Actually Wal-Mart is the Largest employer in America.They also have the largest profits of any corporation in the world.Yet more than 1/2 of their employees have no health care and they have fairly low wages.Obviously they could if they wanted to be decent do better by their employees.Should they have a union to try to bring some equality in power for the employees,of course but don't hold your breath they are very powerful and know how to fight such ideas.They have been convicted of ******* employees to work over-time without pay and other ****** but yet just keep growing world-wide as people do not care about ****** obviously and just care about cheap prices for slave labor goods from places like China.As much as people might complain about companies like Exxon and their profits at least the jobs their are ones with good wages and decent benefits.40 years ago GM was the largest employer in US and now its Wal-Mart,thats scary.And on the issue that GM and others gave their employees to much which is now making them un-competetive,their biggest cost is health care for current and former employees.Health care is out of control cost wise because we allow for profit corporations to run it.The US spends double per person what every other country does and doesn't even cover everyone.Health care needs to be removed from being tied to employment and run sensibly like every other developed country.
Unionized Workers...Good or Bad
- Thread starter Civickiller80
- Start date
Actually Wal-Mart is the Largest employer in America.They also have the largest profits of any corporation in the world.Yet more than 1/2 of their employees have no health care and they have fairly low wages.Obviously they could if they wanted to be decent do better by their employees.Should they have a union to try to bring some equality in power for the employees,of course but don't hold your breath they are very powerful and know how to fight such ideas.They have been convicted of ******* employees to work over-time without pay and other ****** but yet just keep growing world-wide as people do not care about ****** obviously and just care about cheap prices for slave labor goods from places like China.As much as people might complain about companies like Exxon and their profits at least the jobs their are ones with good wages and decent benefits.40 years ago GM was the largest employer in US and now its Wal-Mart,thats scary.And on the issue that GM and others gave their employees to much which is now making them un-competetive,their biggest cost is health care for current and former employees.Health care is out of control cost wise because we allow for profit corporations to run it.The US spends double per person what every other country does and doesn't even cover everyone.Health care needs to be removed from being tied to employment and run sensibly like every other developed country.
I assume you are referring to my post since I was ( I believe) the only one to mention GM in this thread.
I did not type that it has made them un-competitive. I simply typed that GM and Ford may declare bankruptcy to get out of their union contracts.
But yes, I do think it hurts their competitiveness. But I would not necessarily type that it makes them un-competitive.
You mean to fire them whenever they want? I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's their company. They should be able to hire and fire anyone, whenever they feel it is in the best interests of the company.
And as for ******* employees? There are many government and legal resources that ill treated employees can turn to wards.
If they are not sufficient in your opinion, then they need to be improved until they are.
Having companies police themselves is silly and dreaming.
Have unbiased agencies police employers to ensure they perform as they should.
Unions. I lived in a union town. Many of my friends belonged to unions. And they freely admitted that the only way you could get fired from their strong union plant was to basically do something *******.
They could slack off (and did, often), take days off whenever they wished, ***** the products for fun and generally took little pride in what they did.
Yet, I knew of another competitors plant in the same general area that was not unionized. The employees that I spoke to there were far more motivated and worked under far better working conditions as well.
Unions often result in an us versus them mentality. And that helps no one.
If employees are being ill treated, then that should be dealt with by outside, relatively unbiased organizations. Not unions that will almost never except firings as an answer - even when one is clearly warranted.
And since union shop stewards are elected (usually), they have to kiss up to the employees and end up caring far more about pleasing the voters then safely producing a competitive product.
And like it or not; the latter is the best way to ensure secure jobs and solid wages.
Unions still are necessary in certain professions. Or, at least, helpful. But they are an extremely inefficient and often, poorly run way of ensuring employee well being - IMO.
And let's not even start about union corruption.
Speaking strictly from an economic standpoint, Unions are BAD.
A natural market sets it's prices (including that of wages) where supply meets demand. This is where consumerism is at it's peak, and companies operate most efficiently - increasing/decreasing wages, production, and subsequently profits... in a manner equitable to everyone (buyers, sellers, and the workforce).
Enter Unions.
If the fair price (wage) for say, an autoworker is $20/hr but the union has somehow negotiated a rate of $25 at X number of minimum workers (I won't even get into the practices used by Unions to reach this end), the employing company is having it's profits squeezed by $5 an hour for every MANDATORY laborer, when there are scores of laborers who would be willing to work for the lower rate. This is compounded by the other benefits negotiated (pensions, healthcare, etc.) which require profits to subsidize. As another poster mentioned earlier, this is why companies like Ford and GM are in big trouble (add Verizon to that list too - ********* by promised benefits being paid to a huge retired, and ever retiring, work *****).
OTOH, the consumer is also screwed because of the ever increasing prices of goods and services produced by a Unionized workforce, because the employing company has no choice but to charge higher amounts just to stay afloat.
The original idea of a Union was a good one - To protect the honest, hardworking laborer, but their proliferation has become something that is totally unnecessary anymore, and an actual cancer to any economy that operates indigenously on production/consumption.
The natural result is internationalization of workforces which ironically, only serves to fuel greater outcry from the same union advocates that cause the condition in the first place.
A natural market sets it's prices (including that of wages) where supply meets demand. This is where consumerism is at it's peak, and companies operate most efficiently - increasing/decreasing wages, production, and subsequently profits... in a manner equitable to everyone (buyers, sellers, and the workforce).
Enter Unions.
If the fair price (wage) for say, an autoworker is $20/hr but the union has somehow negotiated a rate of $25 at X number of minimum workers (I won't even get into the practices used by Unions to reach this end), the employing company is having it's profits squeezed by $5 an hour for every MANDATORY laborer, when there are scores of laborers who would be willing to work for the lower rate. This is compounded by the other benefits negotiated (pensions, healthcare, etc.) which require profits to subsidize. As another poster mentioned earlier, this is why companies like Ford and GM are in big trouble (add Verizon to that list too - ********* by promised benefits being paid to a huge retired, and ever retiring, work *****).
OTOH, the consumer is also screwed because of the ever increasing prices of goods and services produced by a Unionized workforce, because the employing company has no choice but to charge higher amounts just to stay afloat.
The original idea of a Union was a good one - To protect the honest, hardworking laborer, but their proliferation has become something that is totally unnecessary anymore, and an actual cancer to any economy that operates indigenously on production/consumption.
The natural result is internationalization of workforces which ironically, only serves to fuel greater outcry from the same union advocates that cause the condition in the first place.
On GM in the 80s they asked the unions for some give backs on benefits and the union agreed.The executives then went to the Board of directors and asked for huge bonuses since they had done since a good job getting the employee concessions and of course got them.No wonder their is an Us and them mentality.And just declaring bankruptcy would not void the union contracts if they stayed open,they would have to close their doors and that won't happen.GM actually made money the last quarter.
Companys get huge tax breaks and other benefits from taxpayers.Since they do they should not be allowed to just run their businesses with no regard to the common good.They have polluted our common enviorment with little compensation to the rest of us.And you have not even touched on the Wall-Mart example,biggest profits but low wages and 1/2 without health care.Govt is obviously not going to ***** them to do the right thing so the little guy(the workers) only chance to demand fair treatment would be to organize as by themselves they will have no chance against the power and clout of the ownership.
Are you suggesting that a "tax break", which is an incentive to actually encourage healthy business, is a motivator to mistreat employees? Are you serious???? Tax breaks are retroactive benefits - If a poorly run company mistreated their employees, there WOULD BE NO TAX BREAKS if they were to go out of business. This makes no sense whatsoever.
Who are you talking about? There are plenty of companies that pollute the environment while they employ unionized labor. In fact, probably more of the latter than the former. Again, I don't understand your point at all. Especially if you are suggesting that companies should pay to clean up their messes (which I agree with), having a more expensive labor ***** is NOT going to help that happen!
Walmart hires ******* workers because the wages and benefits required of a Unionized workforce cost more. As I said before, if you are concerned with bad employment conditions, don't organize and artificially inflate the natural conditions/costs of employment which encourages companies to go out and do the very thing you are complaining about.
My point about tax breaks is that they "owe" something to society for the benefits they are given.Tax breaks are not always "retroactive",many communities/states give breaks up front as inducements to locate in particular areas.Who said companys who mistreat employees are neccesarily "poorly run" at least as far as the owners interests are concerned.Wal-mart isn't the best place to work but makes a fortune.Again on the pollution issue it was the point that they are not just entities which should be allowed to operate in only their own interest with no regard for society as a whole.On wal-mart I never mentioned ******* workers and the notion that unions "artifically inflate" wages is ridiculous.What they do is give workers the right to bargain on some sort of more level playing field against the obvious clout and power the employer posseses.Wal-mart could easily afford to pay better and give health care,they just don't because the workers are in no position to effectively negotitate for those benefits without being organized.The question of illegals and the exploitation of them by employers and the downward effect it has on all wages is a separate issue,which can only be fixed by immigration reform.
No, they don't. Companies who are given tax breaks are given these to encourage employment and provide a revenue base for a community workforce. They still pay taxes to pay for infrastrucutre you depend on, pay/contribue to your right to benefits (medicare, medicaid, welfare, employee compensation/hardship funds - you live in NJ, look at your paycheck).
They don't OWE society anything above their legal obligations. A tax break is not a legal obligation to owe society anything.
Nobody pays or is refunded taxes upfront. All companies, whether incentivised or not, must collect taxes and account for taxes. The break/discount is enjoyed later. And at best, it's a reduced cost to a business' operating overhead - it's not a profit *********.
You did, and advocated unions as a means for rectifying. But because Unions are legal, and yet it's also legal for Wal-Nart NOT to employ unionized labor, how do you propose they benefit employees who have no social security ID and/or citizenship? Anyone who DOES have those things, doesn't have to work at Wal-Mart. But you can't blame or fault them for taking advantage of a labor condition (ironically - created by Unions) while condemning them for not just handing out benefits without any means for accountability.
Still makes no sense on a thread discussing union labor.
What do you not understand about Union wages not being determined naturally? A contract and negotiated wage that is committed to over a period of time DOES NOT adjust to conditions. Do you understand that? Whether cars are selling or not - Whether a company can AFFORD to produce or not, a Unionized workforce demands payment REGARDLESS... under terms of a contract. An ammedment or concession requires MORE DISCUSSION and MORE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. And it's post-hoc. It does not adjust freely. That, by definition, makes it artificial and inflated.
First of all, the largest employers of Unionized labor have very little power or clout. They have ENORMOUS debt obligations, regardless of how successful they may be today, they are obligated to pay for a workforce that is long gone and always leaving. We also have laws and organizations in this country which protect the worker (even illegals). An "even playing field" would be employment negotiated between employer and employee, and on-going compensation/employment based on performance and results.
Enter the illegals. If you and your co-workers want to organize - organize. But my bet is you find a pink slip in your next check for being disuptive, and a non-noise maker happy to do your job for less is waiting to fill in.
Yep. Wal-Mart also just so happens to be one of the largest, if not the largest, employers of ******* workers. And they've gotten so good at it, they've taken the act overseas.
If you don't like a company that doesn't employ non-unionized labor, you have the right to not purchase their product. A company who doesn't have customers will not stick around long and certainly won't be this "omnipotent" *****, bullying around its workers.
But prescribing Unionization for the employment practices of companies like Wal-Mart is like prescribing chewing tobacco to someone with lung cancer.
I respect your opinions and feelings on the subject - I just don't agree with them.
I respect your opinions and feelings on the subject - I just don't agree with them.
The only thing we will agree on I think on this subject at least.
i votedno opinion only because union are good tor the workers but bad for the employer and ultimately for the consumer. union labor drives up the cost of goods.
Please explain. Or don't, just allow me to retort. Perhaps if they didn't exist there would be even less poor people in our country. Perhaps we would still have some manufacturing jobs and all of our steel wouldn't be imported from Japan. Perhaps our car companies could have remained competitive, not gone bankrupt, and been bailed out by our government (the worst union of all). Perhaps Ford, GM, and Chrysler wouldn't have stood by idly as Toyota zipped past them as the Number 1 car manufacturer in the world.
All of this and more has happened as an alarming number of our manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. This has turned our country into nothing more than a service economy and widened the gap between the rich and the poor. Skilled labor now has no place to go. They're not gonna become insurance salesman, and they're not gonna practice law so what do they do? They become even more poor.
Johann Splooge
Closed Account
forget unions, big business should be the focus of conversation. business interest have gone wild in the usa so more money in the hands of a few. it is not so bad because places with these extreme differences in wealth put out good porn also eastern europe. ever wonder why there are so few swedish sluts sucking cock for money?
well, my post seemed to have been ignored, but that was one of my huge gripes. the legality of "firing for any cause" allows the company to commit ******* acts against their employees and then fire them if they try and do something about it. that seems like a wholly contradictory policy, and that's why I am not in favor of it. Even at my job an employee was demoted behind his back, they didn't even tell him about it, because he complained about some of the issues I've discussed. that's perfectly legal, but how can you say that is justifiable?
also that statement is entirely contradictory to your own beliefs that you've expressed before, in regards to michael vick, saying that companies should not be allowed to refuse employment to people based on thier non-work life, and have to show that it will hurt thier company to do so. So which one is it? should they be allowed to hire or fire whenever they want to, or should they have to provide sufficient cause?
and who are those? I don't really see that being done, do you?
Isn't that what a union is trying to do?
another example of the stupidity, I was hired at a job and after working there for two weeks my boss said that I couldn't have long hair and peirced ears and told me to go home. when I came back later to pick up my pay check, I asked them if they put down that I had quit, or whether they fired me and they said that they had fired me.
Calpoon I wasn't ignoring your post just had nothing to add to it.It was very good I thought and think you have well reasoned POV.
haha. well thanks friday... but that wasn't directed at you, that was someone elses post that I qouted. I didn't really think that my post was ignored, just that I had brought that issue up, and then later on people started talking about it again.
I can see the problems that we have with unions today. But seeing that it was unions that created the 8 hour day, stopped ***** labor, and created the minimum wage, I don't see how it can be said that they are the cause of economic fluctuation, when there main concern is trying to keep a stable economy by implemting standards (and help the workers of course.)
I also don't get the argument that more paid employees = higher costs of consumer goods. while that may be true in some respects, lower wages and lower consumer costs doesn't make a difference either, because then it's just the same thing. Really the argument there is that the cost of production is the key factor in market value, but we all know that that is not true. Supply and demand is the motivator. Look at the gas industry. the costs of labor and manufacture rarely changes drastically, but the prices are always flucutating. that's because they purposely try and play the market that way. if it's too expensive all the time then they will lose money in the long run, but someo people will still pay it, so they can charge a lot in the short run, make money, and then lower the price so that people won't become dissatisfied and they willa ctaully buy more when they say "gas has gone down! what a deal!."
I can see the problems that we have with unions today. But seeing that it was unions that created the 8 hour day, stopped ***** labor, and created the minimum wage, I don't see how it can be said that they are the cause of economic fluctuation, when there main concern is trying to keep a stable economy by implemting standards (and help the workers of course.)
I also don't get the argument that more paid employees = higher costs of consumer goods. while that may be true in some respects, lower wages and lower consumer costs doesn't make a difference either, because then it's just the same thing. Really the argument there is that the cost of production is the key factor in market value, but we all know that that is not true. Supply and demand is the motivator. Look at the gas industry. the costs of labor and manufacture rarely changes drastically, but the prices are always flucutating. that's because they purposely try and play the market that way. if it's too expensive all the time then they will lose money in the long run, but someo people will still pay it, so they can charge a lot in the short run, make money, and then lower the price so that people won't become dissatisfied and they willa ctaully buy more when they say "gas has gone down! what a deal!."
I assume you are not quoting me when you type 'firing for any cause'. Because I (think I) did not type it.
I typed:
'You mean to fire them whenever they want? I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.'
I assume it was obvious that I did not mean if they were firing them for ******* reasons.
My point is that the day it becomes economically unprofitable to keep a certain employee on then they should be able to fire/lay off that employee immediately.
Interesting.
I typed this about Vick (in this context):
'To deny someone employment because of things that have absolutely nothing to do with that employment is none of the employer's business. Also, a league like the NFL is not Vick's employer. The Atlanta Falcons are. The league is only an organization that the Falcons belong to.
Now if the owner(s) of the Atlanta Falcons can prove in a court or law that Micheal Vick's dealings with the law will cost them a noticeable amount of money more then Vick brings to the club; then I can understand if the Falcons wish to terminate their dealings with Vick - and thusly get out of their contractual obligation to him. But then Vick should be able to go to any other team and work for them if they choose to hire him.
I personally believe that the NFL should have zero say in suspending a player outside of on field play/behaviour.'
My arguement was that what Vick does off of the field has nothing to do with playing football. UNLESS it can be reasonably proven (proven since they have a contract with him and Vick is in the NFL players union) that to continue his employment would cause more financial loss then gain.
Where is this contradiction you typed of?
The same goes for 'regular' jobs. I believe if I am an alcoholic that as long as I never show up to work ***** or am ever caught consuming ******* on duty, that it is none of my employers business.
My understanding is that we have some up here in Canada. I guess you don't have enough down there.
I have no problem with unions looking out for their employees legal and safety issues. None at all. But pretty much anything else is none of their business, IMO.
But in terms of health care? Why is it the employers responsibility to take care of their employees medical needs? Why can't the employees get together with other employees and buy their own medical/dental insurance?
And guaranteed jobs? There are certain companies that are obligated to keep certain numbers of people employed no matter if they are needed or not. That is NO way to properly run a business.
Employers have an obligation to pay workers a fair wage and make sure that these workers are treated with basic human rights (and hopefully as equals) and are employed in safe manners. That is it.
They owe them nothing else (to my knowledge).
You don't like it? I didn't like it either when I worked for others. That is the main reason I do not and hopefully never will again work for someone else.
Unions are a collective cancer eating away at the American economy. They are more concerned with paychecks, bonuses and regimented coffee breaks than they are with the profitability of the company that keeps them employed. Just look at what the American Axle strike did. It caused layoffs and shutdowns all through the supply chain. I worked a convention at a conference center that is being ********* by a stageworkers union. I have never seen a group of people so hell-bent on stonewalling a client... They were slow and lazy, and they didn't care if the job got done or not. They just wanted to make sure they got their coffee breaks and they wanted to make sure they didn't clock out one minute too late.
Unions ****** a self-centered, entitlement mentality that is crippling the workplace. Bust 'em all!
Unions ****** a self-centered, entitlement mentality that is crippling the workplace. Bust 'em all!
angelfire1972
Banned
unions (sindicatos in spanish) most of the times are a plague against the free trade
you bumped this thread just to gripe about unions, scooter?
I can see your point and that is a valid one.
But I guess that I feel like the reason that workers don't care about the company is that they feel like the company doesn't care about them and that they don't have any real stake in their labor or there production. the most common complaint you will ever hear on a job is "Why should I work harder? I'm not getting anything out of it."
worker injustice has made company loyalty a thing of the past. when a company lays off it's employees to cut cost, that makes it hard to build a loyal relationship among workers. If you want people to work harder than just the bare minimum, you need to offer an incentive that gives them more than just the bare minimum.
And sometimes all it takes is coffee breaks and a dependable schedule. that tells the workers that the company cares about them and pays attention to their needs, and it really isn't hard or a sacrifice on the part of the company to do that. On the other hand, without those things, it creates a huge gap in uncertainty. They say, "I can't even get a coffee break or leave on time, things that don't even really matter, so how are they going to think about me when it comes to big things like retirement or on the job injury?"
I can see your point and that is a valid one.
But I guess that I feel like the reason that workers don't care about the company is that they feel like the company doesn't care about them and that they don't have any real stake in their labor or there production. the most common complaint you will ever hear on a job is "Why should I work harder? I'm not getting anything out of it."
worker injustice has made company loyalty a thing of the past. when a company lays off it's employees to cut cost, that makes it hard to build a loyal relationship among workers. If you want people to work harder than just the bare minimum, you need to offer an incentive that gives them more than just the bare minimum.
And sometimes all it takes is coffee breaks and a dependable schedule. that tells the workers that the company cares about them and pays attention to their needs, and it really isn't hard or a sacrifice on the part of the company to do that. On the other hand, without those things, it creates a huge gap in uncertainty. They say, "I can't even get a coffee break or leave on time, things that don't even really matter, so how are they going to think about me when it comes to big things like retirement or on the job injury?"
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Question
