I'm the son of a Union driver. (Teamster's Local 222)
I still can't agree with Unions. While I can't equate my experience into a Union/Consumer relationship I can say that I can't see Unions as much more than a way to drive up prices. The benefits that the Union gave my father did not really help him out ever...
Hrm, I would've imagined a union as large and powerful as the Teamsters to give good benefits. Perhaps there's possibly an inverse or curve relationship between size of a union and benefits to it's members?
DEBATE FORUM...... MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!wudu_wasaFebruary 8 2006, 17:29:12 UTC
I know that there's a direct correlation between working conditions and the products that are produced therein (Try making somthing when your're sleep deprived and when your not, you'll see the difference.) so I suppose you might infer that the better conditions a Union provides, the better the product the consumer has available to them, unless of course the labor force is machine based. Then you have no need for labor unions and semi-decent products. Case and point, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.
Re: DEBATE FORUM...... MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!koinegeekFebruary 9 2006, 09:36:11 UTC
Ahh, yet another possible correlation. The relationship is not as easy as it looks on the surface (are any?). I wonder if there are some plots that could be made between union size, effectiveness, worker satisfaction, and company profits. I bet such a plot is not a straight line but has a point(s) where a sweet-spot is reached for all variables.
My only experience with Unions is with the teacher's Unions that are at a couple of the colleges that Stripes teaches at. They take money out of his paycheck (and he has no say in the matter) and he gets diddly-squat from them because he's an adjunct. As if we weren't poor enough . . . no benefits and yet they get money from us. Totally unfair. It's like we have to pay for him to have a job . . . that's not right.
Being an adjunct he is only allowed to work a minimum amount of hours anyway . . .so that he doesn't have to be given benefits. The only advantages I see are to the professors who are on staff. Of course, colleges are trying to use as many adjuncts as possible so that they don't have to give out the benefits. So, no, he doesn't get much tangible benefits . . . maybe his pay is a tad better than it would be, but that's about it. I think it's way out of line to force him to "join" the union just to teach one or two classes.
Hrm, in this case, I would imagine it's the job of the union to see this slight abuse and try to set things straight. But universities have that little thing called tenure, so I guess it's not very straightforward...
I don't understand why you think unions need to have an effect on the end consumer. That's not their goal or purpose, really, and it's sort of like asking what advantage of painting your house is to your lawn
( ... )
I don't understand why you think unions need to have an effect on the end consumer.
I never presumed that there was causality. I asked from the standpoint of the consumer. Having no effect, hence no advantage or disadvantage, is a valid answer my question.
So, by implication, the presence of worker unions in some industries and some employers helps all workers, even those not in a unionized field?
Honestly, I think it does. It set a new standard for how to treat workers. People don't expect you to work 80 hours a week for $2 an hour anymore. If that was the standard, then even a good boss might be expecting that.
Maybe not. But frankly, even if it only improved the lot of, for example, factory workers - I suspect those factory workers are pretty happy about that.
And I'm not sure unions haven't outlived their usefulness these days...it seems like they go too far, now, frankly. But I've also seen enough companies that WOULD ride all over their workers if they felt that they could get away with it that I no longer have clear feelings about it anymore.
Ahh, I see. The worker perspective of the free-enterprise, or more exactly, free-employment (versus free-market) system - if Company A provides a better working environment than Company B, workers will tend to flock to Company A (which, in turn, can be very selective and hire the best workers, leaving Company B with fewer high-quality employees to choose from, giving Company A a competitive advantage, ...)
Comments 35
I still can't agree with Unions. While I can't equate my experience into a Union/Consumer relationship I can say that I can't see Unions as much more than a way to drive up prices. The benefits that the Union gave my father did not really help him out ever...
Reply
Hrm, I would've imagined a union as large and powerful as the Teamsters to give good benefits. Perhaps there's possibly an inverse or curve relationship between size of a union and benefits to it's members?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I never presumed that there was causality. I asked from the standpoint of the consumer. Having no effect, hence no advantage or disadvantage, is a valid answer my question.
So, by implication, the presence of worker unions in some industries and some employers helps all workers, even those not in a unionized field?
Reply
Maybe not. But frankly, even if it only improved the lot of, for example, factory workers - I suspect those factory workers are pretty happy about that.
And I'm not sure unions haven't outlived their usefulness these days...it seems like they go too far, now, frankly. But I've also seen enough companies that WOULD ride all over their workers if they felt that they could get away with it that I no longer have clear feelings about it anymore.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment