Union Kills the Twinkie

[Tornicade]

I never said they were for college graduates, read the whole post! i said trades and profestional jobs need them. I also argued, a state like Utah has very little union support, they also are one for the most profitable and business friendly states in the US. There is a huge correlation between states being union, and being business friendly.

Does the unskilled labor fee in Utah makes as much as someone in Ohio. NO. But this has forced people in Utah to get a college degree, go in to the trades to get better paying jobs. A state with more educated, and skilled work force, brings in better paying jobs, and a better business environment.

Also, living in Utah, I have noticed people don't have the same level of entitlement that people in Michigan and Ohio have. Could this be that we are a very Red / Repbulican State?

Utah was one of the only states to support not extending the unempoyment time frame. It was awsome to see a governor talk about how people need to hold themself responsible for the decisions they make, and if you can't get a job in the time frame you are on unemployment, then tough luck. Again, this may sound rough, but the state is very fiscally responsible.

My wife is a teacher, I wish the union had more power to get her more money, Utah is in the bottom 5 of money spent per kid. While I disagree with this, I would still rather have a well run state, that encourages business to come here.

You seem to be confused. supportng right to work does not mean you donot support unions. I have problems with any laws that take away workers right to strike but have no problems about an opt in union system.

being a right to work state is not the same as not having any unions. 5% of Utahs Employees are Union members compared to national averages of 11% of the workforce.

I do hope you seriously dont believe Utah economy is based on it being a right to work state because eventually all 50 states will have provisions that allows workers to opt in and out of unions.

its important for all workers regardless of education levels to have the right to unionize. as opposed to replacing unions with more state regulations

 

[Cavsfan1985]

You seem to be confused. supportng right to work does not mean you donot support unions. I have problems with any laws that take away workers right to strike but have no problems about an opt in union system.

being a right to work state is not the same as not having any unions. 5% of Utahs Employees are Union members compared to national averages of 11% of the workforce.

I do hope you seriously dont believe Utah economy is based on it being a right to work state because eventually all 50 states will have provisions that allows workers to opt in and out of unions.

its important for all workers regardless of education levels to have the right to unionize. as opposed to replacing unions with more state regulations

Again, thanks for taking what you wanted to hear, and points out a few things I said and tried to make absolute truths out of it. Do I think the lack of non skilled unions is good for a state, yes. As these unions tend to only protect the lazy, and try to get more money for their people while threating to strike. I do support unions who protect the trades(skilled), and professional (college degree,etc) teachers, police, fire). But this is only one reason Utah has been successful. They have a friendly tax code, well educated population, spend money on growing infrastructure to encourage growth etc.

 

[natedagg]

Can anyone please take me through the logic of any union? What the purpose is? I don't understand it at all, and I know that I am carrying some misconceptions:

-If you are unskilled, and your wage sucks, then get a skill or start a business.
-If your wage sucks, work for a competitor. If their wage sucks, find a different sector.
-If so many unskilled wages suck, that is because your unskilled labor is a commodity.
-There are laws in the US in place that prevent horrible working conditions, no?

So what does a union do for the modern worker? How does it help? My wife is in a union for school teachers (in CA) and she hates it. They preach seniority when she is the youngest teacher. It's like those teachers think that they have a right to be stagnant at their job. I know that I just don't see the pro-union side, so please help me out.

 

[Adam]

Its hard for me to tell you much about american unions, i mean i watched season two of the wire, but my experience ends there. In the UK (where unions were invented, i think) They have been responsible for the protection of key services from government spending cuts. As a teacher i am a member of the National Union of Teacher, i can't understand the value of non-national unions, they just dont have a power base. We recently striked against retroactive pension cuts that were decided on by politicans and were not backed up by any economic reasoning. Missing the day cost me £100 in wages, but the aim is to prevent a massive loss in pension that would require me to work an extra 7 years. So far it hasn't worked, our government hates unions (being made of millionaires sons a twats) but some times the masses have to stand up.

"people should not be affriad of their government, the government should be affraid of its people"

our history is littered with massive strikes (general strikes of the 70's, coal miners of the 80's and the petrol strikes of the 2000's), although the french do it best.
I'm very pro unions, but i dont see the logic of a union of 5000 people, why didnt all the workers join the same union? Again in the UK all employees in any job that doesnt have its own union can join a union called UNISON. power in numbers

Any way sorry if thats a bit off topic, i'm going to miss the twinkee, i was hoping to buy a load for my nuclear bunker in a few decades.

 

[natedagg]

Its hard for me to tell you much about american unions, i mean i watched season two of the wire, but my experience ends there. In the UK (where unions were invented, i think) They have been responsible for the protection of key services from government spending cuts. As a teacher i am a member of the National Union of Teacher, i can't understand the value of non-national unions, they just dont have a power base. We recently striked against retroactive pension cuts that were decided on by politicans and were not backed up by any economic reasoning. Missing the day cost me £100 in wages, but the aim is to prevent a massive loss in pension that would require me to work an extra 7 years. So far it hasn't worked, our government hates unions (being made of millionaires sons a twats) but some times the masses have to stand up.

"people should not be affriad of their government, the government should be affraid of its people"

our history is littered with massive strikes (general strikes of the 70's, coal miners of the 80's and the petrol strikes of the 2000's), although the french do it best.
I'm very pro unions, but i dont see the logic of a union of 5000 people, why didnt all the workers join the same union? Again in the UK all employees in any job that doesnt have its own union can join a union called UNISON. power in numbers

Any way sorry if thats a bit off topic, i'm going to miss the twinkee, i was hoping to buy a load for my nuclear bunker in a few decades.

So a union protects its members from what they would deem unfair treatment (e.g. - the loss of a pension) from the government? And they protect it by organizing (?) things like strikes, so that the members have a collective voice?

So what happens if the members don't have a collective voice? What if, in your example, I am a 25 year old teacher and you are a 50 year old teacher. Why would I want you to retire and get your pension when, if it was reduced or cancelled, it might increase the odds that I get a pension at all, or at least a higher salary now? I just don't get how things are unified.

 

[bob2the2nd]

Can anyone please take me through the logic of any union? What the purpose is?

to protect the worker? is this a trick question? and by protect I mean physically as well as financially. Unions helped bring around safety reform. If you got injured and you couldnt work, you got replaced. We arent talking like oh you cut your finger and need to get stitches. We are talking about you lost an eye, or an arm, or a hand. If you couldnt work, you were replaced, and you didnt get anything for it. it was 'accepted' risk.

as for financially, not everyone has the ability to represent themselves. workers were basically getting bullied into accepting less pay/lower raises/etc.

that said I believe a lot of what unions were intended to do have been accomplished, places for the most part are safe to work in, and workers generally not getting bullied with their pay. However there are very few instances where you can clearly point to a union and say they are causing ALL of the problems. a company is always able to call an impasse on negotiations, or not agree to something the union wants.

 

[Cavsfan1985]

I agree. My wife just got screwed by her union, lowest seniority, but a very strong worker. Being a teacher her class tested one of the best in the state, yet when it came to move teachers she was the first one to go. There was a teacher with one year till retirement, she refused to move, so the union moved my wife, who happen to be a better teacher, and was better liked amount the teachers. This is the part that irks me about unions. It protects the average to below average worker and punishes the All Stars and true go getters.

In my job, if I am average I can be fired or demoted. It makes me want to be the best. In a union the only thing you need to be is an average worker.

 

[bob2the2nd]

So a union protects its members from what they would deem unfair treatment (e.g. - the loss of a pension) from the government? And they protect it by organizing (?) things like strikes, so that the members have a collective voice?

So what happens if the members don't have a collective voice? What if, in your example, I am a 25 year old teacher and you are a 50 year old teacher. Why would I want you to retire and get your pension when, if it was reduced or cancelled, it might increase the odds that I get a pension at all, or at least a higher salary now? I just don't get how things are unified.

things are often not unified, which is why unions get to vote on the collective bargaining agreement. in your example it is the union leaderships job to try and negotiate a contract that both you and the 50 year old would approve.

 

[KI4MVP]

why should the union have any say whatsoever in who keeps their jobs when there are cutbacks? Why shouldn't any organization always be free to keep their best workers? Anything else simply shouldn't be allowed to be part of union negotiations.

 

[Adam]

So a union protects its members from what they would deem unfair treatment (e.g. - the loss of a pension) from the government? And they protect it by organizing (?) things like strikes, so that the members have a collective voice?

So what happens if the members don't have a collective voice? What if, in your example, I am a 25 year old teacher and you are a 50 year old teacher. Why would I want you to retire and get your pension when, if it was reduced or cancelled, it might increase the odds that I get a pension at all, or at least a higher salary now? I just don't get how things are unified.

I'm not sure. The unions organise the strike and will financially support people who need it for the duration of the strike. They also lobby the government and control the message in the media.

In my case the strike was specifically down to the changes being unjustified, on the last accounts the pension fund was very healthy so it seemed unjustified, just a way of hitting fictitious manefesto pledges. Again one of the advantages of a national union is they put everything to a vote and when you are against the government you are trying to slow down the inevitable. I don't expect to be able to retire from teaching by 60 and go live in the south of france (a common thing in the 1990's) but the more rights i can protect for the workers now the more will remain when I get to retire. Thanks to the unions teachers have a national pay spine that has clear progression and standards based on a broad criteria, not just attainment headlines. My pension is better than the rest of the countries generally (being 60% employer contributions), but again its a lot easier in a country that has national systems for all public services.

As far the loss of staff, redundancy laws are in place that demand that long serving staff receive large payouts, if the experienced teacher was not willing to take early retirement generally schools wont make someone redundant.

Its worth mentioning that every place of work has a union rep and they are trained by the union to monitor and dela with simple issues of work force reform. For example our rep meets with the prinicipal once every 6 weeks and brings issue to him from the staff in general.

 

[Tornicade]

Nothing like watching self entitled pompous aristocrats decide who should have unions as well as what they have a right to negotiate or feel they are entitled to better treatment because they or their parents spent 100k for a piece of paper.

When companies look at layoffs the most appealing segment of their work population is the more experienced workers. nothing to do with job performance. people with companies for a longer time typically have higher salaries that they have accrued over the years.

Companies had no qualms about laying off employees due to soon qualify for full pensions or higher pay rates. The unions try to protect those people.

Unions are insurance. regardless of whether you are in a union or not. They set the standard. Coal mines for instance. the highest paying mines were typically the non union ones because the company would set ther pay and benefits to keep the union out. These mines typically were also the most dangerous having more accidents and safety violations.

Companies like to do things like charge Employees for shortages regardless of whose fault it was. there are many court cases pursued by unions just for those situations.

Ultimately the range of things included in collective bargaining agreements are dictated by the company.

in the bakery example that prompted this discussion . the company had a sales commision structure based on brand. there was no integration of management so brands could suffer within the same company if any favortism took plaxe. These companies keep buying other companies and absorbing their unions. Companies also never bothered to ntegrate these unions or comine their collective bargaining interest because the fractured infrustucture gives company better leverage overall.

In essence the they would pit fractured unions against each other.

Hostess though had no solid game plan or stable leadership to integrate these conglomerrates properly and it backfiredboth the teamsters union and the bakers union undwerwent major concession.

 

[Cavsfan1985]

Nothing like watching self entitled pompous aristocrats decide who should have unions as well as what they have a right to negotiate or feel they are entitled to better treatment because they or their parents spent 100k for a piece of paper.

When companies look at layoffs the most appealing segment of their work population is the more experienced workers. nothing to do with job performance. people with companies for a longer time typically have higher salaries that they have accrued over the years.

Companies had no qualms about laying off employees due to soon qualify for full pensions or higher pay rates. The unions try to protect those people.

Unions are insurance. regardless of whether you are in a union or not. They set the standard. Coal mines for instance. the highest paying mines were typically the non union ones because the company would set ther pay and benefits to keep the union out. These mines typically were also the most dangerous having more accidents and safety violations.

Companies like to do things like charge Employees for shortages regardless of whose fault it was. there are many court cases pursued by unions just for those situations.

Ultimately the range of things included in collective bargaining agreements are dictated by the company.

in the bakery example that prompted this discussion . the company had a sales commision structure based on brand. there was no integration of management so brands could suffer within the same company if any favortism took plaxe. These companies keep buying other companies and absorbing their unions. Companies also never bothered to ntegrate these unions or comine their collective bargaining interest because the fractured infrustucture gives company better leverage overall.

In essence the they would pit fractured unions against each other.

Hostess though had no solid game plan or stable leadership to integrate these conglomerrates properly and it backfiredboth the teamsters union and the bakers union undwerwent major concession.

I agree, their were many issues, and management was one of them. But at the end of the day it was the unions who killed jobs and the company.

 

[KI4MVP]

When companies look at layoffs the most appealing segment of their work population is the more experienced workers. nothing to do with job performance. people with companies for a longer time typically have higher salaries that they have accrued over the years.

it's pretty clear you have never run a company. People who actually do run companies would keep their best people, period. Anything else would be idiotic.

 

[bob2the2nd]

it's pretty clear you have never run a company. People who actually do run companies would keep their best people, period. Anything else would be idiotic.

unfortunately you (assuming you have run a company) actually understand this. however there are MANY companies/corporations that do not run their business model like that. to a whole lot of companies (like walmart) the bottom line is the only thing that matters, and the people dont. they are replaceable. Unions swing the exact opposite direction, they save people based upon how many years they have not what sort of value they provide. For either side to say one is definitely the right answer is a blind response, the key is and has always been a middle ground.

 

[natedagg]

Nothing like watching self entitled pompous aristocrats decide who should have unions as well as what they have a right to negotiate or feel they are entitled to better treatment because they or their parents spent 100k for a piece of paper.

Too bad you had to go there with the incendiary remarks. I don't know why you feel what you feel, but it's a shame that you couldn't continue an educational, informative discourse on the subject without letting your emotion get in the way.