funding this BS...

The irony of this statement is its the non-bargaining unit members, aka. management (and especially senior management), that is the problem with AHS. If you think AHS' problem with being underfunded is because of '(employees) taking advantage of the system', not because of gross inefficiencies of our entire health care system, or the mismanagement....maybe you should talk to some people in that sector.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by 1barA4


The irony of this statement is its the non-bargaining unit members, aka. management (and especially senior management), that is the problem with AHS. If you think AHS' problem with being underfunded is because of '(employees) taking advantage of the system', not because of gross inefficiencies of our entire health care system, or the mismanagement....maybe you should talk to some people in that sector.

I did. And you know what I learned? The nurses have a chronic shortage of staff in a particular unit. So, to cover the shifts, the person doing the callouts goes down through the list, calling everyone that's available. However, everyone has been told, "Say No", because the second time they're going down the list, they offer double time and a half. This happens on such a regular basis that my neighbor the nurse only has to work 2 shifts a week to make full-time wages. The same goes for every single nurse in her unit. Now, since the hours have to be covered no matter what, that unit costs 2.5 times as much as it should because they're all doing it. Yet they can't bring in more staff because of the union. Yet oddly enough, it's the union that advised them of the situation. Rock, meet hard place.

So, is the union the problem here? Most definitely. Does my friend the nurse confirm that this happens all over? You bet. Standard practice. As she says, "Why on earth would I work extra hours for less pay?"

[Type_S1]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/03/12/pol-weston-public-service-budget-severance.html

Wow...must be great to work for a union...

[CD007]

That's good for them.
Too bad the private sector won't pay up.

That's not a union related problem, its greed on behalf of the private sector.

The rich get richer off the backs of the small guy.

[CD007]

Problem is that a lot of people just say that the union workers are getting too much, when if fact, they should be saying that they aren't getting enough.

Worry about yourself, rather than trying to blame others.

[RawB8figure]

I am sure there is more to the equation then just the employees taking advantage of the system. I do agree that the management is part of the problem. My understanding is that the management does not have any power to reprimand any of the below average employees.

I hear about the crap that goes on in the AHS on a weekly basis. Its a joke and will always be a joke as long as there is a union. I know there is money in efficiency and the AHS has alot of room for improvement in this area.

I am not apart of any union but I had something to add to the topic and like I said I here about the crap that goes on in the AHS on a weekly basis.

I am done talking about this as there is nothing we can do until the government wants to get serious about the $$$.

[1barA4]

Originally posted by codetrap


I did. And you know what I learned? The nurses have a chronic shortage of staff in a particular unit. So, to cover the shifts, the person doing the callouts goes down through the list, calling everyone that's available. However, everyone has been told, "Say No", because the second time they're going down the list, they offer double time and a half. This happens on such a regular basis that my neighbor the nurse only has to work 2 shifts a week to make full-time wages. The same goes for every single nurse in her unit. Now, since the hours have to be covered no matter what, that unit costs 2.5 times as much as it should because they're all doing it. Yet they can't bring in more staff because of the union. Yet oddly enough, it's the union that advised them of the situation. Rock, meet hard place.

So, is the union the problem here? Most definitely. Does my friend the nurse confirm that this happens all over? You bet. Standard practice. As she says, "Why on earth would I work extra hours for less pay?"

I can only speak directly about the 4 units my wife works on, and the nurses on those 4 do NOT do that. If they cannot get people on the call out, they just make do with who they got (this also because these units don't have the budget to bring someone in on OT, or more than OT if it's an X day. when a regular callout fails) or the charge usually has to end up staying for a double.

So the nurses you spoke to, no disrespect if they're your friends, are a rather cunty lot with regards to exploiting the system. Like I said, and maybe they're the exception, with the 4 units I am familiar with, that is not how the nurses operate.

EDIT:
As mentioned before, I've personally been under several unions myself, as a Teamster, under CUPE, under IBEW and the TWU and generally speaking I'm anti-union in everything but emergency services (EMS, fire, police) and health care. (Shit, I'm staunchly anti-union when it comes to the teachers, especially).

Health care workers are overworked and underpaid, and the union is the only thing preventing them from being exploited further...and as is, they cannot even strike. The type of work they do is actual *care* for (sometimes barely) living people, meaning they have to emotionally invest in what they do, and cannot be measured (IMO) to the same standard as say a desk jockey, grease monkey or rig pig.

Note that I am speaking specifically about nurses. Those AUPE commercials about the cunts who clean and disinfect...they are actually overpaid. If there's shit all over a room, cleaning services refuse to deal with it -- it's the RNs who have to scrape (literal) crap down and bag it before sanitation and housekeeping take over.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by CD007
Problem is that a lot of people just say that the union workers are getting too much, when if fact, they should be saying that they aren't getting enough.

Worry about yourself, rather than trying to blame others.

Gotta get yours? You realize that these unions are funded directly out of your (or your parents) pocket via taxation right?

Sorry, I'll keep with my stance that outright theft like this should not be allowed.

[1barA4]

Originally posted by codetrap

Sorry, I'll keep with my stance that outright theft like this should not be allowed.

This statement I will agree with.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the other points, because (and maybe I'm reading into this wrong) it *seems* like you're implying nurses are overpaid (or health care workers in general).

[RawB8figure]

one last thing, there is more to the AHS than just nurses. My experiences are not related to nursing at all, but to the people that work out in the community.

[CD007]

Originally posted by codetrap


Gotta get yours? You realize that these unions are funded directly out of your (or your parents) pocket via taxation right?

Sorry, I'll keep with my stance that outright theft like this should not be allowed.


Theft? Lol, believe me, I'm involved with the union that I belong to and see where every penny goes, as that information is open to every member.

[1barA4]

Originally posted by RawB8figure
one last thing, there is more to the AHS than just nurses. My experiences are not related to nursing at all, but to the people that work out in the community.

Yes, outreach, out-patient care, community services, etc. Also, social workers employed by AHS are part of that group (both for patients in hospital care and out in the community), but I won't touch that topic with a 10 ft pole (I know some overpaid social workers who sit on ass, and I also know one who worked for peanuts and got stabbed 9+ times in her career).

[Unknown303]

All of these black and white answers based off of single encounters are great. Really easy to decide whether they are useful or not when you've only dealt with one or heard about that one horrible union... :banghead:


Originally posted by Cos
I can see the appeal although I wouldnt personally work for one.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[71/454]

Originally posted by CD007
Problem is that a lot of people just say that the union workers are getting too much, when if fact, they should be saying that they aren't getting enough.

Worry about yourself, rather than trying to blame others.
This

People are quick to rip on the union because they feel they work harder for less money. While this may be true, advocating that your fellow Canadian should work for less will not improve your salary in the long run.
Another way to look at is like this. 3 guys are in a room, 2 of them keep getting slapped in the head, one does not get touched. The 2 guys who are getting slapped aren't trying to stop getting slapped, they're saying "hey, why aren't you hitting that guy too?"

[codetrap]

Originally posted by 1barA4


This statement I will agree with.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the other points, because (and maybe I'm reading into this wrong) it *seems* like you're implying nurses are overpaid (or health care workers in general).

I don't think nurses are overpaid. Anyone that's ever been under any sort of decent care would probably agree with me. What I disagree with is the fact is that it's the unions that are stifling the ability of the government/companies to reduce costs by taking advantage of the loopholes in the contracts.

I have been on both sides of the fence btw. Was a member of the UFCW during the big strike. I was also at Telus just before they went on strike and I saw the wastage, idiocy and other general crap that went on. The UFCW was great to us part time students. They took a big chunk of our wages in union dues, didn't allow us to participate because we didn't get enough hours, and then voted based on the interests of the senior staff regardless of what was actually best for the company. Then to top it off, I got harassing phone calls from the union when I refused to go walk the picket line because it was in the middle of my exams, a time I historically took off anyways.

No, I'm anti union to the core. They're freaking dinosaurs. Get rid of them and in very short order you'll find the market conditions will ensure that salaries/benefits will attract quality people, just like in the private sector that is not unionized.

Edit: this reminds me of when I was Telus. I had to go to Burnaby to do some work. While I was out there, I was notified that one of the Exchange Servers was acting up and needed to be rebooted. So, being the nice guy that I am, I went and power cycled it. I was escorted into the data center by a union worker, who watched me push the reset button, and then escorted me out. About a hour later I got a phone call saying the server was down again. Because I wasn't a management employee, and it wasn't my job to do anything hardware related, the person that escorted me filed a grievance and red sticker'ed the server. The server was then turned off as per part of the policy. Apparently, I was stealing someones job.

[RawB8figure]

The money part of it didn't cross my mind. Are union employees compensated > private?

Don't get offended, but from my point of view unions are still useless. I hear first hand the BS that goes on in the AHS union. If anyone else heard this BS they would cringe as well. I am sure unions were effective at one point in time, but today its the breading grounds of slackers. This is my point of view based on the countless story's from friends who work in the AHS. Even if they are half true its still pretty disappointing that we are paying (taxes) for this to go on and wonder why our health system is a disaster.

[Unknown303]

I think they were the breeding ground for slacks. I think people going into them now still want to do an honest days work. It's just on the managers shoulders to hire people into the positions that are actually doing to put effort into it. It's all the old entitled guys in the unions that want everything for nothing.

[SOAB]

Originally posted by Unknown303
I think they were the breeding ground for slacks. I think people going into them now still want to do an honest days work. It's just on the managers shoulders to hire people into the positions that are actually doing to put effort into it. It's all the old entitled guys in the unions that want everything for nothing.

i do see what you're saying here but it seems like any new people that last long enough in a union end up feeling like the entitled "everything for nothing" kind.

i worked for a warehouse that was unionized and the senior guys had to be the laziest people i've ever seen. i finished unloading 2 trailers by myself before 2 of them finished unloading 1 trailer together.

i was hired on as a part-time employee working full time hours. there was only a certain amount of full-time positions available so i would have to wait for people to quit, let everyone that was hired before me get a full time position, than it would be my turn to get benefits, bonuses, better shifts, etc. i still had to pay union dues, but got nothing in return. i lasted less than 2 days before i told them to shove it.

[CD007]

Every punk kid, under say 24, that comes into my industry are the kind of guys that think they deserve the world.

The older guys have the good work ethic, the kids are really lazy.

[CD007]

Originally posted by SOAB




i worked for a warehouse that was unionized and the senior guys had to be the laziest people i've ever seen. i finished unloading 2 trailers by myself before 2 of them finished unloading 1 trailer together.



Work smart, not hard.
Doing the job of 2 guys puts your own body at risk.

[SOAB]

Originally posted by CD007


Work smart, not hard.
Doing the job of 2 guys puts your own body at risk.

Spoken like a true union member. it's actually the job of 1 guy that took 2 of them perform.

being slow and lazy is obviously NOT the reason it took 2 of them to do that job... :rolleyes:

[CD007]

Originally posted by SOAB


Spoken like a true union member.

:rolleyes:

Of course, I like to work safe.

[1barA4]

Originally posted by codetrap

What I disagree with is the fact is that it's the unions that are stifling the ability of the government/companies to reduce costs by taking advantage of the loopholes in the contracts.


Fair enough.




I was also at Telus just before they went on strike and I saw the wastage, idiocy and other general crap that went on.

...

Edit: this reminds me of when I was Telus. I had to go to Burnaby to do some work. While I was out there, I was notified that one of the Exchange Servers was acting up and needed to be rebooted. So, being the nice guy that I am, I went and power cycled it. I was escorted into the data center by a union worker, who watched me push the reset button, and then escorted me out. About a hour later I got a phone call saying the server was down again. Because I wasn't a management employee, and it wasn't my job to do anything hardware related, the person that escorted me filed a grievance and red sticker'ed the server. The server was then turned off as per part of the policy. Apparently, I was stealing someones job.

Coincidentally, my tenure at TELUS (5 years, including the 5 month JASON strike) is why I am mostly anti-union now. That place was a pit of idiocy, waste and more idiocy. I was a strike captain and I was all gung ho about that shit....and all it got me was debt (and missing out on about 80k worth of pay, which is what one of my friends who did 'scab' made in that period of time).

I worked mostly on the 'soft' side of things, from CC&SS, to Loyalty & Retention, then to Dispatch, then Regional Resource Management (scheduling for all of the outside lower mainland techs) then to (I forget the name of the specific part of) Mainstream Data Order Assignment. In Assignment, I realized I could accomplish more in about 6 minutes every morning than the entire team did all day...those old betty's couldn't figure out that the system would allow you to hold enter to go through 9 steps, and if there was a problem it would flag it at the end. I literally did hundreds of orders before my first coffee, where they'd spend an hour per (staring at the screen for about 7 minutes in between hitting enter).

[ZenOps]

MfL7STmWZ1c

Danny Devito said it best. Some unions tend to cling to dying industries or industries that would best serve everyone if they were downsized and resources put somewhere else.

Unions are ok - in industries where there is growth IMO. But they usually block progress when it comes time to naturally progress.

[ExtraSlow]

Necro bump! Big supreme court case in the USA to determine if union membership can be mandatory or optional.
BBC news link for some partial objectivity : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43201811

[Gestalt]

Necro bump! Big supreme court case in the USA to determine if union membership can be mandatory or optional.
BBC news link for some partial objectivity : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43201811

Saw this on our facebook group.

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1874540772558510/

[JRSC00LUDE]

Optional is how it should be, you should never be forced to pay the mob for protection.

[Buster]

Robert Reich. lol.

[Gestalt]

My expereince is people in unions for the majority like unions. otherwise its hit or miss. if you have a good boss things are good if you have a shit boss you wish you were unionized. :dunno:

[Gestalt]

Optional is how it should be, you should never be forced to pay the mob for protection.

then you get the freerider problem. like insurance, if you could opt out of car insurance or provincial health care insurance or income tax. enjoy the benefits but not costs.

[g-m]

No, you would negotiate your own employment contract and be completely separate from the union. And free to work hard and be rewarded

[Tik-Tok]

I 100% agree that it should be optional, but knowing North American unions, they will make your life an absolute hell if you don't join. I can already see people being murdered over it in the US. On the flip side, a friend worked in Greenland for a time at a union shop, and enjoyed all the benefits the union guys got, without having to join. They ribbed him about it, but it was never serious.

[Gestalt]

No, you would negotiate your own employment contract and be completely separate from the union. And free to work hard and be rewarded

now THATS FUNNY :rofl:

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a5/7a/b9/a57ab9922b76aec805c1ba9e539a7ebc--labor-law-labor-union.jpg

[Buster]

then you get the freerider problem. like insurance, if you could opt out of car insurance or provincial health care insurance or income tax. enjoy the benefits but not costs.

Tax regimes are designed to benefit the whole, not people selectively (or at least people have access to the same environment). Unions are obviously not that. They are specifically designed to favour one group over another - and for some reason they feel entitled to compel otherwise unwilling parties to pay for it.

your car insurance comparison is just nonsensical.