Quote:
Originally Posted by M/V_Bear_II
I don't disagree that there are unions in some industries that have become detrimental to the health of the industry, and have accumulated more power and benefits for their workers than some of those workers deserve.
That said, the need for unions is not obsolete. Unionization in the first half of the century addressed worker safety and security and provided fair wages. While working conditions are much safer and those wages could now justly be described as unfair to employers and non-union workers, industries that are not unionized provide some of the most shocking examples of worker mistreatment and complete disregard for worker safety in the civilized world. Read Fast Food Nation, including the descriptions of meatpacking and chicken-processing plants.
bilproject has the most reasonable response here. If a company or industry so totally disregards the welfare of its workers that on-the-job deaths are not just common but routine, it deserves to have to deal with those same bloated unions.
That said, I don't think the Town of Meredith has a lot of problems with on-the-job injuries or death. I don't think there's a good reason why 30 people can't get together and work with the town managers without bringing in representatives from across the country.
|
During the industrial age, employee exploitation was quite literally out of control. The concepts we know and understand today that drive competitiveness in industry were completetly absent. We needed unions then. Employers took a long while to figure it out but many now "get it." Your best competitive edge comes from first providing a safe work environment, being fair to employees, paying competive wages and benefits, etc.
I agree completely that unhappy workers would be the ones to seek representation. It's sad that there are still companies out there that just don't get it and continue to operate in the dark ages. They got what was coming to them.
A sister company of mine is part union and part non-union. They work in the same safe work environment but the union group threatened to strike if they didn't get the level of benefits they wanted, including benefits for retirees. So their health benefits are better than their peers who chose not to be in the union. That actually drove up the cost of the medical benefits astronomically for all... since having different plans in the same health contract increases the administrative costs with the carriers, amongst other things. The union didn't much care about that. Their copays are still better than everyone else's. Never mind that their premiums are only 27% of the total cost and the company picks up the rest.
Additionally, and I could go on all day on this stuff, some of the union employees have even filed a grievance for being held accountable for shoddy work! You have no idea how unproductive something like that is. You end up with the employee, the representative, HR manager, and the employee's manager all wrapped up for hours discussing something as simple as an production employee not making rate or sleeping on the job.
I've been on both sides of the fence and will never work in a unionized company. In my line of work, I'd have to sit at the negotiating table and frankly couldn't stomach it. I'd rather eat spiders and wade in crap.