The Employee Free Choice Act

[Nique]

If you are interested I can contact my friend who is a union organiser and an American labour historian to see if he knows of any national bodies that could give you information on such fields.

Sure. Although I hope to simply get out of tech support & call center environments in general, I have a huge problem with the way such places are run. I think it'd certainly be info worth having.

[BitVyper]

Originally Posted by Nique

Sure. Although I hope to simply get out of tech support & call center environments in general, I have a huge problem with the way such places are run. I think it'd certainly be info worth having.

You're not one of those people who thinks humans should actually have some basic rights, are you? I bet you think employers should show a bare minimum of respect to their employees too.

Goddamn first world types.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Question about unions.

I've been indoctrinated my entire life into thinking unions are eeeeeevil. A few examples: My dad blames the UAW for the bankruptcies of GM among others, saying that them arguing their wages/pensions/benefits higher led to their eventual fall. I've also heard they drive companies to outsource and they have a way of strongarming people into signing off on a union, and that this legislation would only make it easier.

Of course I've heard arguments for and against. Some saying that unions save the American worker, while others say they are leading to the destruction of the U.S. economy. I'm so confused it's mindboggling.

And another thing, I know plenty of small business owners and none of them rule their employees with an iron fist (including my dad). All I hear on this board are stories of satan-like bosses where unions are essential. Just pointing out that I might be a product of my environment and as a consequence might have a bias.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

Question about unions.

I've been indoctrinated my entire life into thinking unions are eeeeeevil. A few examples: My dad blames the UAW for the bankruptcies of GM among others, saying that them arguing their wages/pensions/benefits higher led to their eventual fall. I've also heard they drive companies to outsource and they have a way of strongarming people into signing off on a union, and that this legislation would only make it easier.

Of course I've heard arguments for and against. Some saying that unions save the American worker, while others say they are leading to the destruction of the U.S. economy. I'm so confused it's mindboggling.

Unions are a piss-poor excuse to outsource, and a paper-thin one to boot. Companies outsource so they can pay foreign labor pennies a day to do the same work that Americans would ask a living wage for. Many companies are staunchly anti-union and outsource anyway, despite utterly crushing any attempts to unionize. We're talking things like illegal firings and even murder.

All in all, a union is good for workers, bad for rich bastards hoarding wealth drawn from the ill-gotten blood, sweat, and tears of their lowest employees.

[Azisien]

Ha ha ha.

I know many people that work at the Ford plant in Toronto that make $80/hour. Assembly line workers. They are not in a minority and that is not a living wage. Part of the financial problems right now is generated by that. The issue is not so black and white in any direction.

I agree unions are generally a good thing but the same evils that corrupt the "big bad wealthy men" can eventually corrupt massive unions too. People are people.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Azisien

Ha ha ha.

I know many people that work at the Ford plant in Toronto that make $80/hour. Assembly line workers. They are not in a minority and that is not a living wage. Part of the financial problems right now is generated by that. The issue is not so black and white in any direction.

I agree unions are generally a good thing but the same evils that corrupt the "big bad wealthy men" can eventually corrupt massive unions too. People are people.

I was going to ignore that in favor of the big picture, but yes, Ford is a mess because they let the unions walk all over them. Ford as a company has been in a shambles for years now and should really be put out of its misery, or, y'know, handed off to people equipped to run a business.

[Kepor]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

Question about unions.

I've been indoctrinated my entire life into thinking unions are eeeeeevil. A few examples: My dad blames the UAW for the bankruptcies of GM among others, saying that them arguing their wages/pensions/benefits higher led to their eventual fall. I've also heard they drive companies to outsource and they have a way of strongarming people into signing off on a union, and that this legislation would only make it easier.

Of course I've heard arguments for and against. Some saying that unions save the American worker, while others say they are leading to the destruction of the U.S. economy. I'm so confused it's mindboggling.

And another thing, I know plenty of small business owners and none of them rule their employees with an iron fist (including my dad). All I hear on this board are stories of satan-like bosses where unions are essential. Just pointing out that I might be a product of my environment and as a consequence might have a bias.

As far as outsourcing goes, that would happen regardless of unions, mainly because businesses have to compete with other businesses that outsource. This is even more true in labor-intensive businesses (but not agriculture).

The economic argument against unions is that it raises cost of production, which has to be passed onto consumers, who then buy less, which then lowers total profits. If costs get too high, the company closes, and both employees and employers are out of work.

The social argument for unions is that the balance of power between an individual employee and an employer is so one-sided that employees are forced to compete in a race to the bottom, working for less than a living wage, unsafe conditions, excessive hours, and such.

Republicans tend to argue the economic angle, and Democrats tend to argue the social angle. That's probably why you're confused.

[Magus]

Since before this act it was basically stated to many employees by their employers, that if they even mentioned the word "union" they would fired, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a law stating that workers may learn about unions, talk about unionizing, and unionize if they wish, without fear of immediate dismissal.

Not sure about anyone else who worked minimum wage jobs as a teenager but McDonald's for example tells its employees right out that anyone involved in unionizing will be fired immediately. McDonald's of course is one of the companies most threatened by something like unionization because they can't outsource their jobs to another country. Wal-Mart is another company who can't outsource their jobs, and hey, look, extremely anti-union. Not that there aren't lots of companies that can outsource, but there are exceptions, and even with outsourcing being a paper-thin excuse for some companies, for others, its not an option at all. What is an option is the unfair and immediate dismissal of employees based entirely around pro-union leanings, and if a law can remove this I see no negatives that do not outweigh the great positives of allowing workers to negotiate for better pay and working conditions without fear or reprisal. You always have to ask in any situation, "who benefits", and the fact of the matter is that 99% of the time, when unionization is not an option for employees, owners and employers win out and employees lose out.

[Gorefiend]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

I've been indoctrinated my entire life into thinking unions are eeeeeevil. A few examples: My dad blames the UAW for the bankruptcies of GM among others, saying that them arguing their wages/pensions/benefits higher led to their eventual fall. I've also heard they drive companies to outsource and they have a way of strongarming people into signing off on a union, and that this legislation would only make it easier.

And another thing, I know plenty of small business owners and none of them rule their employees with an iron fist (including my dad). All I hear on this board are stories of satan-like bosses where unions are essential. Just pointing out that I might be a product of my environment and as a consequence might have a bias.

I'll treat the two paragraphs separately.

1) In that particular case he's absolutely right. The union contracts that the UAW demands are WAY out of line with the entire rest of the world, and, frankly, with reality; automakers are required to keep paying their retirees' healthcare costs for life. In today's world, that means a shitton of expensive procedures, drugs, facilities... When the contracts were drafted, it meant antibiotics, a few surgeries, and the occasional placebo. That's without mentioning the differences in life expectancy from then to now.

2) Bear in mind that unions are as much a historical as an economic phenomenon; in the past, factory conditions were brutal, strikes were met with military responses, and wages were piss-poor. Upward mobility--and the promise of the American Dream--were impossible. In that environment, unions were great. As for today, well, there are still places that don't want to offer the right benefits, that endanger their workers with bad conditions, or that offer piss-poor wages.

Originally Posted by Kepor

The economic argument against unions is that it raises cost of production, which has to be passed onto consumers, who then buy less, which then lowers total profits. If costs get too high, the company closes, and both employees and employers are out of work.

The social argument for unions is that the balance of power between an individual employee and an employer is so one-sided that employees are forced to compete in a race to the bottom, working for less than a living wage, unsafe conditions, excessive hours, and such.

Republicans tend to argue the economic angle, and Democrats tend to argue the social angle. That's probably why you're confused.

An addendum: a possible economic argument for unions is that if employers give their employees higher wages, they would be able to afford to buy the products they are making (or others), which would translate to higher sales and profits for the company and all those around it. Sure, maybe not the same astronomical profits they'd see if they could buy labor at (at times literally) pennies/hour, but they'd be making profits and benefiting their society while they're at it.

[01d55]

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

I'll treat the two paragraphs separately.

As shall I.

1) In that particular case he's absolutely right. The union contracts that the UAW demands are WAY out of line with the entire rest of the world, and, frankly, with reality; automakers are required to keep paying their retirees' healthcare costs for life. In today's world, that means a shitton of expensive procedures, drugs, facilities... When the contracts were drafted, it meant antibiotics, a few surgeries, and the occasional placebo. That's without mentioning the differences in life expectancy from then to now.

Ever relevant:

THE TRAGEDY OF THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
A Play in Three Acts

Dramatis Personae

BIG THREE, a manufacturer of automobiles
UAW, Big Three’s employee
MITT ROMNEY, an idiot

ACT ONE

BIG THREE: I have plans to build automobiles, but I need labor to do so!
UAW: I will labor for you if you will pay me $40 per hour.
BIG THREE: I will not pay you $40 per hour.
UAW: But I need to save for my inevitable retirement, and any health concerns that may arise.
BIG THREE: I will pay you $30 per hour, plus a generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care upon your retirement.
UAW: Then I agree to work for you!

ACT TWO

UAW: I am building cars for you, as I have promised to do!
BIG THREE: I am designing terrible cars that few people want to buy! Also, rather than save for UAW’s inevitable retirement when I will have to pay him the generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care that I promised, I am spending that money under the dubious assumption that my future revenues will be sufficient to meet those obligations.

ACT THREE

UAW: I have fulfilled my end of the deal by building the automobiles that you have asked me to build.
BIG THREE: Oh no! I am undone! My automobiles are no longer competitive due to my years of poor planning and poor judgement!
MITT ROMNEY: This is all UAW’s fault!

2) Bear in mind that unions are as much a historical as an economic phenomenon; in the past, factory conditions were brutal, strikes were met with military responses, and wages were piss-poor. Upward mobility--and the promise of the American Dream--were impossible. In that environment, unions were great. As for today, well, there are still places that don't want to offer the right benefits, that endanger their workers with bad conditions, or that offer piss-poor wages.

You know it's not as if things like upward mobility and job/environmental safety happened by accident. They happened because unions and their political allies fought for them against the spitting rage of rich assholes who own huge corporations, whose efforts to destroy all of those things, along with the unions that made them possible, have not abated.