Are unions feasible today?

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
True enough, work is about negotiation and responsibility.

Originally posted by Mindship
This is a fair statement. IMO, these are essential for attempting some measure of balanced resolution of competing needs.

I always consider myself working with someone in a position of authority to me and not working for them. I will follow the management structure; however, its unlikely a dictatorial management style will get the best from staff. It's not something i've ever used.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The company owns the company, sure, but it still has to deal and negotiate with it's employees and suppliers.

Would it make you feel better if you thought of the union as a company? A labour company renting out it's workforce to companies, both companies trying to get the best deal? Because that's in essence (though in practice convoluted) what's happening.

Employees have their rights and so do consumers, but when any of them don't like what they are getting, they will go somewhere else. Companies have that right too. That's really what it boils down to.

I don't know how much of this has been covered but to me in my opinion.

Unions were extremely useful but like many organizations who attained their original goals have started to overvalue their worth and have caused them to think they have more muscle then they really do.

Or in the other case with this, they have given themselves just enough muscle to become annoying to people and places that don't want to deal with them and shouldn't have to.

Basically I think Unions were used to balance companies out then but now in order to stay relevant they don't bring balance anymore. At least most don't, I do realize that there are cases where they are still needed.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
The problem is that the union is a company that is pricing itself out the market. The general ones anyway. When the company can find work overseas or wherever else, for cheaper and more effective (and no, not all of it is "slave labor" which is subjective in its own right), then they are going to.

Employees have their rights and so do consumers, but when any of them don't like what they are getting, they will go somewhere else. Companies have that right too. That's really what it boils down to.

I agree, companies have the right to outsource. Unions have the right to protest and lobby for consumers to buy "made in america". I don't see what the problem is. You are asking and apparently implying that unions are not feasible today, while everything we have discussed points at them having an important part in society.

As I've said, they have played an important role, and in theory they are fine. Many of their practices are more abusive than the "company" they claim to fight against. Like newjak said, many people are coerced into joining unions who don't even want to join them. Why do that if it is all about the big good? It comes down to leverage in the hostage sense, "If you don't change this, or get rid of us, we'll strike or leave."

Is that always true? No, but that's how it generally works.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
As I've said, they have played an important role, and in theory they are fine. Many of their practices are more abusive than the "company" they claim to fight against. Like newjak said, many people are coerced into joining unions who don't even want to join them. Why do that if it is all about the big good? It comes down to leverage in the hostage sense, "If you don't change this, or get rid of us, we'll strike or leave."

Is that always true? No, but that's how it generally works.

Sure, and if we are talking with someone who's like "Unions are infallible and the best thing ever" we can discuss the many, many problems Unions cause, but since we are talking about the minimum relevance and use of Unions today, and you seemed to try to deny that generally, we need to discuss the positives, legal and moral advantages Unions still have today.

I agree that rhetoric of Unions as somehow inherently good is silly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, and if we are talking with someone who's like "Unions are infallible and the best thing ever" we can discuss the many, many problems Unions cause, but since we are talking about the minimum relevance and use of Unions today, and you seemed to try to deny that generally, we need to discuss the positives, legal and moral advantages Unions still have today.

I agree that rhetoric of Unions as somehow inherently good is silly.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
I always consider myself working with someone in a position of authority to me and not working for them. I will follow the management structure; however, its unlikely a dictatorial management style will get the best from staff. It's not something i've ever used.

Teacher unions are pretty controversial, some of the things they do are pretty vicious.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, and if we are talking with someone who's like "Unions are infallible and the best thing ever" we can discuss the many, many problems Unions cause, but since we are talking about the minimum relevance and use of Unions today, and you seemed to try to deny that generally, we need to discuss the positives, legal and moral advantages Unions still have today.

I agree that rhetoric of Unions as somehow inherently good is silly.

There are already laws to protect workers, which is why I think that nowadays they are more or less superfluous.

If you mean just a small union that isn't over the top and just people cooperating that is fine, but those don't have too much leverage. To want the control of a company without any of the risk is another.

If you want a say in the company, become a shareholder, then you can have a direct say in how the company is run.

Originally posted by Mindship
I believe there have been a number of studies in recent years which have demonstrated that humane treatment of empolyees > a dictatorial approach when it comes to productivity (ie, more flies with honey than vinegar). This actually includes time for "power naps" during the work day: I know they do wonders for me when I need to refresh.

Absolutely, although sadly this is not the norm yet.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Teacher unions are pretty controversial, some of the things they do are pretty vicious.

Originally posted by Mindship
To an extent, it's self-preservation, at least in NYC, where the Mayor (an arrogant, aloof, billionaire-businessman who knows nothing about education -- including how to pick a proper chancellor) still believes in a dictatorial style.

I thought the NYC Governor/Mayor was good, maybe I was thinking about a former one.

Originally posted by Mindship
To an extent, it's self-preservation, at least in NYC, where the Mayor (an arrogant, aloof, billionaire-businessman who knows nothing about education -- including how to pick a proper chancellor) still believes in a dictatorial style.

In the UK with false accusations etc, teachers need the protection as do lecturers and teaching assistants.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Teacher unions are pretty controversial, some of the things they do are pretty vicious.

I think unions have done their part, but in actuality, considering the market they are becoming more and more unfeasible, and it's causing producers to look elsewhere for work. If there are no producers then there is no work.

There are already laws to protect workers, which is why I think that nowadays they are more or less superfluous.

If you mean just a small union that isn't over the top and just people cooperating that is fine, but those don't have too much leverage. To want the control of a company without any of the risk is another.

If you want a say in the company, become a shareholder, then you can have a direct say in how the company is run.

You are all over the place with this response. Shareholders and cooperatives and paying taxes and worker's rights all seem to be concepts that you've combined in your head but don't seem to really posses an ability to discern from one another.

You are either poor or rich not to have the ability to understand the benefits of a union. Or more appropriately you might be a teenager who is only parroting what you've overheard your parents say. So, in this time of an ever-dwindling middle class, it's easy to assume there is no benefit to unions.

Originally posted by skekUng
You are all over the place with this response. Shareholders and cooperatives and paying taxes and worker's rights all seem to be concepts that you've combined in your head but don't seem to really posses an ability to discern from one another.

You are either poor or rich not to have the ability to understand the benefits of a union. Or more appropriately you might be a teenager who is only parroting what you've overheard your parents say. So, in this time of an ever-dwindling middle class, it's easy to assume there is no benefit to unions.

Taxes pay teachers, but public companies have shareholders who own a portion of the company and have a say in the company, the people who run the company answer to the board of directors. Different corps have different shares, S corps have 100 shares, and C corps can distribute many more and are treated as a true double entity. I am a leading shareholder in my own company, I own controlling interest. Don't proceed to tell me what I don't know about and make yourself look like a fool. I know more about this than you ever will.

You're either poor, or dead middle to not see the whole picture, with no potential to go higher. I understand both ends of the table because I've been on both ends, working and producing, with nothing and then having something, and despite the fact that many people are entitled more than ever doesn't mean I didn't understand the benefits a union "used" to have. Your problem is you jumped head first into an argument and didn't know what you were getting yourself into, and if you read through the thread you would have seen my point. In theory unions are a good thing, it's the execution of them that is the problem. The government is a good thing in theory, but the application of it is what leads to the problem.

Teacher's unions take up a lot of money and don't produce, kids are failing more and more, and can't read, and guess what? They're passing. That means the system has failed them. With the massive amount of resources that goes towards schooling, their should be more alternatives. Maybe the school should be in the free market system, or it should have more restrictions placed on it. Where is this money going? Because it isn't going to the school. It's going to the admin and people who head the union.

The middle class is dwindling and a lot of it had to do with many taking out things they couldn't afford, many people buying houses they couldn't afford and shouldn't have had, and swamping everyone with the debt by going bankrupt. Which means the responsible people (like myself) have to pay higher interest rates, and go through more work for a loan. Not only that, but there are two types of taxes. The direct tax, and a silent tax, which is devaluation of the money by printing. They do this to have more exports to have more jobs, but there is no value there if the demand isn't there.

I repeat, jobs are useless and costly when there is no demand for work at the cost the employees and unions are selling it for. The automotive industry could take money and hire more people, but if their products aren't being bought it's money going down the drain. I don't care for bailing out people or companies.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
The biggest victims are the students and the taxpayers. More money going to schools, and the quality isn't improving, it's actually getting worse. Which is why I try to look at the big picture. 300 billion dollars and our systems are one of the worst.

As for $$$: again, in NYC, a lot of it goes into the DOE hiring/contracting outside agencies (mostly tech consultants) instead of the classrooms.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I thought the NYC Governor/Mayor was good, maybe I was thinking about a former one.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Teacher unions are pretty controversial, some of the things they do are pretty vicious.

Teachers unions do have problems as they are dealing with the government (a monopoly) and everything involving government monopolies is problematic.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I think unions have done their part, but in actuality, considering the market they are becoming more and more unfeasible, and it's causing producers to look elsewhere for work. If there are no producers then there is no work.

There are already laws to protect workers, which is why I think that nowadays they are more or less superfluous.

If you mean just a small union that isn't over the top and just people cooperating that is fine, but those don't have too much leverage. To want the control of a company without any of the risk is another.

If you want a say in the company, become a shareholder, then you can have a direct say in how the company is run.

You are saying that workers should join unions as they do them more harm than good? That may be a fair point, though I don't believe though, I think unions can still get their members a better deal than they would get without, but that's definitely an interesting thing to discuss.

Trying to influence a company without having a stake though, is perfectly right and smart. Consumers and Employees of a company alike should try everything to get the best deal for themselves from a company.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's a convoluted situation; I'll try to keep it short and sweet. While the students are the biggest victims, to a large extent this is also because students have taken in the message (being purported by Bloomberg and society in general--the latter, as a rule, having never held teachers in high regard ["Those who can't do, teach"]) that if a student fails, it's always the teacher's fault, so they become less responsible in doing their part. Education (certainly on the middle and high school levels) should be a partnership between student, teacher and parent. Also, in NYC, Bloomberg has been doing his best to set the system up for failure, to the point where a judge had to tell him to back off, that if he is going to close a school, do it legally and for good reason.

As for $$$: again, in NYC, a lot of it goes into the DOE hiring/contracting outside agencies (mostly tech consultants) instead of the classrooms.

Cuomo good; Bloomberg bad.

Education is a massive business too, especially college, they are allowed to do things many business don't and they have a lot of power too, because the government is in with it on them.

Many teachers aren't doing there part either. Helping kids cheat, changing answers on tests, etc. Chicken/egg thing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Teachers unions do have problems as they are dealing with the government (a monopoly) and everything involving government monopolies is problematic.

You are saying that workers should join unions as they do them more harm than good? That may be a fair point, though I don't believe though, I think unions can still get their members a better deal than they would get without, but that's definitely an interesting thing to discuss.

Trying to influence a company without having a stake though, is perfectly right and smart. Consumers and Employees of a company alike should try everything to get the best deal for themselves from a company.

Workers who do want to earn more can always try and sell their work as a contractor. They'll pay you more, but you have to cover yourself. Or they could try to own shares. If the company makes more money, so do you.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
True, I think a lot of the problems in America are due to people blaming it on someone else. The parents, teachers, and students play a role. The work ethic here is bad in school and in work. I think people believe when they finish school, they will be taken care of, which simply isn't the case.

Many teachers aren't doing there part either. Helping kids cheat, changing answers on tests, etc. Chicken/egg thing. Well people will do what they want. Like I said Unions are great in theory, but when something gets a lot of power they can be dangerous. Unions hold none of the risk in the company but many have a lot of power and hold no risk or responsibility if things happen.

Workers who do want to earn more can always try and sell their work as a contractor. They'll pay you more, but you have to cover yourself. Or they could try to own shares. If the company makes more money, so do you.

Unions being powerful by non-government interference means is nothing bad at all. Just like companies being powerful is not bad.

Yes, workers who want to make more money can do that. They also can join a union. Again, I am unsure what you are trying to say. Unions are legal and can potentially be useful, and are definitely not immoral in it's basic existence.