General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Frenetic
 
Frenetic's Avatar
 
Quote:
Why would they get laid off? In any case I suspect they wouldn't like it anymore than contract employees.
In a unionized industry, lay offs occur because pay and benefits cuts can't be reduced due to union contracts. Unions are okay with this though, because the ones that remain retain the same level of pay and benefits as before. In non-unionized work, layoffs may happen less due to pay freezes, pay cuts, or reduction of hours or benefits. I'm not taking a side on that issue here, I'm just explaining why guys in a unionized industry would get laid off.
Old 06-22-2009, 03:32 PM Frenetic is offline  
Reply With Quote
#31  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
It's in the corporations best interest to spend as little as possible on their workers without impeding production. Beyond keeping profitable enough to ensure continued employment the workers and management have no common interests. Unions help ameliorate this by making the interests of the workers part of the interest of the corporation.

The corporations are interested in making profits.
In order to make greater profits they need more or higher quality employees.
employees respond to incentives.

Quote:
If the US still had a significant manufacturing base sure I could. The US survived fine without all the free trade agreements it has now.
The US manufacturing base was dependant on lower wages than we have today.
No amount of tariffs is going to make it pofitable for an american company to pay $10/hour + benefits, insurance, taxes ets for somebody to stitch shirts when they can pay somebody $10 a month with no benefits elsewhere.
Those starving impoverished people fight like hell for the right to earn $10 a month and we enjoy our nice affordable shirts.
__________________
09 F9
Old 06-22-2009, 04:16 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#32  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Why would they get laid off? In any case I suspect they wouldn't like it anymore than contract employees.


A contract employee has the right to negotiate his pay with his employer should the economy falter.
In hard times a lower paying job is better than no job.

A union employee forfeits his ability to negotiate his own terms and instead pays the overhead of his union leadership and risks his employer failing entirely.
__________________
09 F9
Old 06-22-2009, 04:18 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#33  

Xayd
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by :ninja: View Post
Fuck you and your teamsters.

Workers' unions are fucking jokes now.

Ma...err BOY Without Job Comments on Others' Jobs

news at 11
Old 06-22-2009, 04:18 PM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#34  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenetic View Post
In a unionized industry, lay offs occur because pay and benefits cuts can't be reduced due to union contracts.
That may contribute to layoffs, that's not why they are layed off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenetic View Post
Unions are okay with this though, because the ones that remain retain the same level of pay and benefits as before.
This may or may not be true. It's up to union leadership or union vote as to whether they will allow members to be fired or if they will strike.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenetic View Post
In non-unionized work, layoffs may happen less due to pay freezes, pay cuts, or reduction of hours or benefits.
Perhaps, however they may also happen more often since there is no risk of strike, it depends on the situation.
Old 06-22-2009, 04:35 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#35  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
The corporations are interested in making profits.
In order to make greater profits they need more or higher quality employees.
employees respond to incentives.
Yes, which is why they will provide them with whatever minimum that will provide (perceived) maximum production. In many service sector jobs this is almost nothing at all which is why unionization is important for blue collar jobs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
The US manufacturing base was dependant on lower wages than we have today.
I don't see any reason to believe this is true. The middle class may have not been able to buy as many goods if manufacturing stayed in the US but they would still have a high standard living and the lower class would be much better off than they are now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
No amount of tariffs is going to make it pofitable for an american company to pay $10/hour + benefits, insurance, taxes ets for somebody to stitch shirts when they can pay somebody $10 a month with no benefits elsewhere.
You have a rather limited imagination then. You could even prohibit entirely the import of products where workers are not provided with benefits and pay comparable to their US counterparts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Those starving impoverished people fight like hell for the right to earn $10 a month and we enjoy our nice affordable shirts.
In most cases they had free trade imposed on them and their leaders decided to cut deals with manufacturing corporations, they didn't have a choice in it usually and they certainly didn't fight like hell for it. In some cases like the Marianas people are more or less slaves to corporations and that's on US soil.
Old 06-22-2009, 04:48 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#36  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
A contract employee has the right to negotiate his pay with his employer should the economy falter.
In hard times a lower paying job is better than no job.
Such terms are almost inevitably worse than what a union brokered deal would provide. What a shit "right"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
A union employee forfeits his ability to negotiate his own terms and instead pays the overhead of his union leadership and risks his employer failing entirely.
Most union members seem to think that's a risk worth taking.
Old 06-22-2009, 04:52 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#37  

Stereodude
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by möbiustrip View Post
Why isn't UPS lobbying to free itself from the red tape, instead?
Because UPS can't get themselves de-unionized, but they have a decent shot of getting the same boat anchor put around Fed-Ex's neck that is around theirs. The unions will put a lot of money, time, and effort into it because union leaders basically only care about one thing, increasing union membership, and thereby union dues. Union leaders have to pretend that they care about workers, but at the end of the day they will always favor reductions in benefits and reductions in pay over reductions in membership.
Old 06-22-2009, 04:57 PM Stereodude is offline  
Reply With Quote
#38  

Stereodude
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Fickleson View Post
However, I'd rather see UPS and Fedex survive, and possibly grow. The US Postal Service is a joke and needs the competition.
Are you aware that FedEx handles all of the Postal Services overnight packages and a lot of other mail? Didn't you ever wonder why you can ship something FedEx from the Post Office?
Old 06-22-2009, 04:59 PM Stereodude is offline  
Reply With Quote
#39  

möbiustrip
 
möbiustrip's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Such terms are almost inevitably worse than what a union brokered deal would provide. What a shit "right"
That is to say, people who drive vans have significant artificial negotiating power with people who own jets -- who, incidentally, can get out of whatever personal stake they have in the company. Pensioners can't.

How do you think that story ends?

I'm all for a strong middle class, but you're barking up the wrong tree. And you have clearly never contracted.

UAW is showing you can't demand blood from a stone.
__________________
I personally believe that there has to be a law that limits the power of the supreme court. -- R@$T@M@N
Old 06-22-2009, 11:04 PM möbiustrip is offline  
Reply With Quote
#40  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
The same arguments date back all the way to the beginning of the organized labor movement (in the US). They weren't true then (at least to the degree their detractors claimed) so I don't see why they should be any truer today.

Yes they are true. For future reference, see: GM bankruptcy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Foreign auto industries which are held up as a paragon of efficiency (especially asian manufacturers) also have a high degree of unionization. The number of union workers for GM for instance also dropped more than half from the 80's into the early 2000's.

Oh come on. Not nearly to the degree of the North American auto companies, the unions of which by the way have managed to rape them into submission not only by demanding unreasonable compensation, but by setting labour policies that forced over-staffing. This isn't top secret information man, look it up! The UAW and CAW unions are the biggest joke running, and the current auto woes have only highlighted that even more than we already knew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
I'm sure there are some people who take advantage of unions but if my choices are unionized or non-unionized industry I'll pick the unionized every time because it has a better result for the workers.



Yes, "some".

And who wouldn't pick the union job? I'd love to be able to fuck up and do nothing all day and not worry about losing my job. As a matter of fact, I'd love to be able to do that AND be granted major pay and benefits at the same time to do it!
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 06-23-2009, 04:02 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#41  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Great point. Which is why the government should be controlled by those who work for the interests of the workers instead of the corporations. If a company moves its production overseas due to a strike then the government should place heavy tariffs and/or fine the corporation until the company decides it's more profitable to work with unions and/or a union friendly company replaces them.

Yeah, that makes sense, because you know the company wont just say "fuck it" and move ALL operations overseas.

Do you even think before you write this shit? Why do you think the government gives incentives to corporations in the first place? The only way they can compete with countries like China that promise cheap non-union labour at 1/10th the cost is by offering corporate incentives to remain competitive here.

I can't believe I actually had to explain that.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 06-23-2009, 04:35 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#42  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
It's in the corporations best interest to spend as little as possible on their workers without impeding production. Beyond keeping profitable enough to ensure continued employment the workers and management have no common interests. Unions help ameliorate this by making the interests of the workers part of the interest of the corporation.

No it's not. It's in the corporation's interest to keep top talent whatever the cost because top talent makes the corporation more competitive. Yes, they want to spend as little as possible. Tough to do when another corporation outbids you for a top brain that just saved them a few million dollars via a process improvement.

Unions in the past have established good legislation with regard to things like worker safety. Today, unions are a pathetic shadow of their former selves, and are currently corrupt, top-heavy corporations themselves.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 06-23-2009, 04:38 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#43  

:ninja:
My cooter sweats, and reeks like rotting sea vermon.
 
:ninja:'s Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xayd View Post
Ma...err BOY Without Job Comments on Others' Jobs

news at 11

I have an excellent job... and it sure beats being part of a big whiny bitch club trying to stop a parcel shipping company from fucking me over
__________________
Use Linux and BSD
Old 06-23-2009, 06:41 PM :ninja: is offline  
Reply With Quote
#44  

Frenetic
 
Frenetic's Avatar
 
Man, I honestly don't know how to feel about this situation now. Somehow I feel if FedEx was suddenly allowed to go into unions FedEx would shut down any branch that would do so.
Old 06-24-2009, 08:32 AM Frenetic is offline  
Reply With Quote
#45  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:59 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.