EF Swagee - 11/30/2008 6:11 PM

Good, healthy debate going on here. I like it!

A question for the anti-unionists: As a worker, how do you propose to protect yourself against the mistreatment or un-fairness or maybe even abuse you may be subjected to by company owners who are *primarily* interested in maximizing profit?

RedNeckTech - 11/30/2008 6:19 PM

EF, I am not anti-union. Unions are for some people but not for me. I prefer to have my pay based on merit and as far as my experience most employers try to treat the employees well.

ES--------Interesting. I am glad you haven't had bad experiences with abusive employers. Sadly, *many* fellow workers across the country and throughout the world have. I would point to this recent class action against Wal-Mart as one example: http://www.ilcaonline.org/ht/redisplay/1/printerfriendly/1
(an excerpt: "HASTINGS, Minn. – Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, violated the law more than 2 million times over a six-year period by denying workers time for breaks and forcing them to work "off the clock" for no pay, a Minnesota judge has ruled."

ES-----I wonder what, if anything, you have in common with those Wal-Mart workers?

There was just an employer in Illinois that sold their business and as a thank you to the employees they gave them checks ranging from $5,000 to $40,000 and it was non-union.

ES-------I am interested in learning more about that situation. Would you please direct me to a source where I might obtain the details?

Union shops are as vulnerable to greedy owners as non-union.

ES------- True, but to give credit to unions, which is what I am trying to do, we have to consider that a bit differently. The historical record shows that organized labor movements have won very important victories for those of us in the working class. Without their efforts of yesteryear, today's labor laws, like the eight-hour workday and mandatory break periods, for example, wouldn't exist. With that in mind, I'd argue that it is a lack of solidarity among today's working class that makes *all* of us in the working class vulnerable to greedy owners.

Unions have not been able to stop their jobs from being relocated to different parts of the country with no unions or a different country all together for more profit. So as far as that goes unions don't do any good.

EF Swagee - 11/30/2008 8:50 PM

Ooops, I didn't put in my guest name. I am responsible for that last post.

And

Yes, Mr. or Ms. "duh", you are missing quite a lot.

RedNeckTech - 11/30/2008 9:14 PM

Banding together and making the companies give in to your demands is reckless and irresponsible. A company is not in business to give you a job, it is there to make money. You, however, are there to help make the company money. People put a lot more on the line to start and run a business than you think, and since they have put a whole lot of money at risk to start the company they are entitled to the large returns. This mentality that executives are the evil in a company is wrong. Everyone in corporate is what makes the company and makes the jobs, the workers are the ones that make the products. Not everyone can run a company but just about anyone can make the products. I have yet seen a worker of a company give anyone a job but I sure see the corporate give jobs.

RedNeckTech - 11/30/2008 11:38 PM

I did not respond to the Wal-mart because I don't know enough about it. Yes there are employer abuses just the same there are abuses that unions create. I am not going to nick-pick, this was a general discussion. Where ever did I say it was not evil to un-lawfully deny workers time for breaks and force them to work off the clock for no pay? If you're going to take me out of context like that then it is for the better that you depart from the debate.

Big 3 worker - 11/29/2008 7:09 AM

Several things you have completely wrong Redneck. First, you mention that nobody has made sacrifices. Let me point a few out to you. The Big 3 have trimmed almost 50% of their payroll. The UAW is now funding the workers healthcare. The dealer networks have been trimmed down, though more is needed. Even below the Big 3 many sacrifices have been made. American Axle workers had their wages cut in HALF and lost many benefits. Delphi, almost the same stroy. Then there's the 100's of other companies that have made cuts that didn't make the headlines.

thumper - 12/1/2008 11:28 AM

Guest- Were the Wal-Mart workers in the story you cited union workers? I read the story, and it made no mention of it, so I assume they were not. It looks to me like the labor laws worked as they should, Wal-Mart will be punished, and the workers reimbursed. I believe that story illustrates why we DON'T need unions anymore.

Rich S - 12/1/2008 12:58 PM

Guest-Okay RNT, once again I'll ask you nicely, again. Please direct me to the source for your assertion that "unions create abuses".

Well, if you call causing innocent people to lose their job abuse...

When General Motors' Saturn plant was opened amid the cornfields of Spring Hill, Tenn., in 1990, it was billed as a kind of corporate nirvana where a folksy labor force and enlightened managers would happily work to produce some of the best darn American cars on the road. The plant represented a unified front against growing Japanese imports and offered the broader prospect of peace between GM and the United Auto Workers. But last week the seething revolt that started at two GM parts plants in old-fashioned Flint, Mich., spread to this Southern paradise. The Flint strike shut off critical parts to the company, forcing the closure of 26 assembly plants and 100 component factories across North America and idling 186,000 workers. The strike is weighing on the economy too, contributing to a 0.6% drop in industrial output in June. The Saturn factory is the only GM plant in the U.S. still turning out cars. -Time magazine 2001

RedNeckTech - 12/1/2008 5:38 PM

Okay Guest, here it is. All you have to do is Google Illinois ball bearing company dishes out $6.6 million in bonuses and you will find it.


Illinois ball bearing company dishes out $6.6 million in bonuses
The Associated Press

Friday, November 28th 2008, 10:36 PM

CHICAGO - Employees at the Peer Bearing Co. received $6.6 million in year-end bonuses - from the family that recently sold the company.

The Spungen family, the former owners of the Waukegan, Ill.-based ball bearings maker, threw a party in mid-September to celebrate the company's acquisition by a Swedish company.

Each of Peer's 230 employees received an envelope containing a check decided by a formula based on each worker's years of service.

Some received checks up to $35,000.

"My grandfather was always charitable," said Danny Spungen, grandson of Peer founder Nathan Spungen.

He said Laurence and Florence Spungen and their four children decided on a bonus formula a year before the acquisition closed.

Family members signed two thank-you cards to each employee, one in Spanish and one in English, expressing gratitude for "the loyalty and hard work of our employees over the years."

"They treated us like extended family," said Maria Dima, who works at the company along with her husband, Valentin. "We won the lottery."

On the day the checks were distributed, Valentin Dima watched as co-workers broke down in tears over their bonus checks.

He drove home first, then opened his envelope: $33,000. His wife received a check for a smaller amount, and the two Romanian immigrants have since taken a Caribbean cruise to celebrate.

"This company gave us stability, so we dare to spend some money on such a thing," Valentin Dima said.

EF Swagee (aka Guest) --------Thanks for posting that remarkable story. I do think it's an exception rather than a rule. I know don't get out too much, but I can't say I've ever heard of that type of owner / employee generosity.





I don't think I ever said unions create abuse but they can be abusive! Slashing tires...abusive. Protesting non-union workers building Woodman's in Appleton...abusive. I am trying to be civil with you (sorry Steve if my posts were getting out of hand) but it is like you have not read anything I have posted. I am not going to get into an argument about Wal-mart...as I said I don't know enough about the case and as stated above THE LAWS HAVE WORKED AND THE WORKERS WILL RECIEVE WHAT THEY ARE OWED. What you are trying to ask me I have written about in the above posts. Re-read what you have posted and then my responses...you even admit that you didn't phrase your banding together comment correctly in which I responded appropriately as you wrote it.

EF Swagee (aka Guest)------------Dude, with all due respect, I'll agree that slashing someone's tires is abusive, but it wasn't a union that did the slashing. I'll assume the protest you're talking about was peaceful. If so, it most certainly was not abusive. One great thing about this country is our freedom to peaceably assemble and express our opinions. Exercising that freedom is vital to democracy. I'll apologize in advance if the protest you're talking about does not fit into the peaceable assembly, lawful, freedom of expression, example of democracy catagory.

The Wal-Mart case is absolutely relevant to our discussion here. You're arguing against workers unions and I'm advocating for them, mainly because I see unions as a necessary means to negotiate fair wages, safe working conditions, and to provide a sort of checks and balances mechanism to help reduce abusive actions by company owners against employees.

Yes, labor laws are in place, but they are weak in many areas. That is why I continue to cite the Wal-Mart case!

RedNeckTech - 12/1/2008 7:23 PM

Why would or should a company allow a union to help dictate the direction the owners and stockholders want to go? Last time I looked the union is not management or owners, and none of them hold a MBA nor where any union members hired for their savvy business skills, so if the union wants that type of power they should pool their money and buy the company.

RedNeckTech - 12/1/2008 8:06 PM

EF Swagee, There are many cases like the bearing company. I am not arguing against unions, as I said some people love them but wouldn't work in a shop that requires me to join one. I am arguing about using my tax money to prop up an industry when the union in that industry is the primary problem.

Fair wages are all around. I get paid a nice wage that is only $6 lower than my union counterparts with very nice benefits. I don't have to surrender part of my income just to work there like a union member does, I have a good chance to work up to management and make more money than I could in a union, I get a good vacation package and can take off for any reason that I feel I need to. And I don't have to for-go my pay and job to picket the company because some of the people there believe they are owed everything.

Wal-Mart is in business for a reason, to offer lower prices on products and most union workers shop at Wal-mart for that exact reason. There has to be lower paying jobs for an economy to work properly. If an adult with a family takes a job that was waged out for a teenager then that person has to work with it. What type of prices and inflation do you think I want to pay if every job was a union job? Union people don't even necessarily support union workers. Most of the union workers I know of take their vehicle to Wal-Mart for their oil changes because the union worker at the dealership adds too much on to the oil change. AWU members won't even buy the cars they make at the normal selling price, they negotiated a sweet deal price with the companies.

There is absolutely no reason the work force has any business in the decisions on how to operate the company, that is reserved for the owners and stockholders...the ones who put their money on the line to give you the job in the first place. That job you have is not yours and you don't have a right to it. That job is the owners and it is at their discretion that they let you have it.