[redmenace]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050724/D8BI21R80.html

Well it is the end of collective bargaining. In all honesty it really started back in the 80s with some air traffic controllers wanting to be paid $100,000/year.

[Kosh]

I'm hardly surprised that this happened. The union movement is beginning to crumble; not only because of external pressure but also from internal conflict.

Say goodbye to workers rights everyone.

[redmenace]

the world is changing and so is the shape of the american working force. What I mean is unskilled and skilled jobs alike are disapearing as more people get and finish their post secondary education. Especially since more and more manufacturing jobs are done over seas. Basically, America doesn't want to pay the cost of Unionized labor.

[aldo_14]

I can't speak to whether / how much the US unions are ****ed up, but the basic principle of unionisation is pretty solid IMO; to give the individual workers a defense from being ****ed over by their employers.  Having a skilled job in a world with increasing skilled people, doesn't act to stop that.

[karajorma]

Shhhhh Aldo. We all know that Trade Unions are the last vestige of communism that hasn't been purged from the US.

[redmenace]

No, but the unions are stuck in the old ways. In other words they represent basically manufacturing, delivery etc. However, some issues in manufacturing are not issues in skilled labor. Such as risk of injury. Also skilled jobs often provide benefits which gives less of a reason for unions to bully companies into providing benefits to their employees. Additionally, Unions also are problematic. The best example is the difference between FedEx and UPS.

People also in the US don't like them for a number of reason including the increase costs, increase delays, etc. They alse are very political which some members of Unions even resent.

[aldo_14]

Risk of injury is a factor of the working environment, not the skill level required for the job; I'd class electrical engineering as high skill level, but it can take place in highly risky environments.  Also, if an environment has an inherently higher risk of injury, it only increases the need for some form of pressure to ensure that same risk is reduced or at least noted by the employer (who is responsible for the working environment).

And skilled jobs aren't exactly immune from bad working practices, etc; unions aren't restricted to manual labour, but applicable to all jobs, as there is always a potential for abuse of employees by the employer.  Whilst there are some 'bad' unions (I'm looking at you, Scotrail train drivers!), this doesn't negate the purpose behind unionisation.  Just look at, for example, the guys at EA forced to work  80-hour weeks without proper overtime pay.

[redmenace]

Well I am saying that the unions have not been able to break into those type of organizations. I am also saying some of the main original reasons that the unionization occured have been greatly reduced. BUT, if companies start to jerk people around enough, I am sure that they will make a comeback.

As for the example of EA, I assume these 80hr work weeks are programmers working towards a release?

On a side note, if you are an engineer (Like a welding engineer), you will obviously be worth more to the company and therefore there would be higher safety precautions than otherwise.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
Well I am saying that the unions have not been able to break into those type of organizations. I am also saying some of the main original reasons that the unionization occured have been greatly reduced. BUT, if companies start to jerk people around enough, I am sure that they will make a comeback.

But if they've been reduced by the effects of unions, what's to stop these problems coming back in their absence?  I'm all for reform, but  I'm not going to salute removal -even if self inflicted by internal strife- of what is still an important principle in workers rights.

Originally posted by redmenace
As for the example of EA, I assume these 80hr work weeks are programmers working towards a release?

No, just in general; reportedly working 9am to 10pm 7 days a week; and without proper pay in recompense.  They launched a class action suit over it, i believe.

Originally posted by redmenace
On a side note, if you are an engineer (Like a welding engineer), you will obviously be worth more to the company and therefore there would be higher safety precautions than otherwise.

So we have a situation where the safety of the employee becomes a balance sheet issue?  The implicit meaning being that the safety of less skilled employees isn't important because they're cheap to replace; a manual toy assembler who loses an arm can be easily replaced by the company, after all.

That's exactly what we want to avoid; it's discriminatory, and veers almost into sweatshop territory.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14
So we have a situation where the safety of the employee becomes a balance sheet issue?  The implicit meaning being that the safety of less skilled employees isn't important because they're cheap to replace; a manual toy assembler who loses an arm can be easily replaced by the company, after all.

That's exactly what we want to avoid; it's discriminatory, and veers almost into sweatshop territory.

As horrible as it sounds, yes.

Originally posted by aldo_14
But if they've been reduced by the effects of unions, what's to stop these problems coming back in their absence?  I'm all for reform, but  I'm not going to salute removal -even if self inflicted by internal strife- of what is still an important principle in workers rights.

Honestly, the world has changed and these organizations, if they want to survive, will adapt. But nothing, maybe except the threat of litigation, can prevent a relapse in "workers rights." That and OSHA.

In regaurds to EA employees I would be interest to know what their salary was. If it is considerably higher that others in the industry, I think that would justify their long work weeks.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
As horrible as it sounds, yes.

Honestly, the world has changed and these organizations, if they want to survive, will adapt. But nothing, maybe except the threat of litigation, can prevent a relapse in "workers rights." That and OSHA.

That's a very blase assumption your making there.  Employment can be regarded as a classic checks-and-balances system; unionisation being one of the main checks against employee abuse.  I see no reason to salute or hail their prospective removal.

Originally posted by redmenace
In regaurds to EA employees I would be interest to know what their salary was. If it is considerably higher that others in the industry, I think that would justify their long work weeks.

It wasn't.  Why do you think they were suing over it?

There's a legal limit ($90,000) above which unpaid overtime is legal; very few of these employees would be over that.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14


That's a very blase assumption your making there.  Employment can be regarded as a classic checks-and-balances system; unionisation being one of the main checks against employee abuse.  I see no reason to salute or hail their prospective removal.

They are not being removed. They are dying. There is a difference. And like I said, if things got bad again with employee abuse, and their was no recourse I have no doubt they would be used again.

[aldo_14]

Removal = absence of (through whatever reason).

which you are saluting with the thumbs up smiley in the title.

[Kosh]

Basically, America doesn't want to pay the cost of Unionized labor.

What makes you so sure about that?

Do you want to go back to the 1800's when unions didn't exist? Do you want to go back to the sweatshops? Do you want to go back to the days when 12 year old children would work 14 hours days for a wage that was considered petifully small even then? Do you want to have to work 14 hours a day for $5 a day or less?

Those kinds of abuses were why the unions were organized. Without them, what is to keep the empoyers from trying to pull that same crap again?

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Removal = absence of (through whatever reason).

which you are saluting with the thumbs up smiley in the title.

well as a business major I don't care much for unions, since their "removal" mean greater efficiency.

@Kosh: if america was willing to pay the price unionized labor then we would be relying on american steel mills which we are not.

[Kosh]

if america was willing to pay the price unionized labor then we would be relying on american steel mills which we are not.

Fair enough, but you still did not answer the second part of the post.

[Rictor]

The first day you work in a factory redmenace, is the day you become a socialist.
 

God damn filthy air, intolerable heat and menial labour.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
well as a business major I don't care much for unions, since their "removal" mean greater efficiency.

And reduced worker rights.......

[NGTM-1R]

Frankly, it's about time.

Unions have for a long time now served no discernible purpose; the actual workers-rights things have been upheld or expanded by litigation by small groups or individuals.

The basic problem with unions (and a few civil rights organizations) is that they were created for a specific purpose, and they have long since outlived it. Once they secured what was intially sought, they had to keep getting more wages, more benefits, more vacation time, whatever, to justify their existence. But it can't go on forever. There has to be a limit. That limit has been arrived at and perhaps passed.

[aldo_14]

It's somewhat expensive for a small group of people to litigate against a large company, though.