Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. It's the union's fault for extorting management into capitulation through the threat of a work stoppage. Much of the blame must also be placed upon the U.S. government which has allowed this to happen. If an employee doesn't agree with the benefits and/or compensation provided in the employment contract, then he/she should apply for a job somewhere else. In other contracts, the parties in the contract aren't allowed to change the specifications during performance of the contract, why should employees be able to do so?
In my experience, work stoppages occurred only when the contract was no longer in force or was abrogated by an action by management. As a group, workers have the right to decide if their contract is fair or not. The company usually wants the experienced, hard workers and thus work with the union. Again, this is my experience, but I have seen companies whose management had poor HR practices and they had problems.
In my experience, work stoppages occurred only when the contract was no longer in force or was abrogated by an action by management. As a group, workers have the right to decide if their contract is fair or not. The company usually wants the experienced, hard workers and thus work with the union. Again, this is my experience, but I have seen companies whose management had poor HR practices and they had problems.
The problems typically arise when the "group", or better stated "the union leadership whose salaries rely upon squeezing management" decides the workers are undercompensated and want to change the specifics of the employment agreements betweent the individual employee and the employer. They really have no business injecting themselves in the negotiations between the employer and the employee. The contract you are obviously referring to is the contract between the union and the employer, which should never have been in place to begin with.
The problems typically arise when the "group", or better stated "the union leadership whose salaries rely upon squeezing management" decides the workers are undercompensated and want to change the specifics of the employment agreements betweent the individual employee and the employer. They really have no business injecting themselves in the negotiations between the employer and the employee. The contract you are obviously referring to is the contract between the union and the employer, which should never have been in place to begin with.
Americans are free to have representation. Also, large companies do not want to actually have lawyers for each employees arriving on HR's doorstep for a negotiation, it simplifies everything to have a single negotiation. But we have to disagree on the basic premise that collective bargaining is wrong. As a matter of fact, the US government requires at arms length negotiation for any salary above the local wage determination, which is always years out of date.
It seems odd that very few people object when perhaps thousands of shareholders nominate a single individual or perhaps a small group of individuals to negotiate on their behalf, yet when perhaps thousands of workers do exactly the same thing, the very fabric of society is alleged to be coming undone according to some. How is it that management should have this right to bargain collectively while non-management should not? Seems like a pretty biased and one-sided position to me...
It seems odd that very few people object when perhaps thousands of shareholders nominate a single individual or perhaps a small group of individuals to negotiate on their behalf, yet when perhaps thousands of workers do exactly the same thing, the very fabric of society is alleged to be coming undone according to some. How is it that management should have this right to bargain collectively while non-management should not? Seems like a pretty biased and one-sided position to me...
Because people with capital seem to think that is worth more than work. For all the crying about go get a job, actually working is something to be disdained for some reason and not valued.
Americans are free to have representation. Also, large companies do not want to actually have lawyers for each employees arriving on HR's doorstep for a negotiation, it simplifies everything to have a single negotiation. But we have to disagree on the basic premise that collective bargaining is wrong. As a matter of fact, the US government requires at arms length negotiation for any salary above the local wage determination, which is always years out of date.
I have no problem with collective bargaining. My problem is with the legal leverage behind the union negotiators. The company nor the job belongs to the employees, much less union management. When an individual legally enters into a contract with another individual or entity, the government nor anyone else should have any further input into the execution of the contract unless one of the parties has violated it and mediation is asked for. What gives the unions or anyone else the right to dictate how the company is run, short of ensuring the contracts are enforced? The unions have no direct monetary investment in the company, the employee has no investment after being compensated per the employment contract, and the government has no investment. Only the owners and/or stockholders have invested resources into the company and should have sole control over how it is run and how the employees are compensated.
It seems odd that very few people object when perhaps thousands of shareholders nominate a single individual or perhaps a small group of individuals to negotiate on their behalf, yet when perhaps thousands of workers do exactly the same thing, the very fabric of society is alleged to be coming undone according to some. How is it that management should have this right to bargain collectively while non-management should not? Seems like a pretty biased and one-sided position to me...
I am unconvinced that many or even most people believe that workers should not be able to organize. When there is resistance, it is often motivated by aggressive organizing in areas where the nature of the work itself is only hazily related to the classic image of blue-collar employment (SEIU and AFSCME come to mind). In these cases, maybe there is resistance because the risks undertaken by shareholders are considered greater than those of workers, since the former are sometimes old and infirm, while the latter are often younger and more able, more flexible in where, when, and how they work, less interested in the risk of long-term financial investment, and focused on ways to avoid productivity rather than contributing to the growth of a given institution.
Because people with capital seem to think that is worth more than work. For all the crying about go get a job, actually working is something to be disdained for some reason and not valued.
To be fair, though, don't union officials avoid working every bit as assiduously as investors? And isn't the dream of any savvy person to eventually join the investor class themselves?
To be fair, though, don't union officials avoid working every bit as assiduously as investors? And isn't the dream of any savvy person to eventually join the investor class themselves?
Well I am weird, but I like what I do and I find value in work. I find work a valuable thing for keeping men and women alive and in tune with people. I actually think management work, the union officials work, it is the people who park their money in a company with no connection to the company or the workers other than to expect a profit that do not work. I am not negating their worth, I just feel the workers and the capital are on parity.
Well I am weird, but I like what I do and I find value in work. I find work a valuable thing for keeping men and women alive and in tune with people. I actually think management work, the union officials work, it is the people who park their money in a company with no connection to the company or the workers other than to expect a profit that do not work. I am not negating their worth, I just feel the workers and the capital are on parity.
Your point is well taken. I agree with you that work has intrinsic value.
The sad fact, however, is that workers can be replaced, while capital, once withdrawn, cannot. At least not in our system. That is the crux of the current dilemma facing organized labor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
