Unions, are you for or against

[North Buffalo]

So one of the Hospitals I work at may be affected by a strike because Hospital management want to eliminate its contribution to the Unions pension fund.  Folks are not thrilled with idea of a 401k because they don’t often live up to goods workers are sold and can be controlled by management.  NYC area hospital systems could be affected.  Unions have their plusses and minuses but in regards to health insurance and pensions and the reasonable dues make it worthwhile to me.  Still interested in peoples thoughts?

Edited July 9, 2018 by North Buffalo

[LGR4GM]

I am for unions. While they may have some downsides, they are vastly better than being completely screwed over by a multi-national corporation which doesn't care at all about its employees. Wages are better, benefits are better, and overall working conditions are better. There is strength in numbers and sometimes that is all you have is the numbers. 

[LTS]

Unions have the potential to be very good.  They also have the potential to be very bad.  It's pretty much the same as management.  If you have a management structure that is hell bent on screwing its workers then you probably need a union to counteract them.  

The problem is that it creates an adversarial relationship, which by its own definition, is less than efficient.  Two sides spend time fighting each other rather than working towards a common goal.

My father and I used to bang heads on this all the time.  He was in a Union and I would routinely see him get screwed over by the Union.  There were a lot of single guys who didn't care if they were on strike.  Other, more experienced workers with families, had major concern.  So, we routinely suffered the months of no income as the two sides had meetings and ate their meals and yucked it up.  My experience was not positive and by the end of his tenure with the company the routine had worn thin. Eventually the company was sold, and sold again, and sold again.  He managed to retire during one of the transitions but it was no fun.

I've never been in a Union.  I never needed to be in one.  I don't feel like I get screwed over.  That said, I am aware of situations where without Unions people would be screwed over.  I've worked hard enough to make sure I would not need to be in a Union.  I've worked to make sure that I didn't fall into that situation that my father was in.  So for me, my view of Unions isn't very positive.

That said, I recognize for others that without them they might have had it worse.

[North Buffalo]

My experience the last 5 years and the first time I’ve ever been in one has been positive for the most part.  Again see above and SEIU is one of the largest. 

[LGR4GM]

41 minutes ago, LTS said:

Unions have the potential to be very good.  They also have the potential to be very bad.  It's pretty much the same as management.  If you have a management structure that is hell bent on screwing its workers then you probably need a union to counteract them.  

The problem is that it creates an adversarial relationship, which by its own definition, is less than efficient.  Two sides spend time fighting each other rather than working towards a common goal.

My father and I used to bang heads on this all the time.  He was in a Union and I would routinely see him get screwed over by the Union.  There were a lot of single guys who didn't care if they were on strike.  Other, more experienced workers with families, had major concern.  So, we routinely suffered the months of no income as the two sides had meetings and ate their meals and yucked it up.  My experience was not positive and by the end of his tenure with the company the routine had worn thin. Eventually the company was sold, and sold again, and sold again.  He managed to retire during one of the transitions but it was no fun.

I've never been in a Union.  I never needed to be in one.  I don't feel like I get screwed over.  That said, I am aware of situations where without Unions people would be screwed over.  I've worked hard enough to make sure I would not need to be in a Union.  I've worked to make sure that I didn't fall into that situation that my father was in.  So for me, my view of Unions isn't very positive.

That said, I recognize for others that without them they might have had it worse.

So I need a Union because I haven't worked hard enough? 

 

To the first bolded. UUP didn't have a new contract for three years. No one went on strike or rioted or anything. They continued working with the state and just got a new deal done that everyone can work with. Doesn't sound adversarial although I am sure at times it was. That is because workers have different interests then companies. It's important. 

Edited July 9, 2018 by LGR4GM

[North Buffalo]

My other job we were without a contract for about a year and it finally got worked out.  Agree strike is not necessary.  Depends on negotiations. From what I understand management is trying to play hardball so hence the strike threatening... not in the room so not sure what is happening but SCOTUS recent ruling can’t help.

Edited July 9, 2018 by North Buffalo

[That Aud Smell]

Unions are imperfect, obviously.

But Lord help us if they didn't exist.

[Randall Flagg]

Is it reasonable to be swayed by arguments that public sector unions are a whole different animal from private sector ones?

[LTS]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

So I need a Union because I haven't worked hard enough? 

 

To the first bolded. UUP didn't have a new contract for three years. No one went on strike or rioted or anything. They continued working with the state and just got a new deal done that everyone can work with. Doesn't sound adversarial although I am sure at times it was. That is because workers have different interests then companies. It's important. 

I would say yes.  I know it sounds strange but to a certain degree, yes.  It's not the same as not being a hard worker.  But, in some sense, people in Unions need them because they haven't put in the work to be able to operate independently or choose not to do so.

I have chosen a path that allows me to operate more independently.  At the moment I still am beholden to the whims of a large corporation.  I recognize I can be fired for any reason.  But my path is of my own choosing.  Generally speaking I make sure I work harder than others and demonstrate more value.  To this point, that has been a good strategy.

I don't think anyone would argue that one of the flaws of Unions is that it protects those who don't work as hard.  They level the playing field for ALL workers and as such the one's who stand out are sometimes brought down a peg while those who play the system continue to be employed.  I'm not arguing there aren't internal union pressures to those people who tend to not put in their fair share, but when the Union needs to face the Corporation, that person is as protected as the star worker. 

We all know that corporations and unions CAN work out their differences without a strike.  However, the strike is a negotiating tactic and the willingness to strike will vary from union to union based on its constituency.

 

[LGR4GM]

So I didn't work hard enough at what precisely?

[LTS]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

So I didn't work hard enough at what precisely?

• Not being interdependent or independent of corporate greed.
• Not being reliant upon a Union to hopefully represent your needs over the needs of others in the Union.

All of that said, if you are happy with your situation then that's fine.  My statement extends to the fact that is takes a lot of work to get yourself into a position where you aren't dependent on a corporate structure or depending on a Union to make sure you don't get screwed by the corporate structure.

 

[Ogre]

7 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

Unions are imperfect, obviously.

But Lord help us if they didn't exist.

I’m a 22 year Union member and I’m choosing your post to quote because it’s simple and true. 

I’ve served all sorts of offices. I’m currently the senior apprentice instructor, Recording Secretary and District Counci rep. You’re right. Unions aren’t perfect.

 

[Ogre]

52 minutes ago, LTS said:

• Not being interdependent or independent of corporate greed.
• Not being reliant upon a Union to hopefully represent your needs over the needs of others in the Union.

All of that said, if you are happy with your situation then that's fine.  My statement extends to the fact that is takes a lot of work to get yourself into a position where you aren't dependent on a corporate structure or depending on a Union to make sure you don't get screwed by the corporate structure.

 

 I actually dropped out of the chemical engineering program at Clarkson to join my union. Being able to retire at 55 with $4G/month for life in addition to my healthy annuity, paid health care and my middle aged youth to start another career. 

It’s not a fall back for dum dums. 

If there were more unions and more friendly legislation, it would be the same safe life choice that really made America great. 

I teach Labor history. It’s rich. It really was the one thing that made the life we know possible.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

• Not being interdependent or independent of corporate greed.
• Not being reliant upon a Union to hopefully represent your needs over the needs of others in the Union.

All of that said, if you are happy with your situation then that's fine.  My statement extends to the fact that is takes a lot of work to get yourself into a position where you aren't dependent on a corporate structure or depending on a Union to make sure you don't get screwed by the corporate structure.

 

So teachers don't work hard? 

[LTS]

13 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

So teachers don't work hard? 

Some of them don't.  This isn't even in question.  My wife was a teacher.  I have a lot of teacher friends and a lot of administrator friends. There are teachers who work hard.  There are teachers who care.  There are also a lot of teachers who are there to collect the paycheck and are barely capable of teaching.  They are protected by the union, despite many of their fellow teachers wishing they could be removed.

When it comes to lesson planning, team work, etc. The teachers who work really don't like the one's who don't put in the same effort.

14 hours ago, Ogre said:

 I actually dropped out of the chemical engineering program at Clarkson to join my union. Being able to retire at 55 with $4G/month for life in addition to my healthy annuity, paid health care and my middle aged youth to start another career. 

It’s not a fall back for dum dums. 

If there were more unions and more friendly legislation, it would be the same safe life choice that really made America great. 

I teach Labor history. It’s rich. It really was the one thing that made the life we know possible.

The key is striking the perfect balance between taking care of employees and running a business.  I understand your choice.  How protected are those benefits?  In order to to continue to fund those benefits for you someone must be still paying for them.

You read articles like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2017/01/27/in-unprecedented-move-pension-plan-approves-benefit-cuts-for-retired-iron-workers/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2c964b5241d0

And you wonder, how much control do you have over your future?

If the money was in YOUR account and you were drawing from a 401k for example you'd not be subjected to the decisions of others.  In your case you paid into a fund that is managed by others and manages the fund as a whole for a group.  As such it is beholden to the group and not you.  If the group aligns with your needs then there is no problem, but as soon as that changes... you are stuck.

If you have been able to take the money that you paid into those funds and instead fund your own accounts would you be better or worse off at the moment?

Unions are important for finding a balance with corporate operations.  At the same time, that does not make them necessary. A corporation can provide the same benefits without a Union ever having existed.  The problem is, as people will point out, that it rarely happens.  So, we enter into an adversarial relationship in which two sides argue for how much of the relative success of the company should each be entitled to.

But, in global economics, when a Union demands too much compensation here the corporation can choose to move its operations to a more business friendly country.  So those Unions workers are left looking for work and end up with 0% of the pie.

[LGR4GM]

You didn't answer the question. You claim that you have to work hard otherwise you need a Union. So which is it? Can you work hard and still be in a union or have you not worked hard enough?

[LTS]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

You didn't answer the question. You claim that you have to work hard otherwise you need a Union. So which is it? Can you work hard and still be in a union or have you not worked hard enough?

No, I am quite certain I said, "I have worked hard enough to make sure that I do not need to be in a Union."  I then followed up by saying that people either have not worked hard enough to run a business on their own or choose not to do so.

At no point, and I've underscored this at every turn, did I said it had to do with being a hard worker.  You can work hard and be in a Union.  And as I said before, you must work harder if you don't want to be in that Union.

Let's try this another way... let's assume a person has a certain level of work ethic.  That is to say the output of their work will equal X. 

Those who wish to not be beholden to corporate structures must be their own boss.  The requirement to be their own boss would add Y to the equation.  They will still accomplish X because that's who they are.

Those who wish to work in an environment where the Union represents their needs will still have a work output of X, but they will not have the Y.

Those who wish to work in an environment where no Union exists but are not their own boss will still have a work output of X.  They will also not be protected by a Union looking out for them.

As I referenced, I work in a corporate structure.  One that is seeing a routine system of layoffs across the industry, not just within my company.  I protect myself by working harder and adding more value to the corporation than my co-workers.  There is no guarantee that will be enough and I accept that.  I also run a side business which I could potentially turn into a full-time business if needed.  I also have a skill set that would allow me to move elsewhere if needed and gain employment.  I have worked hard enough to put myself in that position.

The Union provides a certain level of protection against those layoffs.  It also may protect someone who does not work as hard as someone else should a layoff be required.

The ultimate bottom line of course is to be your own boss, which, in general, is the hardest amount of work overall (and also the greatest risk).

[LGR4GM]

Then in this case you are completely ignoring entire sections of the economy which are not businesses but have unions. For the record, you have now added "run a business" to this. It was not in the original point. 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

You originally said the following "I've never been in a Union.  I never needed to be in one.  I don't feel like I get screwed over.  That said, I am aware of situations where without Unions people would be screwed over.  I've worked hard enough to make sure I would not need to be in a Union.  I've worked to make sure that I didn't fall into that situation that my father was in.  So for me, my view of Unions isn't very positive." To which I queried about getting clarification about having to work harder and asked So I need a Union because I haven't worked hard enough. You then responded with this and I quote "I would say yes.  I know it sounds strange but to a certain degree, yes.  It's not the same as not being a hard worker.  But, in some sense, people in Unions need them because they haven't put in the work to be able to operate independently or choose not to do so." 

Again this ignores entire things. Your example only applies to business which you are now adding into your original statement. It ignores other areas. The original premise of you have to work hard otherwise you need a Union is false and falls flat. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by LGR4GM

[LTS]

17 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Then in this case you are completely ignoring entire sections of the economy which are not businesses but have unions. For the record, you have now added "run a business" to this. It was not in the original point. 

 

 

Running a business is the ultimate level of independence.  You are your own boss and responsible for your own outcomes.  It's not the only level.

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You originally said the following "I've never been in a Union.  I never needed to be in one.  I don't feel like I get screwed over.  That said, I am aware of situations where without Unions people would be screwed over.  I've worked hard enough to make sure I would not need to be in a Union.  I've worked to make sure that I didn't fall into that situation that my father was in.  So for me, my view of Unions isn't very positive." To which I queried about getting clarification about having to work harder and asked So I need a Union because I haven't worked hard enough. You then responded with this and I quote "I would say yes.  I know it sounds strange but to a certain degree, yes.  It's not the same as not being a hard worker.  But, in some sense, people in Unions need them because they haven't put in the work to be able to operate independently or choose not to do so." 

Again this ignores entire things. Your example only applies to business which you are now adding into your original statement. It ignores other areas. The original premise of you have to work hard otherwise you need a Union is false and falls flat. 

You NEED a Union is different from wanting to be in a Union.  You NEED a Union if you are beholden to corporate greed and cannot easily transfer your skillsets into another industry that would remove you from that situation.  You NEED a Union if you are not a hard worker and want to have additional protections against losing your job because of it.

As for ignoring entire things and you reference it from above.  What Unions am I missing?

[LGR4GM]

Education. I don't need a union because of the reasons you're expressing. You're applying your corporate thinking to everything which doesn't work. 

[LTS]

16 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Education. I don't need a union because of the reasons you're expressing. You're applying your corporate thinking to everything which doesn't work. 

Education is a business.  Even a non-profit corporation is..... a corporation.  They have revenue, expenses, tax filings, etc.  They are a business.

Let's replace every time i used corporate with "management".  Does that help?

In other Union news... and NYS news... and government interference news...

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/10/post-janus-public-sector-unions-want-tax

[LGR4GM]

So if you are in education than your ultimate goal is to what? Run a school? 

5 hours ago, LTS said:

Education is a business.  Even a non-profit corporation is..... a corporation.  They have revenue, expenses, tax filings, etc.  They are a business.

Let's replace every time i used corporate with "management".  Does that help?

 

It does nothing because I think your argument is severely flawed in countless aspects. You said I need a Union because I have not worked hard enough. That was your original working hypothesis and yet every time I push the subject you come back with the same. The point of work is to be an owner. So if I were an educator I would need to own a school otherwise I need a union because I didn't work hard enough? 

Edited July 11, 2018 by LGR4GM

[LTS]

No.  The point of work is to not be an owner.  You have missed what I was saying, clearly I have failed in getting my point across.

Let's address this specific to teaching because that's what you've had in your mind all along.

As a public school teacher, until recently, you would have to be in a Union.  When the time came for cuts, it may be that the harder working teacher was still cut.  However, because that teacher is a good one, (worked hard, etc.) there is a good chance they didn't NEED the Union.  They could potentially go to private school.  They could start their own business tutoring.  They could do a lot of things that a teacher who didn't work as hard wouldn't necessarily have the options to do.  That said, I know quite a few teachers who have pushed themselves into school administration because they didn't want to deal with the Union.  So, they did work hard enough to no longer be beholden to the Union, albeit by a different path.

My point about ownership is that it is the only scenario where you are not beholden to the "management" because you are "management". 

[North Buffalo]

On 7/11/2018 at 11:01 PM, LTS said:

No.  The point of work is to not be an owner.  You have missed what I was saying, clearly I have failed in getting my point across.

Let's address this specific to teaching because that's what you've had in your mind all along.

As a public school teacher, until recently, you would have to be in a Union.  When the time came for cuts, it may be that the harder working teacher was still cut.  However, because that teacher is a good one, (worked hard, etc.) there is a good chance they didn't NEED the Union.  They could potentially go to private school.  They could start their own business tutoring.  They could do a lot of things that a teacher who didn't work as hard wouldn't necessarily have the options to do.  That said, I know quite a few teachers who have pushed themselves into school administration because they didn't want to deal with the Union.  So, they did work hard enough to no longer be beholden to the Union, albeit by a different path.

My point about ownership is that it is the only scenario where you are not beholden to the "management" because you are "management". 

The problem I have with your assumption is that Unions are only there to prevent folks from getting fired.  Unions do insure if not sometimes an overburden for a struggling company going thru a bad business cycle, a fair process for relieving someone of their position.  But that is only a part of what they do.  They provide that employees get affordable health insurance.  Retirement plans or pensions separate from or secure from company mismanagement though depending on the agreement that can still happen.  But it is a firewall to prevent it and allows for employees to be secure if they choose not to work overtime especially if family concerns prevent it.  It allows for an employee not be a singular voice when negotiating pay with a large corporation.  I think your depiction of a Union is a bit cherry picking some of the difficulties with Unions without acknowledging the benefits.  Including a stable properly credentialed workforce which a Union often provides.