Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

In my opinion one of the most important things we could do to improve the health of the US economy (and ultimately corporate America by improving and streamlining price discovery the labor market) is for national policy to encourage most companies and businesses to organize.
Most non-management workers should be members of a collective bargaining entity, working on an hourly rate. 

My employer is about 84% non-union and we negotiate hard as a mofo with unionized sites.  The goal is for them to get paid exactly like the "non- organized" locations, but then the unions take their dues.

Unions are generally a pain in the ass and more cumbersome/ less agile to deal with.

What would your national policy to "encourage organizing" look like?  Have the companies pay the union dues?  If so, fuck that shit.

Edited by Iceman
  • Haha 1
Posted

Or maybe… I don't know… Have an environment where people don't feel the need to have somebody else represent them. I know that iis an affront to everything some of you fuckers believe in.   
it's also no surprise the most unionized areas are the most left-leaning, in the country

Posted
13 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Also lmao

image.png.8f4da890d02f15e70e0a6811ae54e2da.png

I didn't put that there, someone else did. I also post very rarely in here, but employment and labor relations are something I am very passionate about. 

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

You understand, though, that your employer is an organization that represents a whole lot of stakeholders, including the owners/shareholders.  And it controls the purse strings.

Whereas the employees are not an organization and do not control the purse strings.  The sole leverage of an employee is "I quit."

That works ok for that one employee, I guess, bootstraps and all, but doesn't help any of the others.  And it only works ok for the employee if s/he can obtain a similar or improved situation elsewhere.

And, when right-leaning means Trump, I'll take left-leaning every day and five times on Tuesday.  That's not the ding you seem to think it is.

Lulz!!

Wait, I'm not slorch...

Posted
14 minutes ago, Iceman said:

I didn't put that there, someone else did. I also post very rarely in here, but employment and labor relations are something I am very passionate about. 

To clarify, fucking labor over is something you’re very passionate about.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

So, it seems to me that unions "got in trouble" on two main things:  ridiculous, non-safety-related working conditions (everyone has a story about these sort of workplace rules) and investments and political activities related to pension funds.

It seems the priorities of a labor organization should be 1) wages/hours 2a) workplace safety 2b) benefits. 

I think bozo's bad union/bad management happens when they start negotiating on issues other from these three and maybe a couple of others.  That's how you get ridiculous workplace rules and weird seniority systems.

I guess there are some unions or sets of labor (longshoremen?) where there is no sort of single employer that should be providing the benefits, so the benefits (pension health insurance etc.) come from the union itself.  That seems problematic.

I could be wrong on this, but it seems to me that unions really need to stick to the wage/hour knitting because that's where their utility lies.  I think most people that negotiate know that often, when you start talking things other than money in what is essentially a monetary transaction, someone is about to kiss the donkey.

Posted

Unions are like seatbelts. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Without the power to collectively bargain, workers get exploited which means people get sick, maimed, and killed.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Or maybe… I don't know… Have an environment where people don't feel the need to have somebody else represent them. I know that iis an affront to everything some of you fuckers believe in.   
it's also no surprise the most unionized areas are the most left-leaning, in the country

Also, you realize you, as management, are representing the owners when you negotiate lower wages with labor, right?

It's not your money.  It's no skin off your back.

The corporate representation chart:

Shareholders > Board of Directors > CEO and other appointed C-suite execs > Management appointed by execs > you.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Iceman said:

Unions are generally a pain in the ass and more cumbersome/ less agile to deal with.

No offense, but that’s a reflect on your management of the workforce, and this very dumb objective:

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

The goal is for them to get paid exactly like the "non- organized" locations, but then the unions take their dues.

What a stupid goal. Let’s all laugh at this. But, thank you for mentioning it, because it’s a good example of what I’m talking about. Of course it’s easier hide the ball from individual workers who don’t see comp and benefits across the workforce.  And if hiding the ball is your only advantage you don’t have much to manage with.
The “pain in the ass” you refer to is intelligence. You’re squandering the opportunity to make comp easier and reduce attrition and turnover. 

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

What would your national policy to "encourage organizing" look like?

Probably some form of tax and  incentives for public companies.

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

Have the companies pay the union dues?  If so, fuck that shit.

What a bad strawman. Do better. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You’re squandering the opportunity to make comp easier and reduce attrition and turnover. 

It’s rare that I’ve seen an organization that understands the true cost of turnover. Most of them are extremely short-sighted in this regard and focus instead on screwing their employees to the tune of a couple bucks an hour.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, you realize you, as management, are representing the owners when you negotiate lower wages with labor, right?

It's not your money.  It's no skin off your back.

The corporate representation chart:

Shareholders > Board of Directors > CEO and other appointed C-suite execs > Management appointed by execs > you.

We don't negotiate pay/ wages/ comp. 
 

You're right though, it's not my money; but I basically own everything else about the worker's experience. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Iceman said:

We don't negotiate pay/ wages/ comp. 
 

You're right though, it's not my money; but I basically own everything else about the worker's experience. 

As a representative of your employer.

Posted
45 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Or maybe… I don't know… Have an environment where people don't feel the need to have somebody else represent them.

And there are companies that can pull this off. They don't have or need unions. And then there are companies where they can't pull this off (for a variety of reasons). They get unions. It's self correcting, to an extent.

And if your argument is "well, you can just quit and stick it to them" - think about that from the perspective of an employee living paycheck to paycheck. That's just not a feasible solution.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

That is a shitty piece, because of verb tense.  There's no "are learning."  It's "have learned."  The template is out there, it has been since early in his first term.

He runs one basic play.  And defensive coordinator worth a shit long ago figured out how to counter it.  He runs it three times, the defense stands firm, h gets a half yard, declares that he scored a touchdown, and walks off the field raising his fist in triumph.  Repeat ad infinitum.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, dieucla98 said:

And there are companies that can pull this off.

Yeah they're called co-ops and they're relatively rare compared to the standard company structure in this country.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Iceman said:

Or maybe… I don't know… Have an environment where people don't feel the need to have somebody else represent them. I know that iis an affront to everything some of you fuckers believe in.   
it's also no surprise the most unionized areas are the most left-leaning, in the country

People need representation to protect them from corporate fuckery. We have a 40 hour work week because of unions.

We have a mandated two break thirty minute lunch every work day because of unions.

Many of the current safety standards are because of unions.

I'm a member of CWA, and they have protected me from some heinous shit.

Namely they shut down a site we were on because the cocksucker developer decided not to tell us about the asbestos in the walls. Pissing off a hundred already surly cable dogs is a bad idea.

Edited by MissingInAction
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
38 minutes ago, royiv said:

It’s rare that I’ve seen an organization that understands the true cost of turnover. Most of them are extremely short-sighted in this regard and focus instead on screwing their employees to the tune of a couple bucks an hour.

This.  it is astounded to me whenever a business or firm will allow an employee to leave over essentially a pittance difference in benefits/salary when that employee is the holder of institutional knowledge that is incredibly valuable to the business.   

I really love the movie Margin Call.  The one guy in the organization who figured out that they have a huge problem with mortgage securities (that’s about to take out the whole company when folks figure out they have little value) was let go on some stupid cost cutting move.  Without giving away the movie, as he’s literally being walked out the door he gives a heads up to his subordinate to look into the issue.

The shorter version of the movie would have been if he did not do that - and a month or so later the whole damn firm goes under and loses everything.  

But, yeah, let’s save some money and fire the older guy or gal who knows a bunch of shit and hire the cheap know-nothing college grad. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Iceman said:

Or maybe… I don't know… Have an environment where people don't feel the need to have somebody else represent them.

Let me translate the bolded: "have a situation where management consistently operates in good-faith, and doesn't use its disparate bargaining power to its outsized advantage."

Dude.  Seriously.  "Just count on everyone not to be dicks" isn't a great strategy in....any context.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Iceman said:

My employer is about 84% non-union and we negotiate hard as a mofo with unionized sites.  The goal is for them to get paid exactly like the "non- organized" locations, but then the unions take their dues.

Unions are generally a pain in the ass and more cumbersome/ less agile to deal with.

What would your national policy to "encourage organizing" look like?  Have the companies pay the union dues?  If so, fuck that shit.

There are things the government could do to incentivize corporate models that are pro-worker but not necessarily unionized.  For example...

  • Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) - Government could encourage more of these structures where every employee has skin in the game, or help establish new models
  • B-Corp Certification - This is an independent certification that evaluates (among other things) governance models, transparency and fairness to employees;  Government could encourage these through tax incentives (I don't think there are any today) or other means.
  • Policies around corporate benefits - A major argument against employee benefit plans (especially healthcare) is that employees are held captive so there is less mobility of the workforce and less incentive to take risk with new initiatives.  You could take this to the extreme and remove employers from the equation with universal healthcare, but that's not the only option.  The ACA helps mitigate this.
  • Personally, I think income inequality between executives and front-line employees is problematic.  I would be curious about government incentives to tie executive compensation to employee comp.

Also, these ideas and the general push for more pro-worker policies aren't limited to the liberal/Democratic perspective.  Oren Cass is one right-wing voice who is advocating for Republicans to adopt more policies that consider all workers and stakeholders other than just shareholders.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Iceman said:

Or maybe… I don't know… Have an environment where people don't feel the need to have somebody else represent them. I know that iis an affront to everything some of you fuckers believe in.   
it's also no surprise the most unionized areas are the most left-leaning, in the country

 

  • Like 1
Posted

I'll make a deal with slorch (in his capacity as representative of anti-union anti-Trump voters): We'll trade you law enforcement unions for unions everywhere else. Y'all get to destroy (cop) unions and ordinary workers get to organize. Seems like a good trade for all involved.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, wildcat09 said:

I'll make a deal with slorch (in his capacity as representative of anti-union anti-Trump voters): We'll trade you law enforcement unions for unions everywhere else. Y'all get to destroy (cop) unions and ordinary workers get to organize. Seems like a good trade for all involved.

The cops can have their unions if they’re required to carry professional liability insurance and can be held financially liable for the misconduct of its members.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
50 minutes ago, dieucla98 said:

And there are companies that can pull this off. They don't have or need unions. And then there are companies where they can't pull this off (for a variety of reasons). They get unions. It's self correcting, to an extent.

And if your argument is "well, you can just quit and stick it to them" - think about that from the perspective of an employee living paycheck to paycheck. That's just not a feasible solution.

Yes but those companies who can “pull it off” only act that way because of the existence of unions

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Iceman said:

I don't know… Have an environment where people don't feel the need to have somebody else represent them.

Do you mean like business owners, represented by the legal fiction of incorporation, their hired management teams, and the liability shield and negotiating leverage and buying power that comes with it? Or something else? 
How is a union different, except on the sell side?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

With so many Texans being one or two generations removed from being oil field/refinery trash it amazes me how anti-union the state is

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

With so many Texans being one or two generations removed from being oil field/refinery trash it amazes me how anti-union the state is

I've never understood why anyone on the employee side would ever be against a union. completely understand why employers would

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I've never understood why anyone on the employee side would ever be against a union. completely understand why employers would

My brother has a union job. Good pay, good benefits, and easily the best job he's ever had. He still generally thinks unions are bad. Indoctrination works on most people.

Edited by Schulz2.0
  • Rage+1 4
Posted

Poors suck down 50 years of capital's anti-union propaganda, get mad about the income/wealth distribution in this country, then vote for a charlatan blaming foreigners.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Poors suck down 50 years of capital's anti-union propaganda, get mad about the income/wealth distribution in this country, then vote for a charlatan blaming foreigners.

Kinda makes sense why they’re still poor

Edited by Sawbonz
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
18 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

My brother has a union job. Good pay, good benefits, and easily the best job he's ever had. He still generally thinks unions are bad. Indoctrination works on most people.

A friend here works for AMTRAK as a union worker, makes well into the 6 figures and hates unions. Exhausted myself trying to explain that unions are the only reason he can afford the $90k truck he drives as what amounts to semi-skilled labor.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
19 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

Is this bad union or bad management when it sounds like a bunch of emo gen alphas who are throwing a fit because they have to conform to a general color scheme (and call it a uniform).

Why would it have to be one or the other? Related question- why were these employees hired and who hired them? 

Posted
22 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Why would it have to be one or the other? Related question- why were these employees hired and who hired them? 

The old CEO(s) who were ousted for a celebratory and celebrity QSR hire to make changes and bring his Chipotle Midas touch to a fledgling business. But you knew that!

Posted
10 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

The old CEO(s) who were ousted for a celebratory and celebrity QSR hire to make changes and bring his Chipotle Midas touch to a fledgling business. But you knew that!

Did I? I honestly have no idea. Starbucks needs better coffee. But more to the point, I don’t care either way, do you? It’s their business and their problem to solve. There’s no employees without an employer and vice versa.
Again, show me a bad union and I’ll show you bad management. 

Posted
Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Did I? I honestly have no idea. Starbucks needs better coffee. But more to the point, I don’t care either way, do you? It’s their business and their problem to solve. There’s no employees without an employer and vice versa.
Again, show me a bad union and I’ll show you bad management. 

Anyone following American business would remember the hoopla of Chipotle having their star CEO poached with record high share price and shareholder value creation (and the controversy of letting him commute with PJ’s). So he comes in with a heroes welcome by shareholders to bring a once high flying company back to their heights, makes some positive (in his estimation) changes like “wear dark clothes for the brand, it’s good and will help with brand and customer experience which translates to value” and is met with a union who wants to stage a walkout and strike over the color shirt they have to wear. Bad union or bad management are the only two options you give in such a scenario, so I’m asking you which is it?

Posted

Pretty clearly bad management in that scenario. You might consider the possibility that "record share price" and "shareholder value creation" have absolutely nothing to do with the word management when bozo is saying bad union or bad management. 

Inflating stock price is frequently if not usually unrelated to labor/employee management. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

Bad union or bad management are the only two options you give in such a scenario, so I’m asking you which is it?

Sigh. Why do you keep asking me which it is. when I keep saying that one goes with the other?
You’re also begging the question - that the union is out of line. Are they? 

1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

Anyone following American business would remember the hoopla

I guess some of us listen for signal while others pick up noise.

1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

CEO poached with record high share price and shareholder value creation

Celebrity driven temporary share price spike ≠ shareholder value creation. 

Posted
22 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

They're just now learning his patterns? This is the same garbage he's done his entire adult life. He comes in blustering, throws a tantrum and walks out and then later on comes back and agrees to either the same deal or something less than what he started with. Is he negotiating with other people dumber than he is who can't figure out how to negotiate with someone who has the mind of a 6 year old?



×
×
  • Create New...