Unions: We’re Better Off Without Them

How the Obama administration's push for the Employee Free Choice Act could cripple the backbone of the economy: small businesses.

By Kevin Kelly | NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 6, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jul 6, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: reckiw @ 09/24/2009 9:25:55 PM

    Unions, the new capitalist landlords! Now that is ironic!

    If it wasn't that Kelly is so spot on, this would be funny.

  • Posted By: Gregory10031 @ 07/13/2009 11:22:07 PM

    So, Newsweek - you don' t mind renting office space from a union - mine, to be specific - the New York City District Council of Carpenters, that's where you recently moved your New York offices to - but you write hatchet job articles attacking unions?

    I helped renovate your offices on the 3rd and 4th floors of 395 Hudson St - a building that has a big District Council of Carpenters sign on the front - I was a union shop steward on my crew, as a matter of fact!

    The desk you sit at to write your anti union bile was installed by a union member - me to be exact!

    Can you stand the irony?

  • Posted By: tm80401 @ 07/10/2009 10:30:07 AM

    Kelly is a liar. Read the bill. The EFCA does not 'do away with elections'. It does away with the power of the company to require them. If the employees decide they want an election instead of a card check, they get an election. It places the power of HOW to decide on a union in the hands of the employees, not managers.

  • Posted By: JohnBryansFontaine @ 07/08/2009 5:16:41 PM

    PS

    My quotation marks were turned into question marks

  • Posted By: JohnBryansFontaine @ 07/08/2009 5:11:09 PM



    Kevin Kelly would appear to Loathe Freedom; certainly that of his, or any, Workers to Assemble. This is perhaps the Main Reason that the Founders of our Country fought and won the Revolutionary War.

    We don???t need Unions?? Kelly seems to be the type of businessman who believes that businessman can do no wrong. Except that he contradicts himself: ??????I do have a soft spot for the spirit of EFCA. While I can't agree with doing away with elections, I do accept that six weeks is far too long. If a company can't make its case in three weeks, then it likely deserves the union it gets. So which is it?, Unions are ???unnecessary??? or the very pro-Union ???spirit??? of EFCA is good?

    Also, in discussing other companies ???activist approaches??? against unions, Kelly neglects to mention how many fiercely intimidate their employees into opposing them.

    Then there???s that Palin-esk bit about how the monster OSHA is ripping him away from his family he tearfully cries. WHAA!! That he refuses to admit that OSHA protects million is the truly mournful fact.

    If there is to be any true independence from ultra-powerful business interests, then Workers should have the right to form and/or join Labor Unions. Again, this Right has been ripped from the people by powerful corporations and their shrewd, influential and mendacious corporate lobbyists. This is also why the Employee Free Choice Act should be passed as soon as possible.

    http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/

    http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/

    http://www.freechoiceact.org/petition/

    http://edlabor.house.gov/employee-free-choice-act-efca/index.shtml



  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 07/08/2009 10:51:10 AM

    I think one of the big lessons here is "treat your employees well and they'll be less likely to unionize against you". I've worked in the videogame industry (probably the industry I would say I feel at home in, though I've worked in several), and while there's been scattered talk of unionizing for some time, mostly the employees are paid well and given benefits and don't feel the need in my experience. If other industries worked the same way - and had less egregious salaries paid to management - there would probably be less bitterness between management and labor.

    My grandfather - who started as a blue-collar worker and eventually made himself into a millionaire as a hospital building contractor, and who has taken a hand in the founding of several other businesses besides - says that "the top guy at a company shouldn't be making more than ten times the lowest guy on the totem pole". So, if the janitor makes thirty grand, the CEO shouldn't be making more than three hundred k. That attitude is almost nonexistent among modern CEOs, but if it were, they wouldn't be in so much trouble today.

    • Posted By: concerned liberal @ 07/08/2009 4:07:20 PM

      Sorry Vig, I can't buy the 10x rule unless we are speaking specifically of PUBLICLY held corporations. The difference is that if you have decided that your entity requires capital and have an IPO to gain that capital and then use the corporation as if it is still yours and that the corporate value is expendable as bonuses and rediculous pay for performance ...........rather than the lifeblood of that corporation that is now the property of the stock holders, that would be screwing people for simple personal gain.

      On the other hand, if I invent a new method of extracting electrical energy from the sun or even salt water, there is no amount (ratio compared to rank and file employees) that would be unacceptable since it is soley your property and not just the labor of employees that gains you.

      Most people want to ignore the sad parts of so called social justice: soon there will be almost fully automated McDonalds, and dispite a small niche that will employe a very small # of techs that will maintain these systems, "bodies" that filled "know nothing" type jobs as soon to be a thing of the past and then what? Then are we socially responsable to provide for those hampered by concepts like "me and computers just don't get along" (I use that because I remember that you do some computer tech work), I personally do not think so.
      The single reason I employ over 70 people is to use my capital and know how to make me more money, there is no hidden sociological alltruistic subplot to it, it is far too taxing to have any other reason to it!

  • Posted By: Thevail @ 07/06/2009 2:57:04 PM

    Oh boo hoo hoo... so your focus is on the idea that Unions are bad... because it makes you pay attention to whether your employees are satisfied... um.. dingbat... that's what they are for. Because guys just like you like to spend a lot of time on the company clock, jetting off to wherever to drum up new business over a 3 martini lunch... but you don't like spending any time at all worrying whether your employees are safe, have benefits, have a retirement, or are even paid enough to keep body and soul.. and family and hame.. together.

    And let me get this straight.. YOU ARE PARANOID. OHSA comes calling because one of your NON-UNION employees complained, but it's all somehow the Union's Fault???

    If businesses (and their owners) cared the slightest bit about employees as anything other than an easy way to adjust the bottom line through lay-offs Unions would die out naturally. Why pay union dues if you're getting a fair shake from your employer anyway? People just wouldn't do it. But everyone knows that the days of "company loyalty" died out about the same time businesses stopped giving out pensions.

    But you're not going to catch me sighing and shaking my head and saying "well, businesses have to make a profit.. so the workers just have to take it in the shorts".

    Because it's just NOT TRUE. How about you business owners play hardball with someone your own size.. like suppliers, or insurance comapanies... rather than always trying to take your profit margin out of some poor working stiff's hide?!

    I'll tell you why.. because the little guy, the average employee, doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's Goliath taking candy from a bay for you to fire Joe *** or Cindy Somebody to make a better profit. Evene if they've worked there for years, even if they've done their job well. In fact, if the employee has been there a while they are MORE likely to be the one to get the pink slip.. because you can fire they guy who makes $14 and hire in a new guy for $8. Same work, less money.

    And that is exactly why there are Unions, and that is exactly why the Unions are growing.

    • Posted By: ottermann @ 07/06/2009 4:27:56 PM

      I take it from your comments, you've never tried to negotiate insurance rates, or prices with suppliers.
      If you try telling them what you're willing to pay, they tell you what their prices are. If you say, "can't you go lower?", they say, "you're free to purchase elsewhere.".
      Your comments are directed at business owners who have a large employee base. This article was about the small business owner.
      I work for a small business. Including the owner, there are 6 of us.
      We don't have the power to muscle anyone to lowering prices. Most small businesses don't.
      If a union organizer tried to get me to sign a union card, I'd laugh in his face.
      A union would do nothing for me, except take dues out of every paycheck.
      And, that's exactly what the unions would do for most small businesses. Nothing.

      • Posted By: singpretty @ 07/06/2009 5:03:37 PM

        That redistribution of wealth has been happening for a very long time from the bottom up! I'm plently happy to see some of it "trickle" back down, even if it's merely a drop in the bucket by comparison.

        Not every union (or union member) is evil; and not every one is angelic. The lines of communication between the you and the lifeblood of your company (it's employees) by the mere threat of a union. Sadly, a testament to the very necessity of them.

        • Posted By: daennera @ 07/06/2009 6:51:29 PM

          I don't mind of the wealth trickles to the top. More for me when I get there.

          • Posted By: popmanifesto @ 07/06/2009 10:55:06 PM

            I've always wondered how Republicans can coerce average working Americans into fighting for the rich guy at their own expense. Now I understand. You actually think you're going to be one of them someday. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            • Posted By: daennera @ 07/07/2009 9:23:23 AM

              I just started my business, and I'm trying to run it simultaneously with my job. Soon I will be quitting my job to devote solely to my business. I will be one of them. Not everyone who is rich today was born that way. Many people made it so. To think that I cannot shows both an ignorance toward how our society works and your ignorance of me personally. I see you in the faces I've hired. Don't worry, they're just bodies anyway. I'll be firing most of them when I find replacements that care about the company, and aren't just here to punch a clock.

              • Posted By: whoshome @ 07/08/2009 3:40:18 PM

                I'd rather have a chance at being rich by my own choices and abilities versus the government limiting my ability because they think everyone should be equal. Ever seen "caddyshack?" The world needs ditchdiggers too Danny.

              • Posted By: popmanifesto @ 07/07/2009 12:59:08 PM

                Ordinarily I'd be rooting for someone who just started a business, but not someone like you with your attitude. You're just an azzhole and nobody deserves to have to work for an azzhole.

                • Posted By: archmsu @ 07/07/2009 1:03:45 PM

                  Does the world owe you something pop?

                  • Posted By: daennera @ 07/07/2009 1:57:28 PM

                    Yeah, I hire bodies as temporary fill ins until I find people of quality. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with doing what is best for my business? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not holding all my employees hands every second of every day and being sensitive to all their needs. I'm sorry, but I don't have time for that sh1t! I've got a business to run. It's a job, you come in to work or you can go home. Leave all the "I'm having a bad day" sh1t at my door please.

                    Tell you what. Put your house, your car, your whole financial life on the line and then you can tell me what is best for a business. But of course, I'm just greedy and evil. I took no risk whatsoever in starting my business. Of course I should get no reward for doing so.

                    When you've done it, then you can talk. Until then, keep punching that clock, keep being the most useless piece of crap on this earth, but most of all, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!

                    • Posted By: elpaulo @ 07/07/2009 3:39:32 PM

                      wow, I kinda expected an outburst like this from a selfish creep like yourself. You want someone to stay late and help you out? Well, I wouldnt with your attitude. Want someone to go the extra mile for you? Well, it aint happening for $8 and calling them retail monkeys (classy). And this comes from a self-employed biz owner who brings in PT help, and pays more than the average to get GOOD help. You get what you pay for. Plain and simple. And with your attitude, even if you were to get a good employee, they would walk after hearing your views on employee relations.

                      • Posted By: popmanifesto @ 07/07/2009 7:45:52 PM

                        This jerk will learn that this kind attitude will be the death of his business. He's going nowhere with that state of mind. His employees and his customers will come to hate him and refuse to do business with him and his business will die, and all the time he'll find someone else to blame and hate for it because he basically believes that all of humanity (except himself, of course) is lazy, useless, greedy, stupid, etc. What an angry loser.

                        • Posted By: daennera @ 07/08/2009 2:05:58 PM

                          First. I'm a woman. Please review your classical history and do the etymology of Daennera. Secondly, no. The most successful retail enterprise the the world (aka Walmart) has the same practices. So I doubt my success will be in any way hampered by my lowest possible pay or non existent benefits.

                    • Posted By: jfm2000 @ 07/07/2009 7:34:37 PM

                      Do you even bother to learn your empl...retail monkeys names. I mean, they must leave hours after you hire them.

                  • Posted By: popmanifesto @ 07/07/2009 7:22:14 PM

                    Where does that question even come from? I have no idea what you're referring to. Certainly not anything I said.

              • Posted By: chris s. @ 07/07/2009 1:37:29 PM

                Some companies believe that their employees cost them money. The more successful ones know that the employees MAKE them money. Sometimes, you get what you pay for. Which are you?

                • Posted By: daennera @ 07/07/2009 1:58:19 PM

                  I pay minimum wage for retail monkeys. They aren't even worth that on most days.

                • Posted By: daennera @ 07/07/2009 1:57:08 PM

                  Employees are the largest expense a company has. Why shouldn't that cost be kept to a minimum. It's all in the cost benefit analysis. If I give more, what will I get? Oh, I only get that? Well then I'm only paying this much.

                  If employees actually produced more in a linear progression to pay progression, you're right, it would be a no-brainer. But they don't. They put in the extra effort to get a raise, and they three weeks later they're back to their lazy selves again. It's not worth giving employees more; it's not like I'm going to get anything out of it. And isn't that what you're saying. I'll get more if I give more?

                  Yeah right. What roses-and-bunnies world do you live in?

    • Posted By: lyta @ 07/07/2009 8:45:26 AM

      As stated above they often find out that $8 an hour worker does not produce at the higher wage workers level. They are throwing experience and competence out with those moves. However it must work in the long run or they wouldn't keep doing it.

      • Posted By: daennera @ 07/07/2009 2:02:31 PM

        It's not the wage that determines how good an employee is. It's the employee. People who have work ethic have it for $8 an hour or $18 an hour.

        • Posted By: popmanifesto @ 07/07/2009 8:01:59 PM

          It's not just the employees themselves that determines how productive they are, but the management and work environment. In your case, you've all but guaranteed the failure of your business in that regard. Treat people like crap and you get crap results out of them.

          • Posted By: daennera @ 07/08/2009 2:03:55 PM

            It's basic retail! It's not like I'm asking them to build the next space ship. If doing this job perfectly is in any way taxing, they should probably just shoot themselves out back and be done with it! I don't pay more than minimum wage, because the job isn't worth more than that. I need people who find this job to be somewhat challenging, yet fulfilling. Those people are only worth minimum wage.

            We are not all equal. Some people are worth more than others.

        • Posted By: concerned liberal @ 07/07/2009 4:09:09 PM

          Imagine the true reality of the future. When there is some way to replace people who are just literally "bodies" that do uninspiring labor, with some sort of mechanical device similar to the thousands of "robot" type machines that have replaced 30% of the UAW work force................then what, pay untalented, uninspired, uneducated people to eat and s/hit? That would be the true prediction of "I-ROBOT".

  • Posted By: whoshome @ 07/08/2009 3:37:45 PM

    Unions weren't created because of greedy businesses, they were created because there were no safety (OSHA) or labor laws in place for the way businesses SHOULD treat their employees. You're reading the wrong history books.

  • Posted By: ctc828 @ 07/08/2009 8:17:05 AM

    No unions they have ruined American business.

    • Posted By: nodummy @ 07/08/2009 1:08:20 PM

      After being a Union member for 30 years I can honestly say the unions are the lesser of two evils. Without them businesses would run rampant and workers would have no recourse available to them. Unions came into existence because of the greed of business owners. Read your history.

      Sadly, unions have grown to be a business themselves. Too often they look out for their own interests and not the members paying their wages. More and more members are finding they have no control over their elected leaders. Much like with our politicians who are suppose to be looking out for us.

      I find it interesting how the subject in the article only decided to "listen" to his employees when the threat of unionization reared it's head. I guess if this legislation hadn't come up it would be business as usual.....which is making the profit at any cost.

      • Posted By: concerned liberal @ 07/08/2009 3:17:39 PM

        I guess if this legislation hadn't come up it would be business as usual.....which is making the profit at any cost.


        Which is the only, I repeat, the only reason to invest one's capital and personal effort, ..............NOT, to make a better life for empoyees that for all purposes you have never even met prior to starting to invest said capital and efforts!

  • Posted By: ok4u @ 07/08/2009 11:51:32 AM

    It's fascinating the gyrations that promoters of the "Employee Free Choice Act" go through. Even the Act's name is a joke, in that it eliminates the employees free choice as protected by secret ballot. Free choice while union officials watch to see if you sign a card agreeing to a union? How dumb do they think employees are? Let them decide by secret ballot, not strong-arm "just sign here" tactics. The president's purpose is obvious; he wants that union money. Disgusting.

  • Posted By: laurenmo @ 07/07/2009 9:09:34 PM

    I thought the topic of this article was interesting after my Target orientation last Friday. We had to watch a long section of the orientation video that painfully talked unions down without describing their importance. The lady running the orientation said to us after the video that she herself didn't know much about unions, but that there is no need for them at Target.

    So what kind of brainwashing are they handing out from those corporate offices?

    I feel like companies are using this recession as an excuse to abuse workers: they fire whoever they want, they give out low wages with no risk of being punished for their actions. And what can we workers do? We have to take whatever job we can get, and at minimum wage; it's almost as if our skills and personalities have become obsolete, as long as we can work cheap.

    Even the employer interviewed admits he didn't try to create worker relations until the threat of a union emerged, yet he states that unions are hurtful. Companies NEED to be pressured by unions to start listening to their workers or workers WILL be mistreated.

    AND THIS INCLUDES SMALL BUSINESSES. Just because they do not have negotiating power with suppliers, or the ability to raise employees' wages does not mean they can put endanger workers' welfare by abandoning security in the workplace or by refusing to communicate with workers about their ideas and complaints.

    So no more of this "We're better off without them," talk. Treat the workers fairly, and then let the them decide if they need a union. Because after all the workers need to pay a price for the unions, too.

  • Posted By: tgrimes834 @ 07/07/2009 8:38:45 PM

    Although some of the readers have had a very negative reaction to Mr. Kelly and his article, he has made several good points and is, at least, an actual small business owner from whom we can all learn. Agree with him or not, the key take away from this article is simple. Business leaders must prepare now, and the message is directed at them. As a business leader, you must begin to think proactively about both the labor reforms that may become law, and, the negative business and corporate sentiments that currently exist, some of which is very clearly expressed in comments to his article. Identifying your company employee relations vulnerabilities, and opening honest lines of communication with employees far in advance are the best actions now to create a positive history of employee relations in the future. All of your employees, including managers and supervisors, need to know what an alternative union relationship means, why your company could be vulnerable, and how the Employee Free Choice Act or other labor reforms could affect your industry, your company, and your employees. These are basic educational steps toward preparedness. Having a solid set of core values regarding your employees and other relationships is also essential, but only has a positive impact if they become the basis for behaviors, actions, and decisions. Logically, addressing issues and tackling identified vulnerabilities must follow. All of these efforts knock down walls and let employees know management cares about them as a valuable participant in your overall business behavior and success. Even though these employee conversations might be hard to have at first, and problem resolution may sometimes be hard to swallow, honesty with yourself and your employees will go far for your company on many different levels of employee satisfaction and company success. Do not push preparedness aside. Shortened union elections, or even no election period at all, leaves an unprepared company with no time to crate and establish a positive employee relations history that could affect decisions employees make about unionization. In the end, after all, whatever choice employees make will be based on how they have been treated and how they feel about you and your company. If you are a business leader and concerned about being unionized or having a bitter union relationship, you should act now before it is too late.
    Tom Grimes
    The Mickus Group
    www.mickusgroup.com

  • Posted By: MacAdvisor @ 07/07/2009 8:18:49 PM

    This article purportedly argues against unions, while making the case for them. Not only once, but twice, things were so bad the employees were seriously considering a union. The only time the owner reacted to change his companies practices -- practices he admitted were bad and hurting his employees and company -- was when he was confronted with a union. Clearly, the union led to better working conditions and systematic pay raises for his employees, even when the unionizing drive failed. This fellows runs his business reactively rather than proactively. He wouldn't have changed if not for a union.

    The tear-jerk OSHA story was a complete straw man argument, the arrival of OSHA not having anything to do with a union effort; the owner even admits it. I suggest a man SO worried about a visit from OSHA that he would leave the plane after boarding and abandon his family on a holiday trip likely has much to be concerned about a visit from OSHA. Sounds more like a guilty conscience to me.

    Lastly, a union contract doesn't prohibit management from helping to install new equipment or protect bad workers UNLESS management is so bad as to agree to such nonsense. I can't imagine a group of workers, happy with the pay rate, working conditions, and benefits, voting to strike unless management stop helping install equipment. A union contract, like any other contract, is a free agreement of two parties. Management generally gets the better deal and strikes only happen when things are bad.

    I wouldn't buy from a printer who was shipping work off to Mexico. Mine is a local guy with his own shop and a gang printer in LA. Not one bit of work leaves the country.

  • Posted By: NutBallCop @ 07/07/2009 7:34:09 PM

    Wow, this is one of more poorly written and unbalance articles I have seen in Newsweek. There is an absence of history in American labor and that history's "cause and effect". This article tries to paint a utopia of the American workplace that really does not exist but in a handful of businesses (those businesses get listed in the Best Places To Work, notice the list is not that long every year). I wish American business was SO GOOD that we did not need union, but that utopia does not exist, unless you are inside the twisted mind of big business or the Washington politicians in their back pockets.

  • Posted By: paulte @ 07/06/2009 5:22:04 PM

    Obama is the liberal disaster that just won't stop! I hate to think what this country will look like at the end of his reign!

    • Posted By: popmanifesto @ 07/06/2009 11:05:35 PM

      Yes, it's an absolute disgrace that he's trying to raise the standard of living of average Americans and forcing billionaires to become slightly less grotesquely wealthy!!! Poor Paris Hilton!!! And is he kidding with this health care plan that is designed to help out people who might ordinarily die or go bankrupt when they get sick?!!! It's scandalous, I tell ya!!! And especially after things were working out so GREAT for us during the Bush years!!!

      • Posted By: zz333 @ 07/07/2009 11:05:11 AM

        So who is going to pay for all this, while you folks rest on your rear ends expecting big mama to come feed you. All of the rick folks wealth could not pay of a a pecentage of the total health care bill that will arise.

        Do the math!!!!!

        • Posted By: popmanifesto @ 07/07/2009 7:31:59 PM

          You're already paying for it, pal, and getting nothing in return. Educate yourself on how much you're paying for people without insurance to go the emergency room again and again, for the outrageous profits the drug companies are making off of you by overcharging for their products, for the tax breaks we're giving to huge (and hugely profitable) healthcare, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies, for the enormous give-aways to drug companies that the Republicans rammed through Congress a few years ago, for the middlemen (insurance companies) whose profits stand between you and your health care, and for the pay you have to give up so your company can afford to give you health insurance... if you're lucky enough to have any. It's ignorant people like you who are causing our standard of living to go down the toilet. You can't see the forest for the trees.

        • Posted By: elpaulo @ 07/07/2009 3:42:55 PM

          How does the rest of the developed world do it? How does our own Federal and state govts do it for their employees? Get over it. You are a traitorous defeatist.

      • Posted By: archmsu @ 07/07/2009 12:32:57 PM

        The real question here is.........How much money does a low- ambiton American deserve? Because today with all the financial aid and all the colleges and universities, online degrees, trade schools, etc. If your still a factory worker....your doing something wrong in life!! So don't pull that crap that Obama is trying to help the "working man." Maybe the working man should help himself!!! But that would take too much effort right, it's just easier to claim that rich people are keeping you down!!

        • Posted By: RandyEischer @ 07/07/2009 12:48:37 PM

          And what about those who have gone to college, got the degree, then found out there were no jobs? If they're forced to work for minimum wage because there are no other options, does that still make them "no-ambition"?

          Education is not the solution. I'll sidestep the rampant elitism here like the steaming pile of poo it is, and point out that if a college degree guaranteed a decent job, retailers would be devastated because so many of their over-educated employees would disappear.

          • Posted By: archmsu @ 07/07/2009 1:01:00 PM

            I don't know anyone who went to college and is now working for minimum wage? What kinda friends do you have? I guess i am an elitist, but it sure beats being a lacky! You wanna mow my lawn? I give you some beer!

      • Posted By: cokids @ 07/07/2009 11:36:41 AM

        You got it, Pop! The Repubs and Bush surely made things better for all of us, so why carp now? Wonder who voted for that bunch of thugs anyway? "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction," who said that? Back and forth we go! Wonder where the reaction to these currents will take us? Fascism, here we come!

    • Posted By: tacoma_kid @ 07/07/2009 12:10:24 AM

      that is the best use of sarcasm!!! God, a workd with healthcare and good pay.....why that is jjust unamerican

    • Posted By: Missouri observer @ 07/07/2009 12:07:44 AM

      I'm sure it will look better at the end of Obama's reign than it did at the end of Bush2's reign?

  • Posted By: jfm2000 @ 07/07/2009 7:04:59 PM

    If all employers were like this guy, we wouldn't need unions. Reality is that there are employers who treat there employees like dirt. I have worked in many shops that were not union, most of them did not have to be. There was at least some level of communication and respect between management and workers. Some, better than others. I have also worked in union shops and I can tell you, the complete lack of respect and dignity upper management show to their employees is overwhelming. Any attempt to suggest an improvement is given a patronizing response and the subject is dropped. Management sets the tone of the shop. If the boss doesn't care, why should the employee. The result is usually that good talent leaves bad talent stays. Given our current economy, that is no longer an option. Usually, both sides give in order for the company to survive. But if the company has been mismanaged from the start, and you have an employer who doesn???t even really understands the skills that you have. That opens the door for a union. The union is the only thing that stands between a guy with 20 years experience running a very complicated piece of equipment making $16.00 to $18.00 dollars an hour(not all union workers make $70/hour), or that same guy making only 8 bucks. At that point, why even bother learning that machine. Unions have their faults, and I am not a big fan of them. But when an employer decides to take advantage of a bad situation and treat his skilled employees like trash, I will gladly sign that card.

  • Posted By: piinalu @ 07/07/2009 5:19:08 PM

    Enter I knew I shouldn't have started this... An important issue addresses in a poorly written piece, followed by pretty easy to predict cliches. I'm a pretty optimistic person, but this kind of stereotypical commentary (from both sides) can suck the life right out of you. The author made one really interesting point, though, when he admitted that they weren't ready for a non-union shop (after it was voted out). Workers are human beings and need to treated as such - God's children even. And as some have suggested, the have some inherent lack of intelligence or motivation which makes them less "worthy" of respect or decent treatment. Unions are as much a part of the problem as management (see the American auto industry), but good management can make unions unnecessary. Maybe if we considered one another like respectable people, we could find some solutions. Otherwise, I'm goin' swimmin' at Vodka lake.

  • Posted By: piinalu @ 07/07/2009 5:16:14 PM

    I knew I shouldn't have started this... An important issue addresses in a poorly written piece, followed by pretty easy to predict cliches. I'm a pretty optimistic person, but this kind of stereotypical commentary (from both sides) can suck the life right out of you. The author made one really interesting point, though, when he admitted that they weren't ready for a non-union shop (after the union voted out). Workers are human beings and need to treated as such - God's children even. But as some have suggested, they have some inherent lack of intelligence or motivation which makes them less "worthy" of respect or decent treatment. And they wonder why workers want to organize. Unions are as much a part of the problem as management (see the American auto industry), but good management can make unions unnecessary. Maybe if we considered one another like respectable people, we could find some solutions. Otherwise, we might as well go swimmin' at Vodka lake.

  • Posted By: piinalu @ 07/07/2009 5:16:12 PM

    I knew I shouldn't have started this... An important issue addresses in a poorly written piece, followed by pretty easy to predict cliches. I'm a pretty optimistic person, but this kind of stereotypical commentary (from both sides) can suck the life right out of you. The author made one really interesting point, though, when he admitted that they weren't ready for a non-union shop (after the union voted out). Workers are human beings and need to treated as such - God's children even. But as some have suggested, they have some inherent lack of intelligence or motivation which makes them less "worthy" of respect or decent treatment. And they wonder why workers want to organize. Unions are as much a part of the problem as management (see the American auto industry), but good management can make unions unnecessary. Maybe if we considered one another like respectable people, we could find some solutions. Otherwise, we might as well go swimmin' at Vodka lake.

  • Posted By: fpruben @ 07/06/2009 7:41:15 PM

    Unions are like birth. Required but painful! Companies hate the truth so they hire stooges to run HR Departments to practice mushroom farming, Feed your employees sh-t and keep them in the dark.
    Why? Business Aministration majors all know this rule; Business Costs are divided 3 ways, !/3 for materials 1/3 capital and 1/3 for labour with labour being the only contollable cost. So if your going to make a profit, you have to screw it out of your employees hide.

    Another misconception; "Employees must give all to the company so the company will thrive and all will prosper!" BS! CEOs and most owners could give a damn about "Joe Working Stiff"! The only institution that gives a HOOT about Joe is that union. Any good union is the countervailing power that protects the working man from Company Goons and Corporate Spies that single out union supporters for unfair dismissals, hurry up teams and unlawfull intimidation. Which is what Card Check Stops. If you don't believe me - Look at the History of Wal-Mart with it's Labour Spys, NAZI Style Goon Squads, Intimidation Teams and Hidden TV cameras/Microphones.
    So if this so-called journalist is afraid of card check then I'm wondering what he has to hide from a union business agent?

    • Posted By: bahanson @ 07/07/2009 3:06:58 AM

      Wal Mart does no such thing, and offers people jobs and careers! Oh my gosh! How terrible of them! Those evil bread providers!

      • Posted By: elpaulo @ 07/07/2009 3:40:49 PM

        work at wal-mart lately? Can you make it by on $8/hr? What fi you get sick? Oh, right, those costs will get passed on the the taxpayer. Thanks Wal-Mart. Low prices at any cost.

      • Posted By: popmanifesto @ 07/07/2009 1:04:27 PM

        Walmart offers a lot of part-time and low paying jobs, not many careers. But the worst part is that they drive a lot of local business owners out of business. So basically all the money goes back to Walmart HQ in Arkansas instead staying in the community. But don't let that bother you. Just keep defending the wealthy elite at your own expense. You're doing a great job.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse