- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Agreed. Something I've been saying (though some companies work well with a more egalitarian approach).
At least we agree on something.
Which is when they are negotiating. Unions don't negotiate daily. They do that at regular intervals. We'renot union here persay, but we negotiate a new contract yearly. And while a new employee may be starting at the time, they do get the benefit of whatever is negotiated. But, there is nothing midway through the job that anyone is advocating.
Exactly. And this is part of the problem. Even the new employee that has not proven that they deserve more gets the same benefits that someone who's worked somewhere for 20 years gets. Or the crappy employee gets the same benefits as the hard working employee. The union negotiates for the whole regardless of ability of the individual workers. If 1/4 of those people that are negotiated for are hard workers and the rest are crap workers why should the company pay 3/4 of its employees the same amount as the 1/4 gets? Those crap employees can hurt the companies profits. And we all know that its rather hard for a company to fire crappy workers when unions are around.
Nor is anyone saying they have to pay anyone anything. Merely saying that barganinig collectively is worhtwhile and valid. And that any company that has such a disparity between the CEO pay and the average worker, more than historcial, and more than the rest of the world, has their priorities out of wack. No law against being stupid to be sure, but calling stupid stupid is appropriate.
But thats the thing, people are saying that they have to pay. That is what strikes are all about. Making the company pay what they think they should be paid, regardless if it is deserved or not, through extortion no less. Even in this thread I see people basically saying that the CEO should have to pay the workers more and give them more benefits. "Because the workers have the right to it". (paraphrasing) My last post was responding to just such a poster.
Don't get me wrong. I don't hate unions. They do have thier pro's. But unions also have thier con's. And lately those con's have been outweighing the benefits of the pro's. When unions first start out they are great. But eventually, just like corporations, they grow too big and start to become a burden. Causing everything attached to them to fail.
IMO the very thing that is argued for employee's should be argued for companies also. Yeah yeah, thats what "negotiating" is suppose to do. But that "negotiating" table is very one sided and favors unions. Look what happened with Boeing when they tried to open up a plant in a RTW state. The unions forced them to not do it via the courts. No amount of employee's should be able to stop a company from building a factory elsewhere...no matter the reason. Even if Boeing was doing it to get away from unions they had that right. Because no one has a right to work. Or more precisely they have a right to work, but not a right to work at a specific company if that company does not want them.