Things that make you go, hmmmmmmmm
POSTED BY: FutureMrsFIllion
UPDATED: Thursday, May 10, 2007 20:25
VIEWED: 6841
PAGE 5 of 5
Uhmmm - not in the unions I've been in.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The firing issue is something that is negotiated between the employer and the unions and there is always a mechanism for firing. The only employees legally protected from firing are those employees who are trying to unionize or are union leaders and they are only protected if the firing is in response to their union activities not if for cause. The law is pretty clear and employers can fire employees for cause. Sure they may have a greater process to go through than employers of non-union employees but they can fire people. The non-firing issue is a misconception of the law and reality.
If you have a situation where an employer honestly 'can't' fire an problem employee it is either laziness or more likely apathy as they don't want to bother with the process. It costs money and time to train a new employee and this is the main reason employers don't fire problem employees. If you need an warm body to work and if the only warm body is problematic then you still use him. The union excuse is used, but it has no basis in reality.
Personally, I have never worked in a union environment and my opinions on this are from studying labor law (both sides) in law school and other academic studies from college. My years as menial labor and management where in a non-union settings and the employees could have used unions.
The basic premise of labor law in the U.S. is that unions represent the employees and the employer represents himself and they negotiate for what is best for both parties. Sure there may be a problem employee or two, but you have healthier and better paid employees in a union situation. Plus you have less turnover, which is an advantage for businesses as you don't have to train new people which is also an annoyance. I am pro-union, mainly because the reality is very positive for employees as without unions you have to rely on the goodwill of the employer which is always suspect.
Still that said the negative misconceptions of unions, combined with the loss of many legal rights, has caused unions to diminish in the U.S. Sure you have some exceptions like SEIU, but for the most parts unions are in decline...and the gap in pay between executives and their employees continues to grow.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by KJW:
without unions you have to rely on the goodwill of the employer which is always suspect.
Not always, I work for a great employer, we were in the top 25 of the Fortune Magazine's 100 best companies to work for in the US for 2006. We are paid well, have great benefits, and we are fiancially rewarded on an individual level, based only on individual performance. If you perform better than your co-workers, you should make more than them doing the same job. Can Unions provide that incentive? That's a question I don't know the answer to, not a "Uinons can't do that" statement. So what's your experience?
And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Personally, I don't think unions are useful in all situations and not all work places should be unionized. For example, small businesses with good owners or businesses in very competitive industries have forces affecting them that produce results similar to that provided by unions and arguably unions might be detrimenal in those situations.
Remember unions only form in a company IF the workers want the union to exist, a majority vote is needed to form a union. If conditions are good, managers solid, and so forth than who would want to go through the hassle of unionization (it is a real hassle). Additionally, employees can also end (or change) unions if they don't want it anymore, which is something people don't realize.
The recent break up of the AFL-CIO is a good thing in my opinion as it brings in competition which is as good with unions as will businesses. A lot of the problems with unions are due to monopolistic forces. I will admit there have been corruption problems with many unions, but this is the same with political parties, businesses, and so forth. The problem though is not with unions as conceptually they are a good idea, the problem is with a small percentage of union officials and members who do bad things (steal money or be lazy) and all it takes is a few bad stories to label all unions as bad. It's the same with politics, honestly the vast majority of politicians are honest and dedicated, but most label all politicians as corrupt and evil.
This disconnect between perceptions and reality causes voter apathy with politicians and hostility towards unions and both produce results that don't reflect reality.
Also unions are just one tool for labor rights in this country, safety standards, minimum wage, overtime, workman's compensation, unemployment, and so forth are other tools. Unions get an unfair knock, but they are just one tool.
Back on topic allowing Americans to buy lower cost prescriptions would be another tool to help American workers have a better lot in life. :)
Seriously, healthcare costs are a big problem in the corporate sector and also a major tension between unions and employers. Lessen that burden and it helps everyone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME