Unions

[daepp]

Originally Posted by intakexhaust

Some day I'd like to see this heavy 'Union Chucked' upon them -

Is that like a boot on a car wheel that keeps you from using that tool?

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by intakexhaust

Contractors, trade associations squeeze convention exhibitors at McCormick Place

I encountered something similar when I used to exhibit at the Kentucky Convention Center is Louisville. I was allowed to carry my own display in and out, but I couldn't hire anyone to help me. If I got help it had to be from the union guys standing around. But after the first year I realized there was so much going on they couldn't tell who was who, so I brought a helper along. John Deere's display had a lot of big tractors and combines that none of the union guys had any idea how to move, but they had to have one guy standing around watching for every John Deere employee who actually did the work.
I can see the electrician doing the electrical work though. Those exhibitors would burn the place down with stupid extension cord lash ups.

[NeedSpace]

I have done some research on unions as I was interested in a data-based perspective. Looking at two similar companies in same industry, one with unions and one without unions, those WITHOUT unions were happier, more productive and felt more engaged in their company than those in unions. In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in pay or benefits between the two organizations.

That said, as a researcher, I saw a major confound, perhaps it was the difference was due to the 2 different organizations? I collected more data, this time with only 1 organization looking at specific locations, some locations were unionized, the other locations had no union control. The locations performed the same operations just at separate locations. Again, the results found the people NOT in the union were significantly happier with their job, happier with the company and more likely to speak up in situations where there might be a safety issue. I have also replicated this result with another organization in a different industry.

Unions WERE great at one point and brought this country to where it is today, however, like whale oil, it is no longer needed and people need to move on. Companies today recognize that an engaged and motivated workforce MORE than pays for itself. Listening to employees satisfies an employee, decreases the likelihood of them leaving and increases profitability. The startup cost of a new employee in most organizations makes this a simple equation.

The goal of most unions is to drive a wedge between employees and the companies they work for. They are counterproductive and currently do much more harm then good. By the way, in addition to my research, a number of years ago I worked in a job that required I be a union member...this was my experience as well.

My business partner has published on this as has many other researchers.

[black73]

Very convincing argument, backed up with science, etc.

Then you lose all credibility when you show the prejudice you entered the research with...

They are counterproductive and currently do much more harm then good. By the way, in addition to my research, a number of years ago I worked in a job that required I be a union member...this was my experience as well.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by NeedSpace

I have done some research on unions as I was interested in a data-based perspective. Looking at two similar companies in same industry, one with unions and one without unions, those WITHOUT unions were happier, more productive and felt more engaged in their company than those in unions. In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in pay or benefits between the two organizations.

That said, as a researcher, I saw a major confound, perhaps it was the difference was due to the 2 different organizations? I collected more data, this time with only 1 organization looking at specific locations, some locations were unionized, the other locations had no union control. The locations performed the same operations just at separate locations. Again, the results found the people NOT in the union were significantly happier with their job, happier with the company and more likely to speak up in situations where there might be a safety issue. I have also replicated this result with another organization in a different industry.

Unions WERE great at one point and brought this country to where it is today, however, like whale oil, it is no longer needed and people need to move on. Companies today recognize that an engaged and motivated workforce MORE than pays for itself. Listening to employees satisfies an employee, decreases the likelihood of them leaving and increases profitability. The startup cost of a new employee in most organizations makes this a simple equation.

The goal of most unions is to drive a wedge between employees and the companies they work for. They are counterproductive and currently do much more harm then good. By the way, in addition to my research, a number of years ago I worked in a job that required I be a union member...this was my experience as well.

My business partner has published on this as has many other researchers.

Unions promote an "us against them" mentality. It's how they build "solidarity" between members (common enemy), and reinforce their own supposed worth. Some of the propaganda that I have seen distributed to our shop workers would put the Nazis to shame, and many of them buy into it wholesale. Around contract time they distributed "strength to strike" shirts that everyone wore on Fridays as well as whistles that they blew at break time and lunch. So three times per day we had a factory of grown men sitting around blowing whistles. They would also do mature stuff like crap on the floor in the bathroom and harass women as they walked through the shop. Definitely finely trained hardworking professionals.

[mreid]

Needspace, far from being as empirically based as your research, your point about employee engagement is in my experience spot on. Another point that I will add is that the bulk of the middle class jobs that went overseas were union jobs and while unions like to point at management, in most cases it was the union's horrible behavior that motivated the exodus.

Also, the war for talent is inversely proportional to the BLS unemployment rate. Over the next three years it is projected to dip down near 6%. Couple this with baby boomers retiring and the lack of motivation/capability of many Americans and not only do I worry about finding the right talent, I am particularly concerned about how our competitors will behave in trying to steal talent from others. Unions have so missed the boat here and are about as useful as a buggy whip today. Unfortunately, while my company is primarily US based, we are finding the need to import workers from other countries in order to procure both the skills and motivated workers needed. Unions stand in stark contrast to this, attempting to force companies to retain poor workers and to bar companies from bringing workers in from outside the country. They are truly the biggest obstacle to productivity and success today.

[creaturecat]

A major(productivity) obstacle is the lack of re-investment by corporations: tooling, machinery, etc. This is one of the reasons for lack of national productivity. Profit taking.
Outsourcing? Not necessarily union/non-union. Simply cost reduction. Profit taking.
Dividing people into productive non-union vs non-productive union? The oldest trick in the book, isn't it?

I maintain that this thread proves the need for workplace protection. Via unions.
Union people less happy than non-union people? Simplistic. I would like to see the factor analysis used for that study.
Union people less inclined to report workplace safety issues? Maybe the workplace is safer in the first place.
Competitors stealing(stealing=offering a better work package?) valued employees? The unions fault. How does that work?
They steal the "valuable" ones, and you are stuck with the less-valuable? They are from the same unionized pool. Some are valuable, some not so much. Just like non-union employees.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by creaturecat

A major(productivity) obstacle is the lack of re-investment by corporations: tooling, machinery, etc. This is one of the reasons for lack of national productivity. Profit taking.
Outsourcing? Not necessarily union/non-union. Simply cost reduction. Profit taking.
Dividing people into productive non-union vs non-productive union? The oldest trick in the book, isn't it?

I maintain that this thread proves the need for workplace protection. Via unions.
Union people less happy than non-union people? Simplistic. I would like to see the factor analysis used for that study.
Union people less inclined to report workplace safety issues? Maybe the workplace is safer in the first place.
Competitors stealing(stealing=offering a better work package?) valued employees? The unions fault. How does that work?
They steal the "valuable" ones, and you are stuck with the less-valuable? They are from the same unionized pool. Some are valuable, some not so much. Just like non-union employees.

what do you base this BS on, as one who has worked with union businesses & grew up in a union house, and as a small business owner & having people(corps in manufacturing) I say you are off there as well. Investing in the businesses it constant, if anything unions fight against that as more workers end up out of work.

[RANDY P]

Originally Posted by creaturecat

A major(productivity) obstacle is the lack of re-investment by corporations: tooling, machinery, etc. This is one of the reasons for lack of national productivity. Profit taking.
Outsourcing? Not necessarily union/non-union. Simply cost reduction. Profit taking.
Dividing people into productive non-union vs non-productive union? The oldest trick in the book, isn't it?

I maintain that this thread proves the need for workplace protection.

Makes absolutely no sense......None whatsoever..

rjp

[intakexhaust]

so you love the UNION.... GOD BLESS AMERICA

The Great Italian Auto Bailout — Courtesy of U.S. Taxpayers

At the beginning of 2014, Detroit may be bankrupt, but they’re cheering the five-year-old U.S. auto bailout in Italy. That’s because after being the beneficiary of billions in U.S. taxpayer largesse, Fiat, the leading Italian auto company, is going to buy its final stake in Chrysler from that other big bailout recipient, the United Auto Workers (UAW).
In the 2009 deal overseen by the Obama administration’s auto task force, Fiat paid no money to acquire its initial 20 percent stake in Chrysler — only contributing some of its intellectual property, instead. Fiat would later pay $2.2 billion to raise its stake in the company to 58.5 percent.

Continuing the bailout shell game, Fiat will now pay fellow bailout recipient UAW $4.4 billion for its stake in Chrysler. All the while, the U.S. government has pitched in more than $12 billion in taxpayer infusions.

In “saving” the American auto industry, Obama gave an American company away. And he gave it away at the expense of pension funds and other secured creditors, which were given a much smaller stake in the new company than they would have been given under traditional bankruptcy proceedings. American manufacturing workers also lost out on the deal; many are now hostages to the woes of Fiat and the Italian economy.

[sammyg2]

Unions suck bigtime and are a direct extension of marxism.

[daepp]

Regarding the two quotes posted by others:
needspace: "Companies today recognize that an engaged and motivated workforce MORE than pays for itself."
mreaid: "...your point about employee engagement is in my experience spot on."

If you can apply this concept to our military (unarguable the most effective in the world), they claim that their success is directly related to eliminating the draft. Most everyone who is there wants to be there. This produces a much happier and more motivated workforce - therefore I can see why needspace's research indicated the same.

[GH85Carrera]

One of our customers bought an art gallery in Chicago. The lease for the current location was ending so he had to move the gallery to a new location. He found a great location right across the street.

When started the process of moving he was stunned at the process. One union to remove the art from the walls. Another union to crate them up. Another union to haul them downstairs. They hauled them to the middle of the street and handed them off to the union for that side of the street. To be un-crated by yet another union and one more to hang them up. Six men to move each painting across the street.

He added up the expected cost of what that would cost and decided to just close the business. He took them down, and hauled them to a new city and opened a new gallery. It was a non union city and the entire move was done easily and cheaply.

[NeedSpace]

Originally Posted by black73

Very convincing argument, backed up with science, etc.

Then you lose all credibility when you show the prejudice you entered the research with...

They are counterproductive and currently do much more harm then good. By the way, in addition to my research, a number of years ago I worked in a job that required I be a union member...this was my experience as well.

That was a hypothesis. That is, I had an experience years ago and wondered if this experience is consistent with what the data would show. The questions we asked are standard engagement questions that were used in employee satisfaction or engagement surveys and NOT specifically chosen to support negative findings for unions. The data supports itself and holds up to scrutiny quite well.

The conclusion I have come to in the first sentence was based on my years of research. Sorry, I hope your experience is different.

[grendiers]

'Unions suck bigtime and are a direct extension of marxism.'

So, then, ahem, what you're telling us, you call it 'bigtime' and your buddy's name is 'Union'? And, for the record, what do you mean by Marxism's 'direct extension'? Is that some bedroom game we're unfamiliar with? Who is Marx? Please explain.

[RANDY P]

Originally Posted by grendiers

'Unions suck bigtime and are a direct extension of marxism.'

So, then, ahem, what you're telling us, you call it 'bigtime' and your buddy's name is 'Union'? And, for the record, what do you mean by Marxism's 'direct extension'? Is that some bedroom game we're unfamiliar with? Who is Marx? Please explain.

He says Unions suck, and are offspring of Communists.

he's right. Where did you get the bedroom idea?

[718]

GEt rid of unions and we'll be right back to where we were before unions.

[grendiers]

Originally Posted by NeedSpace

That was a hypothesis. That is, I had an experience years ago and wondered if this experience is consistent with what the data would show. The questions we asked are standard engagement questions that were used in employee satisfaction or engagement surveys and NOT specifically chosen to support negative findings for unions. The data supports itself and holds up to scrutiny quite well.

The conclusion I have come to in the first sentence was based on my years of research. Sorry, I hope your experience is different.

Individual stories are good, whether they're bad, ugly or whatever, what they don't do though, is tell the whole story. Of course, many of us, myself included, have been witness to Union job-type situations. However, it doesn't matter how many anecdotes you and others might have good or bad, the bottom line is the protection Unions provide for you and others that are not in a union. Just like Syria, Obama got them to lay down their weapons based on our capability of mass destruction. If you and your brethren of Conservative dogma think that a Corporatist America should be the final arbiter of wages via a 'free market' (don't get me started on how unfree markets really are), then you've been drinking the koolaid a tad too long. There's no way your little bit of 'employee satisfaction' hypothisis is going to ever represent the workplace as a whole. In fact, I reckon the only outlet for the results of your skewed perceptions, would sell on Fox News, and it's undereducated masses.

[grendiers]

Originally Posted by 718

GEt rid of unions and we'll be right back to where we were before unions.

And, where would that be there genius? 1850? I so dislike 'people' like you and you.

[grendiers]

Originally Posted by RANDY P

He says Unions suck, and are offspring of Communists.

he's right. Where did you get the bedroom idea?

I guess satirical humor was wasted on you....