 |
|
« The Lean and Mean Supply Chain | Main | How to Manage Risk »
April 10, 2007
Burning Question
Labor unions: power to the people or unnecessary evil?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://news.thomasnet.com/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/996
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
54 CommentsI'm 60 years old and have worked in union and non-union companies. In the 50's and 60's, unions were too strong and ruined companies for the workers and employers. Then there was a period where unions were disbanded and companies thrived and workers also did well. Today I feel that unions are again necessary to protect the jobs and benefits they have been able to keep.
April 10, 2007 1:32 PMUnions served a great purpose for years. Now we have labor laws and OSHA protect the American worker.I have worked in both union and non-union jobs. Today it seems that they can hinder production time and costs.
April 10, 2007 1:46 PMOne motivated, freelance, independent, kid can do the work of two or more rank-and-file union men!
I've done it, and I've seen it done time and time again. Fear is the best motivator; take away fear of losing a job, and you kill the motivation for doing a good job.
Excellence or mediocrity, you choose.
April 10, 2007 1:57 PMAs in every issue, there are two sides to look at.
Unions were there in the first place to protect the working class. In other words, to represent them and try to keep their pay equal or better than inflation. Even today, in many areas, unions play a vital role for the workers.
The other side, and this is NOT management speaking.: The union demands for higher pay and everything else fuels inflation. It probably would be less expensive for a company to furnish health benefits and all of the other things, simply because they would cut the union overhead.
I admit, I'm no expert on this matter, but this is simply what I have seen over the years.
April 10, 2007 2:12 PMSchool teachers union. Can any union be worse? Just look at the graduates that cannot read their diplomas. Teachers are scum of earth.
Bill E. Boyd
Tuscaloosa, Al.
Unions are still necessary to keep the balance between the unscrupulous business leaders and the work force. Only trouble is that the unions are only wage fighters and do not contribute into the technological improvements. Unions should also grow and improve without being capricious.
April 10, 2007 2:22 PMI was a 25 year old, well-trained mechanic in a non-union MFG. plant.
On a stormy night with lightning all over the place, I went in to the plant to check some electronic timers running ovens all night, fearing a problem would make a mess of the next day's work. My boss learned of this and gave me a 25-cent raise along with praise and thanks. My brother, a union steward in a MFG. plant told me his union would have frowned on me doing the extra work without pre-arrangements, and it would be forbidden for me to receive a raise without all in my job receiving the same.
That's all i know about unions.
April 10, 2007 2:32 PMThere is little difference between manufacturers and labor unions. The "company" is in business providing a product to have a solid bottom line. The "union" is in business providing a service to have a solid bottom line. Each are a necessary evil.
The problems arise when people from either side take advantage of a situation, either by slacking on the job or being greedy. When you see the gasoline prices, will you think about the union worker getting a 3% increase per year and putting out 6 hours work for 8 hours pay, or will you think about the manager who is pulling in over $400 M.
April 10, 2007 2:52 PMI have worked on both sides of this fence. I was a shop steward at one time and now I am in management.
I feel that the days of the union have passed. It has become more of a good ole boys club than anything else. Where I work now, they pay you based on performance. If you perform well, you get payed well. The benefits are good and are the same throughout the company, whether you are union or not.
Don't get me wrong, I think if the union were to apply the same effort into training to keep pace with the growing demands of new technology, it would better for all.
April 10, 2007 3:04 PMI have had a large variety of jobs, including some union jobs. I have worked at a non-union plant for 21 years. It is by far the best place I've ever worked. I can do a lot of things and am not restricted from doing any of them. So can a lot of other people employed here. As a result, we get things done more efficiently, and it makes the job a lot more interesting.
In my opinion, unions are parasites that will eventually kill the hosts. Witness the fate of our steel industry, and what is happening to our auto industry.
April 10, 2007 3:06 PMUnion? How's that working for Ford, GM, and Chrysler? The dollar is so devalued that we can no longer compete with the world. Unions only work when you have a monopoly!
April 10, 2007 3:09 PMMan...I think unions are so dated. Don't get me wrong they did great things for a time when they came about, but look at how much the world has changed!
There might be some situations where its necessary, but what it's created is an environment that destroys extra work and creativity. It devalues people to the point of being basically robots rather than people who can add value to an end product. I think about all the people I know who are in their upper 20's and 30's and who make pennies compared to their older counterparts, they intentionally hold back on what they COULD be doing because there is no reward for them, so why put in the extra effort?? That is a terrible work environment...
April 10, 2007 3:52 PMWithout the unions, this country would not have grown to the greatness it is at. BUT greed on both sides of the table will keep the unions in business for a long time.
All I've seen the unions do is protect the worker that deserves to be out the door. That demoralizes the other union members and frustrates management. Not a formula for production.
April 10, 2007 3:56 PMLadies and Gentlemen,
(if I may use the term)
From reading what has already been posted on this issue, there is value to both sides of the arguement. The need for the labor unions is there whether we like it or not.
It is the labor unions' responsibility to police themselves. The ability and willingness to work and perform as is agreed upon between employees and emmployers is all that labor can offer. Management (emmployers) most usually is willing to pay for what it gets. Both, labor and management have to do there part to satisfy the customer (large or small). The customer's demands, as agreed upon between him or her and management, is most desired by all concerned. The labor unions are supposed to supply management with trained and qualified personel, as per aggreement on compensation and working conditions between masnagement and labor.
Management comes in all sizes, from small, tiny employers to huge, rich and powerful employers and everything in between. A large portion of small employers are unable to afford union labor. There are some that can but find it not lucretive enough to to do so. Therein lies the need for non-union labor. In some instances labor unions recognize that and try to offer aggreements that the small employer can afford. Sometimes that works and sometimes it does not work.
I am retired now, but have worked in the unions for the last forty-five years and saw abuse of labor laws and agreements on both sides. I have also worked non union. Some nonunion employers are good to work for and some are not.
Everybody in the work force, labor and management alike, are supposed to deal with each other with honesty and fairness. Let's do it.
April 10, 2007 4:05 PMThe unions of prior to WWII or more years ago addressed a social, as well as a wage/welfare, issue and rightly so.
But success brought power and power, greed. The workers did not run the union, the union ran the workers, and most in power in the union were not part of the industry in which it held contracts.
The business of the union became an institution in itself. After WWII, there was such a demand for goods and services that manufacturing was willing to go along with almost any demand to keep production running. The unions knew it, and their demands became, in hindsight, their own destruction.
It is no greater reflected than in the auto industry with contracts offering pay, even if there is no job, job to grave health and welfare benefits and work rules that reflect how little a job description requires than how much; how many can we keep on the payroll, not how efficient can we produce?
Perhaps even more destructive to our country than the results of that absolute power in manufacturing is the formation of unions under the guise of something else...the NEA, truthfully a teacher's union; the AMA, a medical doctor's union; the ABA, a lawyer's union; plus the Firefighter's Union; Police Union; Public Workers unions of every stripe, all that grew from the observation that
it had been powerful in the market place in manufacturing... "why not for us?"
A look at the power that the NEA yields, they determine the education of your childern, act as a powerful voting block in national politics and have goals that say little about the quality of the product and more about the security of the job and numbers of members. This same outlook has killed the US big three auto industry and will over time
have the same effect on public education. Private education, K-12, is in its infancy as were foreign autos years ago, but when the public sees more quality for dollar spent the result will be somewhat the same in my view.
Unions helped spawn the middle class in America. They brought benefits that would to this day not be envisioned. They brought a wage that allowed for the American dream.
Today the non-union workers have benefited from this by their demanding better wages and benefits that compares to the union scales. And to those who believe unions do not train, they are misinformed. A sizable part of their dues are spent on training new workers so the employer gets his money's worth.
And one more item, the inflation is not created by union workers demanding more pay, look at today's oil prices and record profits: who doesn't need a raise to pay for this increase? It is obscene.
April 10, 2007 5:38 PMI have never worked for a union but supervised all phases of manufacturing along with training of personnel to perform using CNC equipment to produce products, and I believe it has never served either the employee or the union to undermine the effective sense of productivity by demanding compensations that eventually destroy both domestic and export interests.
April 10, 2007 6:13 PMI have worked in both union and non-union plants. Some worked out well, and some didn't due to the lack member support. With the current trend of corporations relocating for cheap labor and no benefits other than a paycheck, it is vital that unions and their members remain a force within the workplace. Jobs and benefits are becoming endangered items in America. We are fast becoming a service-oriented society. Unions are a necessity in this day and age.
April 10, 2007 6:48 PMThe unions fail to do the job they are formed to do. They have lost the understanding that they have to be the most knowledgeable and productive craftsmen.
The business reps have failed to keep the union labor on the jobs while they took lavish vacations at the union's expense. They used equal opportunity to destroy the desire to work. Bringing in many who wanted the pay but do not understand why they get it. Those that wanted to be the best were left in the cold with no way to get into the group.
They have made big issues out of little things and brought undue hardship on the employers. This is a typical situation, when you don't take care of your business, you won't have it long.
April 11, 2007 8:34 AMHas anyone ever seen a union shop where the employees were motivated and innovative?
Doug's story says it all: Unions enforce mediocrity by forbidding employers from rewarding excellence.
My dad told me long ago that it was up to me to be worth what I was paid, and to be paid what I was worth. Why would I want to put someone else in charge of that?
April 11, 2007 10:05 AMThis is in response to Bill E. Boyd (4-10-07, 2:17 PM):
It's a shame that in Bill's growing-up phase, any teacher, good or bad, had "zero" to work with. Thomasnet should do a better job of screening comments of people like Bill who like to defame whole groups of people. We already know what Bill's problem is, and he can't help anyone with his commentary.
April 11, 2007 3:15 PMLabor unions would be okay if they were not backed by the force of government. But since unions are sanctioned by the government, they act like any governmental bureaucracy. They destroy the freedom of businesses to deal with their employees and employees to deal freely with the companies they work for.
Unions in this country alone have destroyed industries -- such as the railroad, automotive, soon the airline industry and worst of all, the minds of the unfortunate children that have to attend government schools, which, in essence, are run by the notorious Teachers Union.
April 11, 2007 3:57 PMUnions were necessary, e.g.: mines, produce pickers, air traffic controllers (Reagan was wrong, FAA just found at least 4 recent plane crashes due to controller fatigue) and still are, e.g.: mines, restaurants, supermarkets, etc.
However, they are an extra expense. If businesses took care of their employees, that expense could be avoided and the business more competitive.
I can't afford to hire yet, when I do, I'll do it right.
April 11, 2007 8:07 PMUnions will be the downfall of the US economy. My father was a union shop steward for many years with United Airlines in the 50's, but it was when he left to farm (get out of Chicago) that he began to "hate" the unions.
Later he worked for ITW, a non-union shop and was paid better with better benefits without paying dues, than workers in similar work in union shops.
The cost of a strike is never regained by works, the union leaders often become corrupted by the power and money. I have witnessed the waste of man hours and product at union-run warehouses (truck driver) and factories where the "lazy" are paid better than the real workforce, just because they're in the "union" and can't be fired.
I've been on construction sites where I could not talk to some workers because they were union and I was not (couldn't give them "orders"). Even though I was the site foreman! And they were not following safety regulations and were not building to code! 5 got killed and our company got sued!
Everything that raises the cost of something is passed on to the consumers, so higher wages, etc., that the Unions claim to help the "little guy" will only make it harder for him to buy the things he needs, in the "long run".
If you don't like the working conditions, don't get a union, GET A DIFFERENT JOB! Better yet, start your own business and run it the way you want to, until the union shows up and either puts you out of business or tells you how to run your own business!
Paul
April 12, 2007 7:16 AMUnions are destructive to the worker; union and non-union (long-term), to businesses (short- and long-term) and to anybody else -- and that includes any traders, which is most people.
April 12, 2007 1:46 PMLook, I worked for both union and nonunion. It all depends on the work ethics of the company owners to treat employees fair.
I would personally love to work in a nonunion company, where I was appreciated for the value adding job I did. The facts are that management at the company I work for are greedy. Say I get hurt on the job, the first thing they want to know is who's going to fill the position. What they should do is find out how to prevent this from happening again, and make necessary changes, then ask who's going to fill the job, till he's better. This would stop so much of the down time created by the company its self.
Bottom line is a lower cost to manufacture the product, not just to make as many as you can even though 20 are defective, you still made 100 that aren't. Put the blame where it is due first.
Our pres at the location makes $800,000 a year. I got hurt on the job, had surgery was out 5 mths, and had my insurance cut off because I was out. Doesn't that look funny to anyone. The pres is on salary, has his insurance paid for, if he was out all stays the same?
By the way I was in good health before I took this job. Now I have a shoulder injury, with a disability rating and a knee injury with the same and Im not the only one at this company like this, there are alot of them. I wish I could say that unions weren't necessary but sometimes they are.
April 20, 2007 1:51 AMUnions were necessary once. Very much so.
The men who formed them, in some cases put their lives at risk. They believed in an honest days work for an honest days pay. My father was one of them. I believe they would fire every union worker they saw today if they could.
Unions now are run by politicians who need to be popular to keep their jobs.
Instead of working with companies to get real benefits such as training, more efficient work environments, and improvements that will insure that their company will be here for their children, they demand more money, less work, and security that is not earned.
April 23, 2007 5:38 PM
