 |
|
|
|
 |
marcus82
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: May 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
|
i think it depends totally on the nature of the union...
i find that unions that serve private businesses screw you over big time...i mnean, i work part time and every pay check they take off 5 dollars at least (for union dues)!!! now, if they would negotiate better wages then i wouldn't really mind, but negotiating a wage deal that starts off 20 cents above minimum and changing raises from every 650 hours to every year is ridiculous!!!
however, my mom's union and my dad's union (both work for the gov't of ontario and gov't of toronto respectively) enjoy ridiculous coverage and benefits! my brother and i are covered 100% on all medical expenses till we are both 25!!! on top of that my mom get's 75 sick days!!!
so again, it depends on the union, most gov't jobs have great unions, while private sector union just suck shit!
___________________

You need people like me!!! You need people like me so you can point your fucking fingers, and say 'that's the bad guy!' So, what dat make you? Good? You're not good; you just know how to hide. Howda lie. Me, I don't have that problem.
Help Fight Disease TA United Research Team
|
|
Jun-18-2003 14:45
|
|
|
 |
 |
rupert
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: bris vegas
|
|
|
Studies have shown repeatedly, (in Australia at least) that employees that have Unions representing them in wage negotiations get better wage deals than employees who represent themselves in wage negotiations.
Unions are the equivalent of work insurance, you dont own a house without having home insurance and if you want protection at work, if you have a dispute with the employer without a Union you are on your own.
Although the saying is trite it is still true "United we bargain, divided we beg"
From an economic point of view Unions or the right to collective bargain is absolutely essential in alleviating or helping address income disparities which are very bad for the long term success of a society. Also by pushing wages up there is incentive on business to find means of improving productivity in other ways.
|
|
Jun-19-2003 09:03
|
|
|
 |
 |
Konijn
Subverting Paradigms

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: New York City
|
|
|
It's a common fallacy that unions are no longer necessary in today's global, service-oriented economy (and yes, the bad rap that unions get is partially rooted in their own corruption and inefficiency).
Popular attitudes today, at least in America, tend to view unions as either a necessary evil or a completely useless anachronism--both negative viewpoints. One of my old co-workers succinctly summed up the attitude of the contemporary American worker by saying, "I can see why we need unions, but I believe that whatever I need I can ultimately get on my own."
Large-scale unions first appeared in America in the 1870s following the consolidation of the oil and steel industries by the 'robber barrons' of historical lore. After nearly two generations of violent and bloody confrontations, the unions won both official recognition and a series of concessions (the closed shop, collective bargaining, etc.) Many of these gains were short-lived as the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 pared many of them down. Government's anti-union collusion with big business reached its apotheosis when Reagan fired striking air-traffic controllers in 1981, dealing a crippling blow to union authority. Union membership has either stagnated or declined during the past twenty years with naturally comensurate losses in authority.
Unions, for a number of reasons--some their own fault, most a result of corporate American attitudes at large--have failed to make inroads among the service sector and have thus (wrongly) become associated with antiquated Industry.
Those who would write unions off into the dustbin of American history should consider the following. Enron collapses, taking not only thousands of jobs along with it, but wiping out the pensions that people had worked decades accumulating. Without union-protected pensions and backing, workers are left with little or no options in the face of corporate collapse. That same summer, longshoremen in California, backed by one of the most powerful unions in the country, wage a succesful strike that both industry and the bush administration tried to brake. Longshoremen, whose union-scale salaries have a median of $77,000, may not make as much as the upper echelons of Enron did, but they make decent money and more importantly keep their generous pensions intact.
Unions are vital and necessary because at the point of produxtion, they are the only thing standing between workers and the tenets of naked capitalism. Despite what my friend (most gung-ho Americans) thinks, he really can't get whatever he needs on his own--at least not in the long run and certainly not as long as workers operate within the vicissitudes of capitalist cycles.
I won't even mention the abstract benefits that unions bring (promoting cross-class unity, solidarity, brotherhood) except to say that countries with powerful traditions of unionism--many in western europe--also have a strong correlation toward democratic forms.
___________________
agenda:
[Dark Disco|Frozen Balearic|Gay Biker-House| Boogie-Trance|Heavy Electronica|Soft-Goth]
|
|
Jun-20-2003 06:16
|
|
|
 |
 |
rupert
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: bris vegas
|
|
|
well said, a man after my own heart
|
|
Jun-20-2003 06:27
|
|
|
 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:58.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|