I waited a year to reply - it was sitting at the bottom of my in-box but I didn't have a chance to get to it. I thought about waiting another year to respond to this, but I don't have the patience!
I have an example of a good use of a union. Major league baseball players recently took drug tests with the agreement that the results are never revealed (overall stats are public, not the names of individual players). The government has ordered the release of the names so they can prosecute more effectively. The union is fighting this.
I can't help but feel that this is a situation where a union is needed, particularly one with lots of money.
The City of Toronto union, which won't allow workers to do free overtime to get the job done? Not so helpful. The City of Chicago workers who wouldn't let event staff set up their own tables or in any other way prepare without a union member present and getting paid? Not so helpful. The City of Montreal road maintenance crews that fixed 9 pot holes in 7 days, or whatever the ridiculous amount was (but then got caught on tape by P.I.s hired by the mayor)? Not so helpful.
My girlfriend has faced off with one of the more powerful unions for the past year (I wish I could provide clearer details). She's come away from it with incredible frustration for many reasons, but two stick out for me:
1) She/The employer are not allowed to tell the staff what the unions are saying or doing. The union is screwing the staff over and lying to/misleading them, but due to all the rules around who and when and what can be communicated, she can't say anything. Even as workers are begging for more information about their future and blaming her for delays and angry that she won't talk. They delays? All part of a union negotiation tactic to increase pressure on deadlines (among other things). Where is the concern for the people for all these months?
2) The process she handled is being grieved. Not because she did anything wrong, but because they're trying to prove a point at a higher level. She feels like she's failed (a bit of a perfectionist) because she can't believe the union is really just using her and the process as a pawn. She keeps thinking that the union is looking out for the staff so she assumes she must have done something badly (despite what everyone tells her).
I know negotiation theory and I understand sacrificing pawns, so the union moves are understandable to me. But to watch it hurt the people they're supposed to be helping? It turns my stomach.
Unions make concessions when the company is about to go bankrupt. Tell me a story of where concessions were made for the sake of efficiency or a realization of a change of circumstances. Unfortunately, it's not generally newsworthy, so it may happen without me being aware.
You seem to have little respect for corporations, but unions have become what they are fighting. All they want is more, just like all corporations are supposed to want is profit. And unions are essentially monopolies - Stelco has a lot of trouble getting other workers. Were there multiple unions competing for jobs with a stable of skilled workers, then you'd see efficiencies and reasonable contracts and actions. My understanding is that there are industries in Scandinavia like this - pools of workers that can easily move from company to company and so form blocks and negotiate together.
I think some of the problem stems from specific situations and wordings. 20 years ago something happened so an agreement was reached to handle/avoid the situation in the future. 5-10 years later someone reads the clause in the collective agreement and misinterprets it (deliberately or not) and suddenly wacky things happen but no one ever wants to back down.
That being said - most companies that have a union, deserve it. At least, they did once. And that alone should put enough fear in non-unionized corporations to do everything they can to keep their staff happy!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: Did You Really Wait a Year to Reply, or Is This an LJ Oddity?
Date: 2007-01-02 03:13 am (UTC)I waited a year to reply - it was sitting at the bottom of my in-box but I didn't have a chance to get to it. I thought about waiting another year to respond to this, but I don't have the patience!
I have an example of a good use of a union. Major league baseball players recently took drug tests with the agreement that the results are never revealed (overall stats are public, not the names of individual players). The government has ordered the release of the names so they can prosecute more effectively. The union is fighting this.
I can't help but feel that this is a situation where a union is needed, particularly one with lots of money.
The City of Toronto union, which won't allow workers to do free overtime to get the job done? Not so helpful. The City of Chicago workers who wouldn't let event staff set up their own tables or in any other way prepare without a union member present and getting paid? Not so helpful. The City of Montreal road maintenance crews that fixed 9 pot holes in 7 days, or whatever the ridiculous amount was (but then got caught on tape by P.I.s hired by the mayor)? Not so helpful.
My girlfriend has faced off with one of the more powerful unions for the past year (I wish I could provide clearer details). She's come away from it with incredible frustration for many reasons, but two stick out for me:
1) She/The employer are not allowed to tell the staff what the unions are saying or doing. The union is screwing the staff over and lying to/misleading them, but due to all the rules around who and when and what can be communicated, she can't say anything. Even as workers are begging for more information about their future and blaming her for delays and angry that she won't talk. They delays? All part of a union negotiation tactic to increase pressure on deadlines (among other things). Where is the concern for the people for all these months?
2) The process she handled is being grieved. Not because she did anything wrong, but because they're trying to prove a point at a higher level. She feels like she's failed (a bit of a perfectionist) because she can't believe the union is really just using her and the process as a pawn. She keeps thinking that the union is looking out for the staff so she assumes she must have done something badly (despite what everyone tells her).
I know negotiation theory and I understand sacrificing pawns, so the union moves are understandable to me. But to watch it hurt the people they're supposed to be helping? It turns my stomach.
Unions make concessions when the company is about to go bankrupt. Tell me a story of where concessions were made for the sake of efficiency or a realization of a change of circumstances. Unfortunately, it's not generally newsworthy, so it may happen without me being aware.
You seem to have little respect for corporations, but unions have become what they are fighting. All they want is more, just like all corporations are supposed to want is profit. And unions are essentially monopolies - Stelco has a lot of trouble getting other workers. Were there multiple unions competing for jobs with a stable of skilled workers, then you'd see efficiencies and reasonable contracts and actions. My understanding is that there are industries in Scandinavia like this - pools of workers that can easily move from company to company and so form blocks and negotiate together.
I think some of the problem stems from specific situations and wordings. 20 years ago something happened so an agreement was reached to handle/avoid the situation in the future. 5-10 years later someone reads the clause in the collective agreement and misinterprets it (deliberately or not) and suddenly wacky things happen but no one ever wants to back down.
That being said - most companies that have a union, deserve it. At least, they did once. And that alone should put enough fear in non-unionized corporations to do everything they can to keep their staff happy!