AP: UAW Calls National Strike Against GM

[chillmonster]

DETROIT — Thousands of United Auto Workers walked off the job at General Motors plants around the country Monday in the first nationwide strike against the U.S. auto industry since 1976.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said that job security was the top unresolved issue, adding that the talks did not stumble over a groundbreaking provision establishing a UAW-managed trust that will administer GM's retiree health care obligations. Gettelfinger complained about "one-sided negotiations."

"It was going to be General Motors' way at the expense of the workers," Gettelfinger said at a news conference. "The company walked right up to the deadline like they really didn't care."

Gettelfinger added that the union and GM's management would return to the table Monday.

Workers walked off the job and began picketing Monday outside GM plants after the late morning UAW strike deadline passed. The UAW has 73,000 members who work for GM at 82 U.S. facilities, including assembly and parts plants and warehouses.

General Motors Corp. had been pushing hard in the negotiations for the health care trust _ known as a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association, or VEBA _ so it could move $51 billion in unfunded retiree health costs off its books. GM has nearly 339,000 retirees and surviving spouses.

"This strike is not about the VEBA in any way shape or form," Gettelfinger said at an afternoon news conference in Detroit.

"The No. 1 issue here is job security," Gettelfinger later said, adding that the union also was fighting to preserve workers' benefits.

GM spokesman Dan Flores said the automaker was disappointed in the UAW's decision to call a national strike.

"The bargaining involves complex, difficult issues that affect the job security of our U.S. work force and the long-term viability of the company," he said. "We remain fully committed to working with the UAW to develop solutions together to address the competitive challenges facing GM."

It remained to be seen what effect the strike would have on the automaker and consumers. The company has sufficient stocks of just about every product to withstand a short strike, according to Tom Libby, senior director of industry analysis for J.D. Power and Associates.

Worker Anita Ahrens burst into tears as hundreds of United Auto Workers streamed out of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis.

"Oh my God, here they come," said Ahrens, 39. "This is unreal."

Management is taking a hardline stance now. I wonder how this will end up.

[Tolwynn]

GM can hold out for 2 weeks, and actually remain in the same, or a better position as they deplete existing overstocks of inventory.

Any longer than that, and then losses occur to the tune of 7 - 8 billion dollars per month.

Currently, GM is operating at about break-even in the US, while its foreign operations are profitable.

Threatening those sort of losses for the company you work for, when they've already got proven track record that they can operate profitably anywhere else but the US, is a pretty frigging brilliant way to ensure job security.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Fire them all and hire scabs. The time of the union is over.

[chillmonster]

Fire them all and hire scabs. The time of the union is over.

Fire them all and move operations to Mexico. The time of the blue-collar, middle-class American is over.

[Soulpieced]

I'm with SHM. Bring on the scabs.

[Stretch]

Union workers are overpaid, anyway.

Really? You think you deserve $25+ per hour to be a cog in a wheel?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Fire them all and move operations to Mexico. The time of the blue-collar, middle-class American is over.

I'm OK with that too. In a capitalistic society, jobs will arise, and we all benefit from lower prices.

Besides, all the jobs in the US have been taken over by illegal immigrants, hasn't anyone told you? We'd only be taking jobs away from them!

[The Ponzzz]

Pretty big temp layoff here in Rochester, NY due to this at Delphi...

[Gan]

Fire them all and hire scabs. The time of the union is over.

QFT

Word.

[Apathy]

Fire them all and hire scabs. The time of the union is over.

All unions or just the UAW?

[Gan]

All.

IMO.

[Parkbandit]

Fire them all and hire scabs. The time of the union is over.

/agree

[ElanthianSiren]

The anti-union sentiment is interesting, given the collective bargaining rights/sway workers often get when unionized. While it does lower competition, one of the fundamentals of capitalism, I believe, is that the market (labor) in this case, will pay what the market will bear (in this way, I agree with the idea of scabs). One of the basic tenants of democracy (again, so I've heard), is that people have the right to peaceful assembly. Why do those calling for the abolishment of unions hate freedom and capitalism again?

[Warriorbird]

They hate America. They'd like to see all the jobs overseas.

[Gan]

The anti-union sentiment is interesting, given the collective bargaining rights/sway workers often get when unionized.
This collective barganing rights and sway can be a good thing when needed to combat abuse. In the absence of abuse, or when its abused to guarantee inefficiencies such as guaranteed jobs regardless of performance and when used to hike pay rates of employees within specific companies which do nothing but raise costs on all sides of the distribution chain of the products being produced, which in the end just push said company out of the competetive market, its a bad thing and anything but efficient.


While it does lower competition, one of the fundamentals of capitalism, I believe, is that the market (labor) in this case, will pay what the market will bear (in this way, I agree with the idea of scabs).
Which is self defeating for the existance of the union, wouldnt you say?


One of the basic tenants of democracy (again, so I've heard), is that people have the right to peaceful assembly. Why do those calling for the abolishment of unions hate freedom and capitalism again?
Your leap from those not supporting unions to hating capitalism is illogical.

[Parkbandit]

The anti-union sentiment is interesting, given the collective bargaining rights/sway workers often get when unionized. While it does lower competition, one of the fundamentals of capitalism, I believe, is that the market (labor) in this case, will pay what the market will bear (in this way, I agree with the idea of scabs). One of the basic tenants of democracy (again, so I've heard), is that people have the right to peaceful assembly. Why do those calling for the abolishment of unions hate freedom and capitalism again?


You should have used italics over the entire post, instead of just the last line. It would have made more sense.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

All unions or just the UAW?

If that's a serious question, all unions. We have plenty (probably too many) laws designed to protect employees. As I said in my original post, my belief is that the time of the union is past.

[Warriorbird]

It's a perfect world! Really!

Who exactly protects workers from outsourcing? From massive upper corporate malfeasance?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Who says outsourcing is bad?

Define "massive upper corporate malfeasance".

[chillmonster]

Who exactly protects workers from outsourcing?

Unions. And that's the sticking point of the strike. They want to assure that those 70,000 jobs GM has left in the US (out of 250,000 a decade ago) stay in the US.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You make it sound like outsourcing is bad.

[Gan]

Who exactly protects workers from outsourcing?
Why should workers be protected from outsourcing?


From massive upper corporate malfeasance?
State and Federal Attorney General's offices, and the multitude of laws designed to do so.

[Atlanteax]

Strike = Over

Some analysts say that GM came out ahead (comparatively) with the agreement... and that it should be expected to be applied to Ford/Chrysler soon.

[thefarmer]

I find it idiotic that the Unions were so worried about job security so much (from the articles I've read), while GM (and the other car companies) were worried about fixing (Salaries, outdated pension plants) things so they could actually stay in business..

They should have given up on the UAW and hired all illegal immigrants to work in the plants and used mexican truckdrivers (thanks to that new bill). Then people can actually complain about loosing their jobs to those dirty mexicans.

[Jazuela]

Good for GM for holding out. Job security? WTF - in a country where outsourcing has become a way of life, the workers should be grateful the company still manufactures here at ALL. Even in a union job, there's no such thing as job security. I think unions can still serve a purpose, but in this case, its purpose was to cause problems, and not fix them. How much money did those employees NOT get paid, in order to settle for less than the company would have given them if they had simply not gone on strike?

[chillmonster]

Good for GM for holding out. Job security? WTF - in a country where outsourcing has become a way of life, the workers should be grateful the company still manufactures here at ALL. Even in a union job, there's no such thing as job security. I think unions can still serve a purpose, but in this case, its purpose was to cause problems, and not fix them. How much money did those employees NOT get paid, in order to settle for less than the company would have given them if they had simply not gone on strike?

The strike forced GM to concede some things. The union made concessions also - for instance shifting much of the burden of retiree health care from GM to assure that GM keep a number of workers in the states.

Edited to say :

Also, GM isn't keeping jobs here out of the goodness of their hearts. They're keeping jobs here because of tax breaks you get with a certain amount of US employment - which is why Toyota and Honda have factories in the states, and the fact that union pressure has forced them to maintain a certain standard.

[Methais]

What kind of name is Gettelfinger?

[AestheticDeath]

Butterfinger was taken

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The strike forced GM to concede some things. The union made concessions also - for instance shifting much of the burden of retiree health care from GM to assure that GM keep a number of workers in the states.

Edited to say :

Also, GM isn't keeping jobs here out of the goodness of their hearts. They're keeping jobs here because of tax breaks you get with a certain amount of US employment - which is why Toyota and Honda have factories in the states, and the fact that union pressure has forced them to maintain a certain standard.

You do a lot of suppositions. Where can I find on the GM website or any of the company documents that they keep jobs int he US because they get tax breaks? Hell, where can I find the cost analysis that moving them offshore or near shore wouldn't exclipse those "tax savings".

[chillmonster]

You do a lot of suppositions. Where can I find on the GM website or any of the company documents that they keep jobs int he US because they get tax breaks? Hell, where can I find the cost analysis that moving them offshore or near shore wouldn't exclipse those "tax savings".

Auto companies recieve very generoud tax subsidies that more than cover the employee health care costs. Also, having a certain level of percentage of production in the US allows companies to avoid many taxes on imports. For example, if wiring, transmissions, lights, and engines and transmissions are made in China, but a certain percentage of production is done in the United States (ie frame construction and auto assembly), companies are neither taxed on the imported components or the finished product because it isn't considered an import.

Also, States give auto companies HUGE incentive packages to lure business. Here's part of an article talking about what the state of GA is giving KIA for building a plant there.

Georgia will purchase the site for the plant for approximately $35.7 million and will conduct site preparation work, including grading, at a cost of $24.8 million. The Department of Transportation will provide road improvements at a cost of $30 million. Much of the roadwork is anticipated to come from federal interstate highway funds. A rail spur will be connected to the site at a cost of $6.05 million.


LINK (http://www.businessfacilities.com/bf_06_05_cover.php)
...The state will build and staff a 70,000-square-foot training center on the Kia site that will provide custom training for the company and serve as a community training center, at a cost of $20.2 million. Maintenance and operations expenses of the center over a five-year period are expected to cost the state $5.5 million. The Quick Start program of the Department of Adult and Technical Education (DTAE) will develop a training curriculum and provide training courses for plant employees at an estimated cost of $5.7 million. The cost to the state for the training program has a market value to Kia of approximately $14.5 million.

At 2,893 jobs created, the company will receive $75.9 million in job tax credits against its tax liability created over five years. At the contractual minimum of 2,500 jobs, the company will receive $65.6 million in job tax credits against its tax liability over five years. Company estimates indicate approximately $13.9 million in sales tax exemptions will be available on its capital expenditures. With the estimated 2,893 jobs created, the total state incentive package is worth $258.25 million (or $89,550 per job). The total package lowers to $248.05 million if 2,500 jobs—the contractual minimum—are created....

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

ok, and the savings they'd incure by offshoring/near shoring?

[chillmonster]

ok, and the savings they'd incure by offshoring/near shoring?

Before I ask you to read up on this before you form such strong opinions, I'll appeal to your common sense. Think. Would Toyota, Kia, Honda, etc be move part of production here if it didn't positively affect their bottom line? The question is really quite simple if you turn off the partisan hacks yelling your opinions in you ear, and think independently.

Also, this deal eliminates a very big portion of the dead weight American auto companies have been hauling around: the huge healthcare costs of retirees. This pretty much puts them on even ground with Japanese and Korean producers, but they'll still continue to lose because to two factors. American Auto manufacturers are still 20% less productive than Japanese auto makers, and they're still trying to dig themselves out of the hole created with their short-sightedness when they focused on the truck/suv market and basically seceded the midsized/compact market to Asian companies.

Executives have ruined the US auto industry, but they painted a picture like unions are solely to blame. The union's played their part, yes, but job of the unions rep is to get the best possible deal for workers every time. The responsibility to maximize profits falls to management. In order to appease the unions, executives simply kicked the can of employee healthcare down the road. That shortsighted mentality can also be seen in their de-emphasis of practical innovations like fuel efficiency and reliability and over-emphasizing fluff like size and power. They idly sat by while productivity faltered and product quality deteriorated. Who the hell were they to cry foul at the unions when companies that did it better moved in and ate their lunch?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

That's great, and the savings?

[chillmonster]

That's great, and the savings?

Let me get this straight. You really expect me to do all the research necessary to find the exact dollar amount of saving each company gets per year per worker they leave in the US, when anyone with half a brain can look at circumstances and see that there is obviously monetary benefit having a certain amount of production here? And you want me to do this simply because you've formed an opinion without an ounce of fact and you're too lazy to do the research yourself?

I have to ask. How much weed have you smoked this evening?

[Warriorbird]

Screwing American workers is always healthy for the country!

The point isn't what I think is good for economic growth. Unions will continue and rise as portions of the population get written off by people who don't give a fuck about them.

[ElanthianSiren]

This collective barganing rights and sway can be a good thing when needed to combat abuse. In the absence of abuse, or when its abused to guarantee inefficiencies such as guaranteed jobs regardless of performance and when used to hike pay rates of employees within specific companies which do nothing but raise costs on all sides of the distribution chain of the products being produced, which in the end just push said company out of the competetive market, its a bad thing and anything but efficient.

Which is self defeating for the existance of the union, wouldnt you say?

Your leap from those not supporting unions to hating capitalism is illogical.

Actually, I'd say that if you start abolishing unions entirely, you'd be exposing quite a few people to undue political influence (from congress) with regard to things like minimum wage. How much effort would it really take to start lowering the floor of min wage? Let's say you cut all the unions. Where are you going then? America still can't compete with the pay of sweatshop style establishments in the east. So again, where are you going after you abolish unions?

You can argue that's presumptive of me to make such a connection, but honestly, better safe than sorry; so it's good to have a few unions left in some capacity IMO. Now, where I do differ with some is in the belief that scabs are just fine, that being because I believe that unions should compromise.

I don't, however, believe unions are in the business of lowering the cost of production for businesses, nor should they be. Members pay dues to ensure that the collective power tilts in their favor. The producer can then try to outfit itself with workers however it sees fit IMO.

Did the italics throw you off to the idea that the statement was mocking?

[Apathy]

ok, and the savings they'd incure by offshoring/near shoring?

I have to ask - yes I'm being serious, as I was before - what do you think about Toyota moving its production TO the U.S.?

I think if the most profitable car company in the US is buying/building production plants in the continental US there must be some kind of sound business strategy behind it.

And to clarify the earlier question, I tend to jump to the Union's side in these arguments, mostly because we all seem to forget that most of the Big3's mistakes came from their ivory towers, but I was moreso curious if you were talking about the UAW or all unions.

Over production, shitty materials, poor marketing etc. That's not the peoples on the assembly lines fault.

[Gan]

Did the italics throw you off to the idea that the statement was mocking?

The stupidity of the statement drowned out the fact that it was in italics. :(

My bad.

With regards to competing with sweatshops. That will boil down to consumer choice on quality. Some people are fine with throwaway merchandise. And some people arent.

Sweatshop merchandise can be subjected to import tarrif/taxes in order to help level the playing field... but thats still not in the best interests of pure competition. However, I'm willing to sacrifice some purity in order to not support those markets who take advantage of abusive labor practices. :shrug:

[Tolwynn]

I have to ask - yes I'm being serious, as I was before - what do you think about Toyota moving its production TO the U.S.?

I think if the most profitable car company in the US is buying/building production plants in the continental US there must be some kind of sound business strategy behind it.

Curiously, part of that strategy is working towards keeping unions out, while still giving their workers comparable pay and benefits.

[thefarmer]

I read an article last month, in businesweek I think that talked about why Toyota has plants in the US.

One of the main points that the Toyota rep stressed was the public image aspect. They were afraid of a backlash with the whole "Not made in America by American's" tag that had been placed on their cars at various times.

Yes, public image affects the bottom line, but I got the impression that they would have plants in the US regardless of it it actually costs more, which I suppose it could. They felt that it was good business to be able to put the "Made in America.." tag on their products.

[Parkbandit]

Before I ask you to read up on this before you form such strong opinions, I'll appeal to your common sense. Think. Would Toyota, Kia, Honda, etc be move part of production here if it didn't positively affect their bottom line? The question is really quite simple if you turn off the partisan hacks yelling your opinions in you ear, and think independently.

You should take your own advice imo. You are great at dispensing it.. just not doing it.


Executives have ruined the US auto industry, but they painted a picture like unions are solely to blame. The union's played their part, yes, but job of the unions rep is to get the best possible deal for workers every time. The responsibility to maximize profits falls to management. In order to appease the unions, executives simply kicked the can of employee healthcare down the road. That shortsighted mentality can also be seen in their de-emphasis of practical innovations like fuel efficiency and reliability and over-emphasizing fluff like size and power. They idly sat by while productivity faltered and product quality deteriorated. Who the hell were they to cry foul at the unions when companies that did it better moved in and ate their lunch?

Yea.. it's not the union's fault.. it's the company's fault for not getting more green cars to market.

:lol:

It is clear that you get your company 'experience' via some liberal website and not actually from working in the environment in a managerial or ownership type capacity.

[ElanthianSiren]

The stupidity of the statement drowned out the fact that it was in italics. :(

You're going to demand intellectualism on an internet forum where the union discussion's been significantly rehashed at least three times and after supporting a guy that claims Mandela's dead because Saddam killed all the Mandelas of the world (btw Mandela's quite alive). Let me find something to keep my eyes from rolling yet again or better yet, give the misplaced whining a rest.



With regards to competing with sweatshops. That will boil down to consumer choice on quality. Some people are fine with throwaway merchandise. And some people arent.

Sweatshop merchandise can be subjected to import tarrif/taxes in order to help level the playing field... but thats still not in the best interests of pure competition. However, I'm willing to sacrifice some purity in order to not support those markets who take advantage of abusive labor practices. :shrug:

In your view of the world, yes. We've had the discussion on unions plenty of times, and I suppose it's fair to say my view hasn't significantly changed, nor has yours, nor has the view of the other participants here.

I'd like to know how you plan on keeping up with what every other country is charging for their goods to level it to market pricing, and why you're trusting the government to do this (at least in regard to tariffs). We're not talking about a bi or tri national economy anymore. One must consider outsourced (or not), the company in question, and so on globally. Seems like you're asking for bureaucracy.

You still haven't addressed the relative ease with which the minimum wage laws could be adjusted, in a government which has already shown its interests often lie with big business. Are you for setting a mandatory, non-repealable minimum wage for workers with the removal of unions and other watchdog organizations? I'm guessing not. Thus, the only conclusion that I can draw is that you're for abuses occurring then allowing the legal system to deal with those abuses, (provided the individuals in question can afford the costs inherent in our legal system), whereas I'm for preventing abuses.

[ElanthianSiren]

I forgot -- those beliefs are with the caveat that a business should always be free to hire non-unionized/unionizing workers or, especially, provide incentives to keep employees from joining the union. In this way, unions could be phased out.

For instance, one of the big complaints about unions is that there tends to be a lot of "dishomogeny" at the lower levels. Basic competition would suggest that an employer should do as Toyota; rope them when they're coming in, convince them unions aren't the answer and that the better deal is found through coming to the table individually. Then, put your money where your mouth is.

[chillmonster]

You should take your own advice imo. You are great at dispensing it.. just not doing it.



Yea.. it's not the union's fault.. it's the company's fault for not getting more green cars to market.

:lol:

It is clear that you get your company 'experience' via some liberal website and not actually from working in the environment in a managerial or ownership type capacity.

Again, no info, argument, or insight; just baseless insinuations and personal attacks. Even if you disagree with me, it should be obvious that my arguments come from facts and reason and not from talking heads. Also, you're misrepresenting my argument because you apparently don't have a leg to stand on. I never insinuated that the unions played no part in the decline of the American auto industry, and I blamed executives for shortsightedly ceding the midsized market to Toyota and Honda.

[Warriorbird]

Stop with the logic, ES. They're going to have to insult you and not respond.

[ElanthianSiren]

Stop with the logic, ES. They're going to have to insult you and not respond.

I know, I know, but in the immortal words of Lo Pan, "We all keep trying like fools!!!!11one"

[Gan]

You're going to demand intellectualism on an internet forum where the union discussion's been significantly rehashed at least three times and after supporting a guy that claims Mandela's dead because Saddam killed all the Mandelas of the world (btw Mandela's quite alive). Let me find something to keep my eyes from rolling yet again or better yet, give the misplaced whining a rest.
Bitter much?




In your view of the world, yes. We've had the discussion on unions plenty of times, and I suppose it's fair to say my view hasn't significantly changed, nor has yours, nor has the view of the other participants here.
So then this would be appropriate as a response to your diatribe?
:deadhorse:



I'd like to know how you plan on keeping up with what every other country is charging for their goods to level it to market pricing, and why you're trusting the government to do this (at least in regard to tariffs). We're not talking about a bi or tri national economy anymore. One must consider outsourced (or not), the company in question, and so on globally. Seems like you're asking for bureaucracy.
Actually, my purest reponse would be comparative advantage. Screw the tarriffs and taxes and let the chips fall where they may. If you plan on competing in a global (not national) economy where there are different laws/cultures/societies then you either compete or beat on the nationalist/protectionist/unionist drum.


You still haven't addressed the relative ease with which the minimum wage laws could be adjusted, in a government which has already shown its interests often lie with big business. Are you for setting a mandatory, non-repealable minimum wage for workers with the removal of unions and other watchdog organizations? I'm guessing not.
You are correct in this part only.


Thus, the only conclusion that I can draw is that you're for abuses occurring then allowing the legal system to deal with those abuses, (provided the individuals in question can afford the costs inherent in our legal system), whereas I'm for preventing abuses.
Fact of life, abuses will occurr. The legal system already does deal with them. Why have the legal system if we have unions, if they are so great at preventing abuses? Yes, the coin flipped on you. As far as costs associated... You mean in a country with many thousands of ambulance chasers a true victim of labor malfeasance cant find an attorney to represent them in a multi-million dollar lawsuit? Seriously? And what about simply filing with the state and federal agencies like OSHA/EEOC? Thats free last time I checked. Saying that the average worker joe cant afford to be a whistle blower is nonsensical (and illogical). ;)

[Gan]

Stop with the logic, ES. They're going to have to insult you and not respond.

I guess if you cant present your own thoughts you can always bandwagon on someone elses.

WAY TO GO WARRIORBIRD!
:rah:

[ElanthianSiren]

Bitter much?

Not at all.




So then this would be appropriate as a response to your diatribe?
:deadhorse:

Not at all.




Why have the legal system if we have unions, if they are so great at preventing abuses? Yes, the coin flipped on you. As far as costs associated... You mean in a country with many thousands of ambulance chasers a true victim of labor malfeasance cant find an attorney to represent them in a multi-million dollar lawsuit? Seriously? And what about simply filing with the state and federal agencies like OSHA/EEOC? Thats free last time I checked.

...Because every American can afford lawyers and because unions never act as a legal contingent, right? I'm sure you're well aware of the problems inherent with bringing in government agencies, the largest ones being that they're usually quite slow to respond, often bogged down with regulations that keep them from being actively involved, and inconsistent standards are quite common.

Furthermore OSHA deals only with injuries, as far as I understand it; the EEOC with equal opportunity employment. I fail to see what either have to do with unions in the capacity that we're discussing, as a union is localized to a specific population. Want to try again?

[Warriorbird]

My thoughts?

Unions don't do much if anything for companies. I understand folks who don't care about the average American worker hating unions.

At the same time? They're going to exist as long as there's people who don't care about the average American worker.

Heck, given the amount of uncaring people have for the American worker illustrated by this thread...union membership might rise!

Especially as things like retirement plans vanish.

[Gan]

...Because every American can afford lawyers and because unions never act as a legal contingent, right?
Look up the term pro bono. I know many attorneys who take on litigation pro bono. Obviously you do not.


I'm sure you're well aware of the problems inherent with bringing in government agencies, the largest ones being that they're usually quite slow to respond, often bogged down with regulations that keep them from being actively involved, and inconsistent standards are quite common.
Much like many unions. ;)


Furthermore OSHA deals only with injuries, as far as I understand it; the EEOC with equal opportunity employment. I fail to see what either have to do with unions in the capacity that we're discussing, as a union is localized to a specific population. Want to try again?
Go check out the mandates for EEOC. They mirror many of the 'causes' the Unions claim to help prevent.
You also might want to review what OSHA actually enforces (workplace saftey) and consider how that compares with not only why Unions were brought into existance but also, again, why thats still a mandate of unions.

[TheEschaton]

Lawyers generally do class actions pro bono. Not individual cases.

Although some do asylum cases on an individual basis.

[Nieninque]

Why have the legal system if we have unions,

Because they don't do the same thing?
Because Unions prevent changes to the legal system that adversely affect workers?
Because Unions ensure that workers have access to legal representation should they find themselves subject to the Legal System?
Because Unions ensure that workplace Health and Safety is suitable?
Because Unions protect workers from unfair treatment in the workplace?
Because Unions are able to collectively bargain for better pay and conditions?


Case in point: UK Government wanted to change the Public Sector Pensions. Unions rallied against it. Government came up with better solutions. Win.

Unions are far from a perfect system. I am not completely happy with everything that Unions do, however I think some of the things that some of the Unions do makes it worth their existence. People need to get involved with their unions to make the changes if they feel that there is something wrong in how they operate. They all benefit when the Union improves conditions for it's members.

I read a little catchphrase somewhere that said something along the lines of "Not joining a Union is not an enactment of a democratic right, it is accepting the victories of collective battles without any of the sacrifices."

Or words to that effect.

[Gan]

Lawyers generally do class actions pro bono. Not individual cases.

Although some do asylum cases on an individual basis.

If the malfeasance of the company was so negligent that it affected more than one worker... that would usually be considered a class action suit.

Especially since most union shops are found in large companies, involving many employees and multiple locations across the country.

[ElanthianSiren]

Look up the term pro bono. I know many attorneys who take on litigation pro bono. Obviously you do not..

And yet with unions, such action is part of your union dues. It becomes a cost-benefit analysis for the worker. For the employer, it's definitely not as nice and likely functions to keep them in line.




Much like many unions. ;)

Possibly, but again, a union is localized to a specific population. With a government agency, it seems like you're going to waste quite a bit of time explaining and clarifying industry specifics.




Go check out the mandates for EEOC. They mirror many of the 'causes' the Unions claim to help prevent.

I did. I actually don't believe that unions exist for some of the outward reasons that they claim.



You also might want to review what OSHA actually enforces (workplace saftey) and consider how that compares with not only why Unions were brought into existance but also, again, why thats still a mandate of unions.

Again, I did. I debated adding hazards to my post, but I decided it wasn't worth the extra effort to edit that one. I agree that hazards, injury, and pay were why unions formed in the 1800-early 1900s, but we can agree that hazards and injury are not the primary functions of unions now. Unions are those things, but more importantly, they're pay leverage.

So again, IMO, it's up to the employer to find a way to move away from that system, as unions aren't illegal. As far as cost-benefit, I'm guessing some have decided it's not worth the hassle.

[Tolwynn]

Unions ostensibly exist to combat excess and abuse by companies, but in doing so, they should not commit excesses and abuses of their own.

The plight of the worker is an important one, but so too are those of the business and the economy. Damage either enough and the worker's job may well become a moot point. The UAW in this case realized this, at least, in agreeing to shoulder some of the staggering health costs of GM's auto workers.

The power of collective bargaining should not be used for extortion. Situations like the NY transit union (whose jobs couldn't be offshored) with bus drivers making ~40k a year, plus full benefits and pension threatening to shut down New York for Christmas unless they get paid even more? That's just bullshit and greed, and contributes a lot towards anti-union sentiment.

When things transcend from reasonable requests for worker benefits to greed or outright extortion, there's going to be little support or sympathy, particularly when benefits are sparse for most, and many (for one example) have to go self- or wholly uninsured. I don't imagine most felt sorry for the bus drivers above. Should they be expected to feel any more sorry for manual laborers with decent pay and hefty benefits, as well as six figure severance packages?

[Parkbandit]

I would sooner dismantle a business than to be held hostage by a union.

[Gan]

Why is it that Unions are more prevalent in the North/East Coast/West Coast than in the South?

[TheEschaton]

Because the NE and the upper midwest are the center of the country's manufacturing industries?

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

a guy that claims Mandela's dead because Saddam killed all the Mandelas of the world (btw Mandela's quite alive). All the Mandelas of Iraq. I sure as heck can't find any living Mandelas in Iraq! Obviously they must all have been killed.
The legal system already does deal with them.I don't recall reading about the government refunding all the Enroners that got robbed. SOURCE? :D

[Gan]

I don't recall reading about the government refunding all the Enroners that got robbed. SOURCE? :D
Surely you dont think that the government's only role in the Enron debacle was to reimburse those who were wronged?

[Latrinsorm]

Not only, no, but if I wanted to claim that I had "dealt with" a situation like that, leaving the victims broke would not cohere.

[Gan]

Not only, no, but if I wanted to claim that I had "dealt with" a situation like that, leaving the victims broke would not cohere.

Perhaps if you understood the original quote in its context, you might not be so confused in your reponses.

[Nieninque]

You make it sound like outsourcing is bad.

It fucking is.

I just got called by a telesales bloke from India.
It's bad enough I have to struggle to understand someone I want to speak to (i.e. customer services departments that are outsourced) let alone someone I dont want to talk to.

[Gan]

It fucking is.

I just got called by a telesales bloke from India.
It's bad enough I have to struggle to understand someone I want to speak to (i.e. customer services departments that are outsourced) let alone someone I dont want to talk to.

Racist

[Nieninque]

I was having pretty racist thoughts when I put the phone down.
I admonished myself severely though, so it's OK now.

[Nieninque]

p.s. LoL at your -TheG- sig.

[TheEschaton]

He's had it for awhile now.

-TheE-