Fallout Studios Forums

OK firstly I am not denying the right of any workforce to form a union.

Now I've just been discussing with a parent about their union subs (unions require funding) and it comes to ~£250/year and they given the choice again wouldn't have joined the union.

I am almost certainly going to avoid joining my union if the costs are this high without any decent benefits. The great thing about being an academic, I won't need a union if I'm fired I can get other jobs (it will be different for non academics I agree). Despite the fact that unions are irrelevant to me I still oppose them, they have the same issues as the civil service so aptly described in "Yes Minister".

Unions gain power by having members, to keep members they need to have a large company so they oppose cost cutting (redundancy), to keep the members happy they have to pay them highly. So a Union's job is to stagnate capitalism. Isn't that a job for the Treasury and Government regulation (some capitalism needs stagnating but Unions go too far).

Dauth, on 24 Oct 2008, 23:07, said:

Let's put my country as an example.

Here in our shores, unions try to protect the welfare of the workers against oppressive measures. I do not see unions as stumbling blocks to corporate profits. The only thing that a union is a stumbling block if the union decide to boycott the administration and start picketing infront of the factory (impeding manufacturing). And mind you, 80% of the workforce here are blue-collared jobs such as laborers, carpenters, miners, and factory workers. And Eighty (80) percent of company owners live in feudal splendor ("I am the boss around here. Kiss my feet!") Can you blame the unions if they boycotted because of unjust wages? Or unheard-of working hours? Or off "sweatshop" environment? This is, after all, a third-world country.

I guess the effects of Spanish colonial times never died, even we're in the 21st century.

Theoretically, the relationship between employer and employee should be a give-and-take relationship. "I do my part and you do your part. Easy as pie." Unions are there to ensure that the company do their part while they would encourage the workers to come on time, finish the assigned tasks, be productive, that sort of thing. I repeat, this is the theoretical, mutual relationship.

(shhh) To tell you a secret, most unions here are wholly-organized by the same company. Go figure.

And enter politics.

The main reason why multinationals (i.e. Toyota, Samsung, IBM) were invited here was to provide employment for Filipino citizens. More employment=more income generated=more taxes to corrupt, er, collect.

Of course, that's investment. And investments do not come along without strings attached. Those strings usually involve immunity from local Labor Codes. Immunity must be provided to ensure that the companies would not leave and look for somewhere else.

With immunity, a multinational can do almost anything it desires.

Usually, it involves abolishing unions.

So, politics should not enter the equation.

You have to place unions in their context, both national and temporal. It's thanks to unions that child labour has been abolished effectively in the western world and technically elsewhere, that Health and Safety measures were introduced, minimum wages...
And all these things are detrimental to capitalism: and it's a good thing that they are detrimental to capitalism.

Minimum wage is detrimental to the workforce. Given an economy can fluctuate by 10% a day, Government legislation cannot keep up. Thus the wage will almost always be.

Too high: Companies avoid said country, workers have no jobs.

Too low: Companies pay less than they were intending/can afford and the workers get a raw deal.

That's oversimplifying things. A vast majority of businesses are small or medium sized business that can't moved abroad: labour might be cheaper in India, but I don't see your local grocery store moving there because of it. As for paying too low: it's called contract negotiations. You work for as much as you think you can get, and the minimum wage gives a minimum barrier people come up against in trying to outbid each other in wages to ensure a decent standard of life.

Another thing in favour of unions: back in the 18th century there were lots of slaves that had better lives than those that worked in factories. As property slaves cost money, hence you looked after them to ensure that they remained strong and able to do a full days work. Factory workers on the other hand were cheap and you didn't have to look after them that much: there were always more flocking in from the country. Most people don't appreciate unions because they've already won most of the big battles that they had to. Should they be downsized as they now do less? Probably. But that is no excuse to get rid of them altogether.

I will concede unions were required for the unskilled labourer, however lets step forwards to our own reality NanSolo, neither of us are likely to be employed for manual labour, we are being employed for our mental skills. What use is a union to either of us?

Chances are neither of us will have to use a union, but they are useful lobbying tools (recent history see health and safety regulations and increasingly in making companies go 'green'), have resources to help in legal battles (unfair dismissal, etc), and just tend to serve damn nice tea and biscuits.
In that sense their like the fire brigade: you never hope to see them but are grateful for them should things go wrong.

Dauth, on 28 Oct 2008, 0:39, said:

I am employed both for mental skills and manual labor (the job requires me to do so).

I joined a union to ensure myself against accidents (it happens that I work for an elevator company).

Sure, insurances shall cover me if I lost my head in the elevator counterweight, but do I have the assurance that the company/insurances shall pay my dependents? The union shall serve as the "wake-up caller".
Edited by The Wandering Jew, 28 October 2008 - 04:15.

I'm not really a big fan of unions, I have no problem with them as long as they aren't mandatory, and they cannot force the company to do anything(As in not giving them the option to simply fire the union members should they not want to comply with their demands, I have no problem with bilateral bargaining). They are safeguarded by the right for people to congregate.

NanSolo, on 27 Oct 2008, 16:36, said:

The problem is, some jobs such as dish washing or newspaper delivery simply aren't worth $7.50 an hour(the minimum wage here), and as a result, they figure out some way to get around that, which often results in worse service and less jobs.

I'd say such a job is worth quite a bit more than that. Someone is spending lots of their time doing work, then that should be rewarded accordingly. If an employer doesn't wish to provide an adequate reward, then they either find a better solution or they suffer. Hence it promotes innovation and stimulates employers to find better ways to run things.

Furthermore, any business has to meet market demands to remain viable. You have to remember that a workforce is also a market of its own, and a rather large one at that. Therefore they are in a position to make demands. A union is to workers pretty much what a consumer organisation is for consumers. It ensures that businesses maintain high standards.

CodeCat, on 29 Oct 2008, 0:21, said:

Exactly. Unions should exploit their inherent leverage, not getting friends in politics to coerce businesses.
Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 28 October 2008 - 23:41.

Well, isn't it the right of anyone to be represented in government?

CodeCat, on 29 Oct 2008, 0:08, said:

I really don't think that the government should meddle other peoples' business, so representation really wouldn't matter except in the matters of court.
Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 29 October 2008 - 00:22.

Dr. Strangelove, on 29 Oct 2008, 1:21, said:

If government is the rule of the people, then there are no 'other' people: its business is that of the electorate that chose them.

And how else can Unions use their leverage if not by lobbying those in power? Only two methods come to mind: the first is petitions which can be easily ignored if not enough signatures are gathered, and can be ignored even then, and the second method is that of strike action, which is undesirable in most cases for obvious reasons.

NanSolo, on 29 Oct 2008, 20:42, said:

First off, that is a big "if". The electorate does not own a company, does not make money for a company, and as such has no jurisdiction over how a company is run.

In the case of strike action, no pain no gain.

But if the electorate wants the government to have jurisdiction over how a company is run, then that's how it will be. It all depends on what people want.

CodeCat, on 30 Oct 2008, 12:57, said:

I want a new ATI GPU, but I'm not going to get one.
Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 30 October 2008 - 23:38.

CodeCat, on 30 Oct 2008, 19:57, said:

Not quite in our case. Most of the workforce have been fighting for minimum wage increase, and look what the government and companies have provided so far.

Improvements are what we need.

Dole-outs were all the government could give us.