Anybody been watching "The Men who Built America" on the history channel. Seems at times unions are a necessary evil. Some of the guys at the top certainly don't seem to give a shit about their workers. More money in their pockets are priority #1, who cares who they have to stomp on to achieve the goal...
I've worked on designs intended for that market that would be operated by union employees. The unions absolutely dictate the end product not the equipment owners. Its the strangest thing to me. In that regard this doesn't surprise me because it seems like the balance of power is very much shifted to union control of union interests.
You beat me to it!:up: Pretty good show. The steel strike in Pittsburg was a perspective I hadnt seen, Pinkertons shooting into a crowd.....the Johnstown thing too.....Frick was a real A-hole. I dont know how true the show is, but Frick beating up the union guy who shot and stabbed him was pretty bad-ass. The thing in Jersey sounds not very smart.....I wonder if any of it is stubborn pride.
Hmmmm. I'm rethinking it now. Your call. It's Friday, so this may get a little dodgy. On a more serious note, how do Unions tell/convince the public that these actions are warranted? What could you possibly say to someone who is without power, hot food, dry clothes, and a roof make this OK?
It's just a single-minded, one way mentality. It doesn't matter what the situation is, the rules must be followed. That's the union way; no critical thinking, no adjustment, no problem solving, just keep plugging away, slow and steady, with no goal other than to make it to 5pm.
That's the best part about the last bit of concessions the UAW had to give. No more union boss plush non-working positions. Even if you are a local leader you work. Not sure how much that is actually working, but great start. My dislike of executives transfers over to the union leaders too. I'm just a little bit more forgiving of the actual workers. Many hard workers. Few bad apples. - Joe P.S. I guess I lied about not posting here again
It all comes down to greed on both sides. The execs and stockholders want X amount of profit. The workers want X amount of pay. Management refuses to budge on profit so they try to short-change the workers. Workers refuse to budge on pay so they organize. Eventually the customers get the shaft because the only way both management and workers get what they want is to raise the price of the end product. At some point, the customers realize they can get a comparable product from somewhere else that's cheaper - profits fall, workers get laid off, management gets laid off, and the company either fails or gets bought out.
Zactly, the unions didn't just come about because the workers were babied. Something had to snap. Hey, I'm only the 2nd richest man in the U.S. I need to be the richest. Cut their pay and make them work 6x12 hour shifts while I go on vacation.....oh then hire some mercenaries to shoot into an unarmed crowd if they don't go along with it....sheeeze...
If you call putting food on the table or paying for your kids college education greed then there is greed on both sides. I prefer to think of greed as I need that 3rd house in the Hamptons or that 4th collectable million dollar car. The difference between the sides is NOT the same. - Joe
I agree about the 3rd house, G6, etc but at the same time, I've seen union workers literally strangle a struggling company to death instead of accepting reduced wages or benefits (after management has made all kinds of cuts, up to and including CEO's working for no pay). Sometimes it takes compromise on both sides. I could write a book about how fucked up modern business/economics has become, but if you had to point to one single thing, it's the remove of the "human-ness" of a company. The advent of corporations, entities that never die, have no compassion, have no morals, and only exist to grow and profit, has done more to harm the workforce and ultimately society in general, than anything else. The lengths they'll go to in order to make even the smallest increase in profit/return for the stockholders is frightening.
RWD - let us know when you figure out/accept the fact that a CEO's inflated salary isn't negotiated or impacted by union vs. non-union. Having Joe Union making an extra $10k doesn't equal $10k less in the CEO's pocket, necessarily. It means that Mr. OVerpaid CEO has to make more $$ for his bosses to justify his pay, so it's more likely those overpaid union jobs go bye-bye. He still gets his either way. The union, on the other hand, just cost themselves by not understanding the actual relationship.
I inadvertently started a thread over there because I only searched the Dungeon before posting. Never thought this topic would be in General. So, for those that want to rant Dungeon style, you have an outlet over there.