Ughhh. First of all, paragraphs and sentences are your friend. This is your only warning; I'm not going to read through every post you write if it's in this format.
well that's an offer i can't refuse
not! only wish others with so little to offer were so easily put off
i don't care what your writing preferences are - this is your last warning
nope
i was wrong to say that
if you come up with this silly crap again i will be only too delighted to embarrass you with your own words again
so, this may not actually be your last warning
Why should they be required to participate in good faith, if they aren't interested in what the union is offering?
federal statutes require it
If I stop you on the street and ask you to buy my book for $20, should the government compel you to negotiate with me in good faith? Or should you be able to just tell me no?
i have nothing invested in this relationship, where you are simply offering me a book to purchase. in the work environment, i do have a large investment. the union minimizes the ability of the business to exploit the worker
as an example, it keeps me from being fired the day before i am eligible to become invested in the retirement plan
it keeps me from being fired because i am sick, when the employer would just as soon hire someone else to replace me - thru no fault of my own
it amazes me that you can't figure this out on your own
No, it's entirely one-sided period. Negotiations are along the lines of "I'll give you X if you give me Y." The union gives NOTHING to the employer, so it's entirely one-sided.
you have absolutely no negotiation skills then, which may explain the weak debating ability
the employer wants a new performance evaluation system
i want to implement a credit hour system
the employer is willing to give me the opportunity for the bargaining unit to earn credit hours if i will agree to allow the employer to revise the performance system
that's a singular real world example
notice how both sides got what they wanted. win-win
If the employer believes that is the case, it is free to make an explicit policy regarding employee termination so that its employees do not feel expendable. They don't need a union to do that.
no, they don't need a union to implement that employee protection. and the well managed companies don't have a union - probably because they know how smart it is to work with their employees
but your question was, what does the union offer to the employer
and it is my contention that an employee who believes that by helping his company he is helping his own career, his own future prospects, he is going to be a better employee for the company than one who is simply trading time for money. it would appear you might be in the latter category
This is nothing that couldn't be accomplished just as easily without the union.
why would an employee, who is trading time for money, and is without an interest in the company's progress, be interested in telling management where savings could be made
and a follow-up question would be, what apparatus is in place for the company to solicit employee input for the betterment of the company
How? Are they going to force employees not to quit if they want to?
the continuity i was speaking about was continuity of processes and procedures as defined by the contract negotiated by and between labor and management
the 13th amendment let's them quit if they should want. let me know if you need a reference, i'll post a cite
Again, this could be accomplished just as easily without the union. It isn't THE UNION that has the experience to steer the new management in the right direction, it's the EMPLOYEES.
ok, then you tell me what mechanism would otherwise be in place to use the institutional knowledge, to explain to the incoming political appointees that they cannot do the things they want to do because that will damage the organization's interests. it is the legal authority of the union, that ability to speak for the employees, that provides a voice which would otherwise be silent
those middle managers, who MUST follow the appointees' orders, often provide information to the union to prevent the appintees from doing stupid stuff. the union becomes the third leg of the chair, providing stability to the public organization
Again, the union is not necessary for ANY of this. If the employer agrees with you that those things are advantages, they are free to set their own policies regarding hiring/promotions.
you presume that in the void, where there is no union, that the political appointees are going to create some mechanism within the organization over which they preside, which mechanism will tell them that they cannot do the stupid things that they have proposed to do
does it sound as stupid when i repeat it to you as it did when i first read your post
So once again I ask: What does the union offer management that the free market does not?
i already listed them
use your mouse and go see what they are
you have offered nothing to indicate that which the union offers is not of valid benefit to the enterprise
