Let's talk about Unions.

[Neomalthusian]

yes, i'd join. i've been listening to right wing horror stories about unions since i was a right winger myself. i'm part of the non-legacy workforce which didn't benefit from a base of union represented workers. that status quo also shielded highly skilled non-union workers.

I don't see myself as a right-winger anymore. I might sound like one on some topics, but I actually find the standard right wing mantra to often be, at best, highly ineffective at coming up with functional public policy, whereas I support functional public policy. I also live in one of the 12 most conservative (Republican, I mean) states in the country, yet it's the third most unionized state in the nation. More unionized than California even. Lots of Republicans up here deep into the pockets of Big Labor.

i'd take my chances. being fired at a whim for any reason or no reason at all with no recourse is worse than that. "good job, you're fired" shouldn't be a thing that workers have to endure with no means of pushing back.

Why not? You can quit at a whim, for any reason or no reason, with no recourse, can't you?

Unionized workplaces can't prevent employers from getting rid of people. Employers can engage in layoffs. Employers can reduce staffing by attrition and fill gaps with temporaries. Employers can plunge you down the path of "progressive discipline" even when you're probably doing an adequate job. If they wanted to build a case against anyone, they can, especially when jobs are complex and overall performance is subjective. If you were in a fully padded, unionized, termination-for-just-cause-only job, and you saw your employer finding every single thing wrong with what you did and you could see between the lines that they want you gone, how would like working in that job? It would be hell. I'd rather be let go than know that I have an employer who wants to fire me and won't tell me why and is just looking for every possible reason to do so. That would be intolerable, yet there's nothing any union could do about it. They could try to slow the employer down, but employers have rights to discontinue buying people's labor, and always will. If my employer wants me gone, I'd rather be gone. There is no job I'd ever be willing to do under those circumstances.

Union contracts can't force your employer to like you, or force your employer to want to keep you, or force your employer to make your job pleasant or even humanly tolerable. Employers will always be able to get rid of people, and when you work in a job where you know your employer is constantly scanning for any excuse to fire you, that is a ****ty place to work. In some cases, the union's attempts to booby-trap the termination process forces employers to be strictly by-the-book assholes. They have no other choice really, because they know they constantly need to be leaving themselves a means to justify termination later on if needed.

I currently work under just-cause termination rules, and I've worked two different times (salaried jobs, both) under at-will conditions, and I would choose at-will every time, if it were my choice to make. Given the option, I would turn my own job into at-will from just-cause today, in exchange for nothing. When I am at-will, I have motivation to do my job well, and my employer knows this, my attitude about my work and the freedom of my boss to fire me at-will helps me build trust with my employer, communication tends to be more open and honest, with much less bull****, and the work environment tends to be more positive and with higher morale as a result of those things.

Highly unionized environments between management and staff have always been, in my experience, wrought with an authoritarian mindset, with employers strictly adhering to rigid requirements and provisions loaded into union contracts, and union employees adhering strictly to job requirements and conditions of the bargaining agreement. It gives the entire employment relationship a definitively litigious and adversarial feeling. It is rote and impersonal and full of resentment and there is a huge barrier to open and honest communication between union staff and management. The union requires it to be this way so that management can't build good relationships with staff, because to do so threatens the employee's sense of need for the union.

 

[calamity]

I don't see myself as a right-winger anymore. I might sound like one on some topics, but I actually find the standard right wing mantra to often be, at best, highly ineffective at coming up with functional public policy, whereas I support functional public policy. I also live in one of the 12 most conservative (Republican, I mean) states in the country, yet it's the third most unionized state in the nation. More unionized than California even. Lots of Republicans up here deep into the pockets of Big Labor.



Why not? You can quit at a whim, for any reason or no reason, with no recourse, can't you?

Unionized workplaces can't prevent employers from getting rid of people. Employers can engage in layoffs. Employers can reduce staffing by attrition and fill gaps with temporaries. Employers can plunge you down the path of "progressive discipline" even when you're probably doing an adequate job. If they wanted to build a case against anyone, they can, especially when jobs are complex and overall performance is subjective. If you were in a fully padded, unionized, termination-for-just-cause-only job, and you saw your employer finding every single thing wrong with what you did and you could see between the lines that they want you gone, how would like working in that job? It would be hell. I'd rather be let go than know that I have an employer who wants to fire me and won't tell me why and is just looking for every possible reason to do so. That would be intolerable, yet there's nothing any union could do about it. They could try to slow the employer down, but employers have rights to discontinue buying people's labor, and always will. If my employer wants me gone, I'd rather be gone. There is no job I'd ever be willing to do under those circumstances.

Union contracts can't force your employer to like you, or force your employer to want to keep you, or force your employer to make your job pleasant or even humanly tolerable. Employers will always be able to get rid of people, and when you work in a job where you know your employer is constantly scanning for any excuse to fire you, that is a ****ty place to work. In some cases, the union's attempts to booby-trap the termination process forces employers to be strictly by-the-book assholes. They have no other choice really, because they know they constantly need to be leaving themselves a means to justify termination later on if needed.

I currently work under just-cause termination rules, and I've worked two different times (salaried jobs, both) under at-will conditions, and I would choose at-will every time, if it were my choice to make. Given the option, I would turn my own job into at-will from just-cause today, in exchange for nothing. When I am at-will, I have motivation to do my job well, and my employer knows this, my attitude about my work and the freedom of my boss to fire me at-will helps me build trust with my employer, communication tends to be more open and honest, with much less bull****, and the work environment tends to be more positive and with higher morale as a result of those things.

Highly unionized environments between management and staff have always been, in my experience, wrought with an authoritarian mindset, with employers strictly adhering to rigid requirements and provisions loaded into union contracts, and union employees adhering strictly to job requirements and conditions of the bargaining agreement. It gives the entire employment relationship a definitively litigious and adversarial feeling. It is rote and impersonal and full of resentment and there is a huge barrier to open and honest communication between union staff and management. The union requires it to be this way so that management can't build good relationships with staff, because to do so threatens the employee's sense of need for the union.

I've spent most of my career in right to work environments, "fire at will," if you choose. IMO, never have I felt that people were fired for no reason. In fact, the few times I found myself fired, I was always given a shot across the bow, fair warning, telling me that I was rapidly approaching thin ice. I do the same today, when I have to terminate a problematic employee. We always give them a chance to correct bad behavior.

Even in management, the fire at will thing does not come without subtle warnings. The guy whose job I have today was given just such a warning during a luncheon about a month before being fired. He was whining about needing a bigger budget to achieve some of the directives coming from the owner. The owner got pissed, and went off on a tirade about how he needs to find a way to make it work with the budget currently on the table or increase revenues. It was clear, no more "free" money was forthcoming. My eyes almost popped out of my head a month later, when the idiot brought up the subject again. The next day he was gone.

 

[Helix]

I don't see myself as a right-winger anymore. I might sound like one on some topics, but I actually find the standard right wing mantra to often be, at best, highly ineffective at coming up with functional public policy, whereas I support functional public policy. I also live in one of the 12 most conservative (Republican, I mean) states in the country, yet it's the third most unionized state in the nation. More unionized than California even. Lots of Republicans up here deep into the pockets of Big Labor.



Why not? You can quit at a whim, for any reason or no reason, with no recourse, can't you?

Unionized workplaces can't prevent employers from getting rid of people. Employers can engage in layoffs. Employers can reduce staffing by attrition and fill gaps with temporaries. Employers can plunge you down the path of "progressive discipline" even when you're probably doing an adequate job. If they wanted to build a case against anyone, they can, especially when jobs are complex and overall performance is subjective. If you were in a fully padded, unionized, termination-for-just-cause-only job, and you saw your employer finding every single thing wrong with what you did and you could see between the lines that they want you gone, how would like working in that job? It would be hell. I'd rather be let go than know that I have an employer who wants to fire me and won't tell me why and is just looking for every possible reason to do so. That would be intolerable, yet there's nothing any union could do about it. They could try to slow the employer down, but employers have rights to discontinue buying people's labor, and always will. If my employer wants me gone, I'd rather be gone. There is no job I'd ever be willing to do under those circumstances.

Union contracts can't force your employer to like you, or force your employer to want to keep you, or force your employer to make your job pleasant or even humanly tolerable. Employers will always be able to get rid of people, and when you work in a job where you know your employer is constantly scanning for any excuse to fire you, that is a ****ty place to work. In some cases, the union's attempts to booby-trap the termination process forces employers to be strictly by-the-book assholes. They have no other choice really, because they know they constantly need to be leaving themselves a means to justify termination later on if needed.

I currently work under just-cause termination rules, and I've worked two different times (salaried jobs, both) under at-will conditions, and I would choose at-will every time, if it were my choice to make. Given the option, I would turn my own job into at-will from just-cause today, in exchange for nothing. When I am at-will, I have motivation to do my job well, and my employer knows this, my attitude about my work and the freedom of my boss to fire me at-will helps me build trust with my employer, communication tends to be more open and honest, with much less bull****, and the work environment tends to be more positive and with higher morale as a result of those things.

Highly unionized environments between management and staff have always been, in my experience, wrought with an authoritarian mindset, with employers strictly adhering to rigid requirements and provisions loaded into union contracts, and union employees adhering strictly to job requirements and conditions of the bargaining agreement. It gives the entire employment relationship a definitively litigious and adversarial feeling. It is rote and impersonal and full of resentment and there is a huge barrier to open and honest communication between union staff and management. The union requires it to be this way so that management can't build good relationships with staff, because to do so threatens the employee's sense of need for the union.

you won't convince me that having negotiating power to sell my labor at the best price i can get is a bad thing. also, i should have someone on my side if i'm terminated while doing a great job. i'm sorry if that is an inconvenience for my employer, but my employer isn't sorry when it inconveniences me or even turns my life upside down. labor organization is not perfect, but i'd rather have it than to fly solo against the odds.

as for "at will" and "right to work," i've found that to be a major crock of ****. if my work is above expectations and creates value, then at the very least, i shouldn't have to worry about job security. and if they **** me over, i should be have the means to make that at least a little uncomfortable for them.

 

[Neomalthusian]

you won't convince me that having negotiating power to sell my labor at the best price i can get is a bad thing.

Won't stop me from trying. It isn't "negotiating power," it's cartel power. What unions say about "negotiating power" is a myth. further, you aren't the one with the power when you're in a union. The labor union has the power. If the labor union wants something you don't, for example because it benefits the majority of its members and those with seniority, and you have neither the majority opinion nor do you have seniority, then in that case you have even less actual power than if you didn't belong to the union. Another example would be if you thought you could negotiate a higher salary for yourself individually with your employer than the union could for you, if you belong to a union, you have less actual power than if you didn't, because union protocol forbids you from negotiating on your own.

The union has the power over you and the employer, thanks to exemptions from certain laws that make what they do illegal.

also, i should have someone on my side if i'm terminated while doing a great job.

"Someone on your side?" When a buyer doesn't want to buy something, there are no "sides" that go to war over it. The buyer simply doesn't buy the thing, and thus the seller seeks other buyers who will buy the thing.

as for "at will" and "right to work," i've found that to be a major crock of ****. if my work is above expectations and creates value, then at the very least, i shouldn't have to worry about job security.

Then why do you?

and if they **** me over, i should be have the means to make that at least a little uncomfortable for them.

Should a grocery store be able to "make it a little uncomfortable for you" if you walk around for a few hours trying its free samples and complimentary coffee and walk out without buying anything? They wanted you to buy something, and you didn't, so you ****ed them over. What should they be able to do to you as payback?

How about a car dealership if you test drive their cars and take up their salespeople's time and then drive off without buying a car? What should they be able to do to you to make it "at least a little uncomfortable" for you?

Buyers and sellers of goods and services should be free to buy things they want to buy from others when they want to, or not do so and look elsewhere. What unions have is an exemption from laws that prohibit cartels and monopoly power so that they can engage in behavior that should be illegal and otherwise for the most part already is illegal.

 

[Helix]

Won't stop me from trying. It isn't "negotiating power," it's cartel power. What unions say about "negotiating power" is a myth. further, you aren't the one with the power when you're in a union. The labor union has the power. If the labor union wants something you don't, for example because it benefits the majority of its members and those with seniority, and you have neither the majority opinion nor do you have seniority, then in that case you have even less actual power than if you didn't belong to the union. Another example would be if you thought you could negotiate a higher salary for yourself individually with your employer than the union could for you, if you belong to a union, you have less actual power than if you didn't, because union protocol forbids you from negotiating on your own.

not having representation is a worse situation every time. this is one of the sticking points that pushed me away from libertarianism. works in a vacuum, and that's about it. as for "negotiating on my own," that's a laugh. you obviously don't live in my state.

The union has the power over you and the employer, thanks to exemptions from certain laws that make what they do illegal.

i'd still prefer union representation.

"Someone on your side?" When a buyer doesn't want to buy something, there are no "sides" that go to war over it. The buyer simply doesn't buy the thing, and thus the seller seeks other buyers who will buy the thing.

Then why do you?

because my employer can get rid of me for any reason or for no reason at all. hard work and loyalty is expected, but it doesn't earn me one ounce of job security. i'm getting ready to start a family and probably buy another house closer to my job. if my employer decides to do a "great job, you're fired" on me, i should have at least some entity that gives a **** about that.

Should a grocery store be able to "make it a little uncomfortable for you" if you walk around for a few hours trying its free samples and complimentary coffee and walk out without buying anything? They wanted you to buy something, and you didn't, so you ****ed them over. What should they be able to do to you as payback?

How about a car dealership if you test drive their cars and take up their salespeople's time and then drive off without buying a car? What should they be able to do to you to make it "at least a little uncomfortable" for you?

not analogous. i don't waste time with non-analogous arguments.

Buyers and sellers of goods and services should be free to buy things they want to buy from others when they want to, or not do so and look elsewhere. What unions have is an exemption from laws that prohibit cartels and monopoly power so that they can engage in behavior that should be illegal and otherwise for the most part already is illegal.

you aren't going to convince me no matter how many quote farm exchanges we muddle through. i'm better off with organized labor, and i would sign up in a minute.

 

[ludin]

If the union actually works with the company both can enjoy a healthy relationship.
These are usually local or small shop unions.

Where the trouble gets in are the big national unions. They could careless about the people in it.
All they care about is getting their union dues.

 

[reinoe]

I understand the benefits of the union in theory. However unions support unions only. They're not so bad in the private sector but in the public sector they are absolutely terrible. Government already does subpar and inefficient work. Unions make that situation much worse.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I understand the benefits of the union in theory. However unions support unions only. They're not so bad in the private sector but in the public sector they are absolutely terrible. Government already does subpar and inefficient work. Unions make that situation much worse.

I'm not sure it's fair to broadbrush all government as inefficient even without unionism, because government has been inextricable with unionism for the last half century. The two can't be teased apart to necessarily say government is necessarily so inefficient. In other words, the unprecedentedly high rates of unionism in government for the last half century have been a central reason why government is generally inefficient.

In the early 1970s, government was less unionized than the private sector. Now government is over 3 times more unionized than the private sector. In the mid-to-late 1970s, the public sector saw a spike in unionism, and has been (and remained) between 35% and 40% unionized since then. Union apologists and sympathizers often lament the general "decline of unions" in this country. Well that decline is mostly centered around the private sector, because union representation of government workers remains very high. Over the same 50-year period of time, has the private sector become more efficient as unions have declined? Extremely so. And over the same period of time, has government become more efficient or less? I would argue government has become less and less efficient as unions have moved in.

Is it some crazy coincidence that the private sector has become more efficient as unions have declined and the public sector has become less efficient as unionism has increased?

This has increasingly begun to frustrate me about conservatives and Republicans, especially in my state. They are generalizing and misdirecting a lot of their anger at, simple, "government" but haven't bothered to think critically about specifically what element within their government is really the source of their frustration. A huge share of the resentment gets directed at government managers, based on the assumption that if things aren't working well, it must be the manager's fault. This is to the sheer delight of unions, because it keeps the criticism off them and supports their agenda, and aligns conservatives with government unions against those evil, evil government managers. So many conservatives and Republicans who might agree with me about the public sector union problem in this country suddenly go mum on the issue of unions because they've never looked into it or even ****ing given it a thought. So I think to myself, what do you mean you haven't looked into it? Half of your local government is unionized! A third of your state government is unionized! How are you not aware of this?

Governments (including state and local ones) are often deeply divided between the heavily unionized workforce and government management. Anti-government conservatives need to pick a side. Do you support the management that is tasked with running your government, or do you support the unions that want more money for themselves from your government? You can't support both, and you can't oppose both. You have to decide why you hate government and figure out the root of the problem. You might come to find you have allies within your government. You might come to find you actually are a supporter of government, and that in fact it's really just one (or more) of the special interest groups that pull the strings of your government that you really oppose. Government labor unions are a huge special interest group. They represent almost half of your municipal government workers, and at least a third of your state government workers. Find out about them.

 

[Geoist]

I don't think it's right for any worker to be forced to join a labor union as a condition of getting employment at a specific company.

So do you agree then that worker who refuses to join the union should receive payment/benefits at pre-bargaining levels?

 

[Neomalthusian]

So do you agree then that worker who refuses to join the union should receive payment/benefits at pre-bargaining levels?

No one would agree with such a nonsensical thing. A worker who opts not to join a union should receive whatever pay, benefits and working terms and conditions the worker and the employer find to be mutually agreeable.

 

[Neomalthusian]

not having representation is a worse situation every time. this is one of the sticking points that pushed me away from libertarianism. works in a vacuum, and that's about it. as for "negotiating on my own," that's a laugh. you obviously don't live in my state.

i'd still prefer union representation.

Okay, and I don't hold anything against you personally for feeling that way. If you truly believe your own success and provision for your family is owed to unions, then of course you would feel that way. But I don't agree with it because I don't agree that any entity in society, except for government itself, should be allowed to do what unions do.

because my employer can get rid of me for any reason or for no reason at all. hard work and loyalty is expected, but it doesn't earn me one ounce of job security.

Then despite the skill/expertise you mentioned you have there must be an abundant supply of people able to do your job. It's difficult for any seller to succeed when there's a glut of what they sell, and there's no way to artificially get around that. It's an inescapable reality of buying and selling anything (including one's own labor).

i'm getting ready to start a family and probably buy another house closer to my job. if my employer decides to do a "great job, you're fired" on me, i should have at least some entity that gives a **** about that.

Even if your job was unionized and your rep was breathing down the neck of the employer to monitor every performance evaluation, an employer who wanted you gone could get rid of you. Even with "just cause only" clauses, unions are very limited in what they can do to infringe on managerial rights to give negative performance appraisals. Building a case for "cause" before termination is as easy as following a recipe, especially if the firm has counsel helping. Management can evaluate you with Draconian standards and push you out. If you were in that process, perplexed that your performance was said to be negative, saw the writing on the wall, your boss hates you, wants you gone... you sure that's a place you want to continue working long-term? Do you really want to litigate to keep this job where you're hated and stressed because your every move is examined for a reason to fire you? Progressive discipline clauses are holdovers from the Industrial Revolution, make workplaces and work relationships toxic and treat employees like third graders. If your work environment is toxic and your employer hates you and wants you gone, you are risking the predictability and well-being of your family by clinging to that job and not looking for other options where your services would be more appreciated.

not analogous. i don't waste time with non-analogous arguments.

You will argue that labor unions will never be analogous to the buying and selling of anything else, but this is because labor unions are exempt from certain laws that govern the buying and selling of virtually everything else.

you aren't going to convince me no matter how many quote farm exchanges we muddle through. i'm better off with organized labor, and i would sign up in a minute.

I get that I can't convince you, but the reality is American Labor Unions exists on the edge of a knife, and survive only because of widespread public ignorance of the facts and the law.
1) No employer is required to agree to a union security clause. Each employer has it within his own individual power to be de facto Right To Work. Taft-Hartley informs us of this.
2) Right To Work does not cause a "freeloader" problem for unions, because they can simply negotiate members-only contracts.
3) Government employers often don't have to submit to interest arbitration and, even in the cases they do, the arbitrator's "award" still isn't binding on the legislature that ratifies and funds those contracts. So why arbitrate? The elected governing body is the ultimate arbitrator of these contracts. Therefore the entire interest arbitration process is a pretentious (and costly) display to inject the illusion of legal mandate over legislatures' decisions on collective bargaining.
4) Employers can permanent replace workers if they are striking for economic gain. So the power to strike is very often and largely illusory.

These are facts that are already established by federal law. And they are facts that terrify unions. Current law is already an existential threat to unions. Their continued existence depends on trying to keep society ignorant as to these facts.

 

[Helix]

Okay, and I don't hold anything against you personally for feeling that way. If you truly believe your own success and provision for your family is owed to unions, then of course you would feel that way. But I don't agree with it because I don't agree that any entity in society, except for government itself, should be allowed to do what unions do.



Then despite the skill/expertise you mentioned you have there must be an abundant supply of people able to do your job. It's difficult for any seller to succeed when there's a glut of what they sell, and there's no way to artificially get around that. It's an inescapable reality of buying and selling anything (including one's own labor).



Even if your job was unionized and your rep was breathing down the neck of the employer to monitor every performance evaluation, an employer who wanted you gone could get rid of you. Even with "just cause only" clauses, unions are very limited in what they can do to infringe on managerial rights to give negative performance appraisals. Building a case for "cause" before termination is as easy as following a recipe, especially if the firm has counsel helping. Management can evaluate you with Draconian standards and push you out. If you were in that process, perplexed that your performance was said to be negative, saw the writing on the wall, your boss hates you, wants you gone... you sure that's a place you want to continue working long-term? Do you really want to litigate to keep this job where you're hated and stressed because your every move is examined for a reason to fire you? Progressive discipline clauses are holdovers from the Industrial Revolution, make workplaces and work relationships toxic and treat employees like third graders. If your work environment is toxic and your employer hates you and wants you gone, you are risking the predictability and well-being of your family by clinging to that job and not looking for other options where your services would be more appreciated.



You will argue that labor unions will never be analogous to the buying and selling of anything else, but this is because labor unions are exempt from certain laws that govern the buying and selling of virtually everything else.



I get that I can't convince you, but the reality is American Labor Unions exists on the edge of a knife, and survive only because of widespread public ignorance of the facts and the law.
1) No employer is required to agree to a union security clause. Each employer has it within his own individual power to be de facto Right To Work. Taft-Hartley informs us of this.
2) Right To Work does not cause a "freeloader" problem for unions, because they can simply negotiate members-only contracts.
3) Government employers often don't have to submit to interest arbitration and, even in the cases they do, the arbitrator's "award" still isn't binding on the legislature that ratifies and funds those contracts. So why arbitrate? The elected governing body is the ultimate arbitrator of these contracts. Therefore the entire interest arbitration process is a pretentious (and costly) display to inject the illusion of legal mandate over legislatures' decisions on collective bargaining.
4) Employers can permanent replace workers if they are striking for economic gain. So the power to strike is very often and largely illusory.

These are facts that are already established by federal law. And they are facts that terrify unions. Current law is already an existential threat to unions. Their continued existence depends on trying to keep society ignorant as to these facts.

i had a point by point response, but i'm hitting the character limit, and it's pointless to continue anyway. you don't like unions, and i see labor organization as the best port in a storm. allow me to close by saying that i'm glad that you personally are in a position that is apparently at least a little secure. here's hoping that they don't figure out a technology or find someone who will do your job for a fraction of the cost.

 

[Neomalthusian]

i had a point by point response, but i'm hitting the character limit, and it's pointless to continue anyway. you don't like unions, and i see labor organization as the best port in a storm. allow me to close by saying that i'm glad that you personally are in a position that is apparently at least a little secure. here's hoping that they don't figure out a technology or find someone who will do your job for a fraction of the cost.

There is no "they," I am the "they" and doing exactly that to my own job is my #1 career goal.

There is nothing intrinsically satisfying about doing the grunt tasks associated with my job, and it's even less satisfying if known solutions exist to time-wasting and money-wasting inefficiencies. If a more efficient method exists, then relatively speaking its both stupid and selfish to want it to be done less efficiently so that I can feel like I have more job security.

Personally, I find that I generally can't trust people to think critically and solve complex problems if they seem overly concerned with job security. And as a result, they tend to have less job security under me if they are avoidant of finding solutions out of a selfish fear that they may one day no longer be needed.

 

[James972]

i see labor organization as the best port in a storm.

why?? its a blatent and violent rip off of those who pay for it. Why not give every special interest group govt support for higher wages or whatever else they are interested in?

 

[Helix]

There is no "they," I am the "they" and doing exactly that to my own job is my #1 career goal.

There is nothing intrinsically satisfying about doing the grunt tasks associated with my job, and it's even less satisfying if known solutions exist to time-wasting and money-wasting inefficiencies. If a more efficient method exists, then relatively speaking its both stupid and selfish to want it to be done less efficiently so that I can feel like I have more job security.

Personally, I find that I generally can't trust people to think critically and solve complex problems if they seem overly concerned with job security. And as a result, they tend to have less job security under me if they are avoidant of finding solutions out of a selfish fear that they may one day no longer be needed.

thanks for sharing your experience. my experience is that i can't trust my employer to act in my best interest when the status quo allows them to fire me at a whim, even though i am doing a highly skilled job exceptionally well. i would sign up for organized labor if it only made that practice even the slightest bit more uncomfortable for management. given this, our discussion is probably going to be fruitless.

 

[Helix]

why?? its a blatent and violent rip off of those who pay for it. Why not give every special interest group govt support for higher wages or whatever else they are interested in?

i don't waste time on false dichotomies.

 

[James972]

i don't waste time on false dichotomies.

if it is a false dichotomies please try to tell us why you think that

 

[James972]

the status quo allows them to fire me at a whim,

???? if they fired people on a whim who would want to work for them? They would go bankrupt. But if they do, your loss would be somebody else's gain thus govt has no interest. Also, why fire someone who is working out and have to train a new person and pray they work out. Also, if you're that good you can fire them on whim and make more elsewhere. Isn't capitalism grand?

 

[Helix]

???? if they fired people on a whim who would want to work for them? They would go bankrupt. But if they do, your loss would be somebody else's gain thus govt has no interest. Also, why fire someone who is working out and have to train a new person and pray they work out. Also, if you're that good you can fire them on whim and make more elsewhere. Isn't capitalism grand?

it's all about the short term. they don't care if it costs more to train someone new if it looks like they're saving money this week.

anyway, support firing folks for any reason or for no reason at all if you want. doing an exceptional job and mutual loyalty actually means something to me.

 

[Neomalthusian]

it's all about the short term. they don't care if it costs more to train someone new if it looks like they're saving money this week.

I think it's pretty unfair to characterize management in general as this idiotic. Management often primarily reduces staffing through attrition, even where there is no union, because of the risks and costs of wrongful termination lawsuits (even the frivolous ones).

anyway, support firing folks for any reason or for no reason at all if you want. doing an exceptional job and mutual loyalty actually means something to me.

They matter to everyone, but those things aren't advanced by unions, and in some cases the opposite is promoted. Unions almost always push seniority privilege and avoid merit. Exceptional performance from one loyal and dedicated member casts negative light by comparison on adequately-performing less-loyal seeming members. Unions will typically advise their members to only do as explicitly instructed, because if new needs emerge and new tasks come up, the union needs to use those as leverage for more pay. Unions will tell their membership "don't lift a finger or do an ounce more work than ordered or an ounce different work than explicitly written in your job description... because we can leverage more money for it." How is that approach compatible with exceptional job performance and mutual loyalty? Unions also run interference in the open communication between management and staff that would be necessary for real and mutual loyalty to exist.

And to be clear, I don't point out these tactics to say unions are just evil sinister things, the nature of unions makes these maneuvers and tactics just basic. It's only in their most basic and obvious best interest to do these things. So it's not like I expect them to behave differently for the benefit of the employer organization. That would be to expect irrationality.

 

[James972]

it's all about the short term. they don't care if it costs more to train someone new if it looks like they're saving money this week.

well short term thinking is deadly to a business since it wants to exist long term. Thus the problem is self-correcting

 

[James972]

anyway, support firing folks for any reason or for no reason at all if you want.

why not since it leads to hiring folks for any reason or no reason?? Govt must be neutral and so am i since I have no basis to prefer the hired person over the fired person.

 

[James972]

doing an exceptional job and mutual loyalty actually means something to me.

and I would think to a successful business too, assuming the pay is in line.

 

[Helix]

and I would think to a successful business too, assuming the pay is in line.

loyalty doesn't mean much. a couple shifts in upper management, and you're out on your ass with little warning. i've watched it happen.

either way, i should have stopped wasting time discussing this topic with the anti-union internet contingent a long time ago. i'll do that now, and focus instead on voting against anti-labor candidates.

 

[James972]

loyalty doesn't mean much. a couple shifts in upper management, and you're out on your ass with little warning. i've watched it happen.

.

well don't forget everyone gets promoted to a job they finally cant do. this may be best policy to perfect management and turn out best products possible at lowest prices possible. Unions drove entire industries with 10 million workers offshore with their high wages and junk products. To protect workers unions should be made illegal again