Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Factory Workers Pushing For a Union Send Letter of Requests To Company's Board Members (phys.org)
One of the many challenges facing Tesla right now is the escalating worker complaints about pay and safety. At its California factory, a move to unionize is gaining steam. Workers recently sent a letter to Tesla's independent board members requesting access to the automaker's safety plan as well as clarity on compensation and a promise of no retaliation against employees as they try to form a union. From a report via Phys.Org: The United Auto Workers is in the process of trying to unionize the 10,000 Tesla workers at the Fremont plant, alleging the company has a poor safety record -- a charge it vehemently denies.
"We're tired of suffering preventable injury after preventable injury. It impacts morale, it slows down production and it's of course traumatizing," said Michael Catura, a Tesla production worker who signed the letter. Starting pay for production associates in the Fremont facility is $18 an hour, far below the national average for auto workers of $25.58 and even farther below the living wage in Alameda County, California, where the average wage is $28.10, according to the letter sent by workers. In addition, the letter said the paths to promotion are not clear. "Many of us have worked for years with the vague promise of a raise, with nothing to show for it," said Richard Ortiz, who works in the paint shop. "We have no idea what the criteria is to move forward, and no idea of what defines success. We've raised these issues repeatedly, and have gotten no response," he added.
Don't like the job....find another one...
Don't get paid what everyone else gets paid - because of 'just because I want more money'....find another one...
oh nah wait....free money
fucking unions
I think that people should be free to unionize if they like, but I can't help but feel like UAW has grown hungry and needs fresh prey.
UAW has been a millstone around the neck of Detroit auto workers, while auto workers outside of Detroit are in need of protection.
Many of the people objecting aren't against unionizing, they're just against UAW. Why doesn't anyone attempt to unionize WITHOUT UAW?
No news here.
(whips them)
Anyone? Okay, fine, I will.
And, concerning pay:
Both sides claims should of course be taken with a big grain of salt. For example, Tesla's argument of stock options is great, and yes, the workers could end up quite well off if Tesla does well. But they don't pay the rent until they vest, and UAW is right that local housing prices are killer. On the other hand, UAW doesn't bother to mention in their overwork claims that during crunch times Musk has been known to sleep in a sleeping bag at the factory, and has pledged (and at least so far, upheld) to work on any line where any employee gets injured.
So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
In addition, the letter said the paths to promotion are not clear. "Many of us have worked for years with the vague promise of a raise, with nothing to show for it,"
if you unionize, what promotion is there? Isn't the idea behind the union that everyone's equal? Also, why would you work for years without a raise? Is it possibly because you can't find another job that pays more than Tesla?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I keep seeing the same story replayed over and over the last few weeks.
Poor workers paid unfair wages at giant tech companies while living in the highest cost of living areas of the country.
They would be forced to pay better wages if you guys stopped taking the jobs at low pay!
You being employed means you have a skill. Leave CA or NY or WA, or suck it up and get papered for the better jobs and crushing debt.
It sucks. I don't want to leave home anymore than you do, but the companies don't owe you better wages *because*, anymore than you owe more on your grocery bill *because*
Form your union, demand your raises, and drive the hell on.... but keep in mind that you don't HAVE to be spending 75% of your take-home on rent (or living out of your S10 and showering at the Y) just to have a tech job.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
Yah
I was vaguely sympathetic until I read that.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Slashdot, when other people are getting taken advantage of and try something to fix it: "this is the market working efficiently - suck it up you buggy whip makers" Slashdot when IT jobs are being outsourced to India or devs getting fired once they hit 40 "THIS IS AN OUTRAGE AND IT MUST STOP!"
With Ford and others investing in Mexico, it will only be a matter of time until Tesla does too. Automation is increasing, but there will be a human element for awhile. Mexico can provide that labor just as well as we can.
If the quality of the Coca-Cola is any indication, Teslas made there would be delicious though.
Hopefully the workers have better sense than to let the unions in the door.
Unions killed Detroit and have no interest in workers other than extracting as much money out of them as possible.
Unions are parasites on business and employees.
will kill the company. They're already valued too high and lazy workers that don't have to work will kill that valuation.
Let me point something out about Unions.
They will fight tooth and nail for wage increases and adding new titles that fall under the Union umbrella.
It isn't because they are looking out for their members. It's because union dues are typically a percentage of a members base pay.
Thus, while the Union loves to claim it's fighting for YOU, the truth is they are really securing a pay raise for themselves. As union worker pay goes up, so too does the union dues.
You're just the proxy they're using so it isn't so obvious.
Is why they could give two shits about how expensive your health care has become. It's money out of YOUR pocket, not theirs. They get theirs regardless of how little remains for you.
Understand this concept and you'll be able to make a better decision about pushing for or joining a Union.
As has happened many times in American history, this will either fail or Tesla will move its factory to Texas. The UAW has a long and illustrious history of cooking geese.
Comparing the starting pay at Tesla to the national average for auto workers doesn't seem very fair.
So is this going to be like other locations, where the companies said "yeah, go ahead and vote". The vote failed - so the union had another. And another. Then tried to publish all the individual votes that were suppose to be secret so they could force and intimidate folks? Then that failed. So they sued. And that failed. So they had another vote. Ad Nauseum. The UAW isn't a millstone. It's a cancer. They are a gateway to fraud, kickbacks, nepotism, favoritism, and popularism.
The minimum wage activists tell us that anything below $15/hr is not a "living wage."
Now we learn that people who already make a good deal more than that still declare it to be far below a "living wage."
This cycle quickly gets old to those of us who choose to live within our means rather than to constantly whine and try to bully our way into a higher income.
Communism did that? Hmm.
to rank and file. As someone who worked in the late 90s I can tell you that companies can and will swindle you out of them. AOL did it most famously during the Time Warner buyout. Onlive did it recently where they built the company with cheap engineers paid in stock options then folded the company to walk away with the proceeds from selling it. There are plenty of other ways to do it.
Join a Union. If you don't you'll just get picked apart by the companies expert lawyers. You can't compete with them without help, they pay those guys too much. Their monthly salary's more than your house's worth. While you're trying to make next month's payment they're screwing you out of the money you needed to make it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I see a lot of apathy for Unions. Very sad. They gave you: Weekends off, eight hour work day, Holidays off. And a safer workplace. People died in the fight to start unions for you. If you like working 60 hours a week on a regular basis; keep on disliking unions.. Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/1886...
In general you find the employees that are pushing for a union are also the most senior employees.
The union will then protect them over everyone else based on their superior seniority.
Its just selfish. It isnt about communism.
"His name was James Damore."
The over under on the coming impeachment of Trump is 2.5 years. I am taking the over ... but only slightly over.
This is the kind of startup phase mentality. It will all work out, everyone will get rich, just need to get over the next hurdle ... but having been there working for low pay and buying into the dream when, I finally did get the pay off it was 25k (tax free) which is better than a kick in the teeth but the stock employees owned was brought in the initial phase of the buyout which was at a much lower price. Part of the way the owners made the whole buyout benefit them not the employees. However when we were made all the promises I actually think that the owners felt like they were true and all legit (which to some extent they were.) The fact is that I could have changed jobs and made about 15k more for the 7 years of "startup and rapid growth" so in hindsight it was a partial scam. Same thing going on at Tesla I think.
Basically Elon may not know it entirely but he is scamming them. The stock price will come down not go up (Tesla might be great but the competitors will soon be taking a fair share of sales.) Also never buy the stock just because you like the product.
Telsa workers should have a union to protect them from that startup thinking of "We will all get rich just hold on."
Not paid enough? Quit, because you can obviously get a better job.
Safety? Same thing, except OSHA is rooting for you, too.
Short form, paraphrased from Ann Landers and John Prine: "STFU, You have no complaints, you is what you is, you ain't what you ain't."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Has anybody mentioned how Tesla ended up in Fremont? Very interesting history at that auto plant.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125229157
Corporations should not have to pay so much for labor. The people who make the products aren't important to the process, they don't deserve so much money for working endless hours toiling their existence away for the purpose of your business. This is why I advocate for free trade to China. All corporations should have the right to pay $2/hr for labor.
I see a lot of apathy for Unions. Very sad. They gave you: Weekends off, eight hour work day, Holidays off.
No, no, and no. Unions got you payed overtime for such things. You can still be expected to work on a weekend, on a holiday or more than 8 hours. Pre-union it might be part of your daily/weekly salary, you might not even be getting an hourly rate, not a penny extra. Post-union you got 1.5 to 2 times your normal hourly rate, in general.
And a safer workplace. People died in the fight to start unions for you. If you like working 60 hours a week on a regular basis; keep on disliking unions.
You got that half-right. As my 40-year IBEW member grandfather explained that was all true and unions were a godsend back in those early decades. However he said that in the 1960s-70s timeframe they became a useless bureaucracy working to perpetuate their own existence and the salaries and perks of the union staff/leadership, not the members. That all the important stuff (those fights you refer to) was not contract, but law. And that now the union fights over BS stuff and rarely does anything to help a worker against management. He said management and union had this working symbiotic relationship perpetuating their interests, neither of them thinking much about the workers interests. In summary, he said the unions were once important and greatly needed, but now they are just a racket doing little beyond skimming some percentage of the money, not unlike the mob.
... its not part of the union contract. When they said they are taking home less money ... I warned you not to trust the union organizer. The workers were now eagerly looking forward to the passage of two years (?) so they could vote to leave the union. But it never got there, the owner decided to retire, sold the company to a larger company. About a year later they shut it down and moved it offshore.
A friend was an assistant manager at a small local manufacturer back in the 1990s. The owner was once a worker in a larger plant, went out on his own, grew a business. He was a pretty good boss, his shop was clean and safe and well equipped. When things were going really well and profits way up, he gave bonuses to everyone. Something comes up, someone needs the flexibility to take some time off without using vacation or sick time, sure we'll juggle some hours around. He was genuinely concerned about his workers and treated them like extended family. Then a union organizer came around with lots of promises. The employees voted in favor of unionizing, they didn't have any grievances but like the idea of more money in their pocket. When no more bonuses showed up, they asked why not. The reply, its not part of the union contract. When there was less scheduling flexibility
Voting to unionize is not necessarily some panacea. In the distant past it might have been, but not any more.
If true, the reason that senior employees are the ones pushing for a union is that they're the ones too incompetent to be promoted.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Unions helped somewhat with shifting employment in those directions, but increasing competition between firms for workers and increasing worker mobility played a large role in making those changes too -- and these, not unions, are the reason the benefits persisted.
From the early Industrial Revolution until the New Deal, labor monopsonies (only one purchaser of labor) were common. Barriers to changing employers were high in the day of "company towns," horse and buggy travel, limited access to education, etc. Because these companies had market power as monopsonies, it sometimes made sense to form a labor monopoly - a union - to counter that market power and achieve better outcomes for workers.
But at the same time, antitrust law, new entrants into markets, the spread of cars, better access to education and mass communication, and many other factors led to the demise of the "company town" and the advent of a time when workers had more realistic options. Employers had to compete for workers via wages and benefits. Unions became less important.
These days, there are few situations where an employer has sufficient labor market power to worry about, and in most of those situations, antitrust rather than unions should be the measure to turn to. (Exceptions include certain kinds of government workers; we don't want to have ten competing police agencies in a town.)
Yes, yes, and yes - you're handwaving. Working retail you are likely to have to work on weekends -but then you have other days off during the week. As opposed to pre-union where the boss was "generous" if you worked six day day a week.
Thus begins every warmed over piece of anti-union bullshit - my brother's wife's cousin's best friend says unions protect laaaazy people. If your grandfather was a real person, and that's what he actually said, he was a fucking idiot and a traitor to his class. Unions will always be a necessary counterbalance to bosses, to capitalists, to greed. Have bosses, capitalists, and greed cased to exist in the 60s-70's? Of course they haven't, which makes you a fucking idiot, even if your grandfather is a made-up person. And applying this same standard of purity to business, capitalism should have been banned entirely after Enron blew up the energy market, after the banks blew up the worldwide currency market in the housing bubble, and after BP blew up the Gulf of Mexico with their incompetence.
If you oppose unions being able to pool their labor, then you must also oppose capitalists being able to pool their capital. If not, you're a corporatist hack.
Nah, its not about incompetence.
When you've been working the same job for 15 years, you start getting worried that if you had to get a new job that its going to suck in comparison in some major way (more work, less pay, what-have-you.)
Sometimes times are good. Sometimes times are bad. Sometimes the company hires. Sometimes the company lays off.
The most senior people are worried about the layoffs. They dont care who gets hurt so long as they don't. Its really is extremely selfish.
I am a member of a union at a business that wasn't unionized before I started and later unionized under an existing union. I watched the whole process, from the stirring up of discontent, to the empty promises about what unionization will mean, to the eventual negotiated union contract that doesnt live up to the hype, to the contractual protection of seniority above all else.
The union does negotiate raises whenever the contract is up. Its the only time anyone gets a raise. The amount of raises they have negotiated so far is less than what the company was giving out automatically before unionization. The union also really screwed up the health insurance, allowing the company to pull coverage for non-generic drugs (not all drugs have a generic alternative) because the union bargaining committee is a bunch of rubes.
Non-union positions at the same company dont have any of the issues that the union positions have. But those senior employees... they got their protection.
"His name was James Damore."
The hell you did. This tired anti-union trope is based on the premise that Steve is just dying to step in and do Bob's work if Bob starts to slack off. Which of course is complete batshit nonsense. If you are Steve would you want to do your own work plus Bobs at a non-union company? Of course not. Would joining a union make you want to do your own work plus Bob's? Of course not. Which means you are engaging in willful dumbfucerky, same as every other toolbag in this story.
Yes, yes, and yes - you're handwaving. Working retail you are likely to have to work on weekends -but then you have other days off during the week.
I'm handwaving? When most people are presented with the notion of working on the "weekend" they are presuming the typical scenario where they already worked the "work week". And you are now claiming that if your 5-day workweek includes the weekend, if your two days off are not on the weekend, we have a big issue? Seriously, that is your crisis? Sorry, the semantic games are being played by you. And yes, I have worked in retail and have worked weekends, holidays, etc. 1.5x overtime in excess of 8 hours in a day, in excess of 40 hours a week, 2x overtime on holidays. No union contract. Government regulations, except maybe the 2x holiday, not sure if gov reg require 2x compared to 1.5x.
Thus begins every warmed over piece of anti-union bullshit - my brother's wife's cousin's best friend says ...
The point you failed to realize is that I didn't receive second-hand info, or is it third-hand, I received the info **directly** from a 40+ year International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union member who worked union jobs from the 1930s to the 1970s, taking off some time for WW2 where he worked for the Army (non union job). The conversation came about as I visited him on the picket line in the 1970s and I asked "why are you on strike". He said he'd answer later after dinner, then explained the the current disagreement was BS. Then followed the history of unions in America, how important they once were, and how they have devolved into fairly useless self-serving things in recent times.
Not his argument at all. His observations had to do with union leadership, which essentially became a racket to enrich themselves and do little for the workers. That union leadership had more in common with company management than with the workers. Just another entitled privileged group taking their cut of things and not doing much beyond protecting their cut, certainly not protecting the workers beyond making nice speeches.
... If your grandfather was a real person, and that's what he actually said, he was a fucking idiot and a traitor to his class ...
When your job history and experience approach 10% of his your opinion might have value, until then, who cares what you think. Until then enjoy your petty little rationalization if it makes you feel better.
... Unions will always be a necessary counterbalance to bosses, to capitalists, to greed.
Again, your deficiently simplistic model forgets government. Nearly all those great things early unions fought for are *not* delivered by union contracts todays. They are delivered by **government regulations**. Those old union demands are essentially the law of the land today. That is why unions are far less important today, they won the battle.
I would be all for unions if they actually stood for what they used to. Representing workers who had to endure poor conditions, and terrible wages and benefits. I have not read much on what is the conditions at the Freemont plant for Tesla workers? Personally, I think when workers consider unionizing its because they feel their bosses are not listening or addressing their complaints or addressing problems. To me its a last resort to get attention to issues that plague working at a place. Maybe Musk is a brilliant guy but a lousy manager and hires people that do not address the problems that happen when you ramp up production as much as Musk plans to do. With the Model 3 just getting started, Tesla needs a happy work force, not one ready to unionize.
Don't ever do a trade show at a hall with a union contract - you won't be allowed to plug in your power strip. You have to hire two (buddy system, apparently) union electricians to do it for you, because safety.
Because apparently when you walk through the doors of the Javitz Center in New York City, you forget how to plug a household lamp in without killing yourself and setting fire to the place.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I mean really; if there are heaps of preventable injuries happening, then these are the guys to call. Not some union boss.
There are many reports in the news and many interviews with employees relating back injuries and the attitudes of bosses who have told them to "suck it up".
Ok so all we need to do is have a list of companies that will fail and not work for them, invest in them, or do business with them. Please could you list those companies for me?
just listen to the Internet. Don't argue, ok. He's a genuine bonafide American, and making money is the only thing that matters. Just accept your salary and working conditions and be proud that you're allowed to be a part of Tesla.
Don't ever do a trade show at a hall with a union contract - you won't be allowed to plug in your power strip. You have to hire two (buddy system, apparently) union electricians to do it for you, because safety.
Because apparently when you walk through the doors of the Javitz Center in New York City, you forget how to plug a household lamp in without killing yourself and setting fire to the place.
Don't forget that you suddenly became too feeble to push a cart or carry your own gear in, got to wait for a couple of teamsters to come do that for you as well.
It would be interesting to see some independent analysis of these numbers from some news agencies/employee rights groups. They sound like some pretty easy to cook numbers, for example the "starting pay" one. Most jobs start out paying crap and then quickly ramp up when you've shown you actually work, a much better number would be the average employee pay. I'm sure both sides have a point, and there are no doubt improvements to be made, but neither side (any employer or UAW) can be trusted to portray a realistic appraisal of the situation.
Thus begins every warmed over piece of anti-union bullshit - my brother's wife's cousin's best friend says unions protect laaaazy people.
They really do, but those lazy people aren't workers. They're union executives. They get paid whether the workers get what they need or not, and it's difficult to remove them because most workers expect to be fucked over and are apathetic.
If you oppose unions being able to pool their labor, then you must also oppose capitalists being able to pool their capital. If not, you're a corporatist hack.
I, for one, am not completely anti-union, and I think that the right to unionize is completely valid. But I am also not pro-union, because there are drawbacks to the existence of unions. There are two main drawbacks to their existence. In government including education, unions can still be mandatory which is illegal in every other case. This is clearly wrong, and that's a significant percentage of the jobs in the country so it's worth mentioning in its own right on that basis, but it also has had severe negative effects on education. Administrators are drawing ever-higher salaries for doing the same work, which is detracting from the amount available to pay actual educators.
But the bigger problem with the existence of unions is that unions don't care enough about the minimum wage, or about national health, because their wages are above the minimum wage, and because they have health care. Sometimes they care a little bit about the minimum wage, but only when their salaries are tied to it by being defined as a multiple thereof, which only illustrates the problem. The minimum wage is meant to be enough to live on, and not just for a single person living in their parents' basement. And don't get me started on health care.
I would also add that I favor strong restrictions on capitalists being able to pool their capital, which is what makes me a liberal (when coupled with the opinion that the government should not be instructing me as to what I may do in my bedroom.) They derive much more benefit from the system of capitalism than plebes, and as such they have to be prevented from abusing their advantageous position not simply because that is what is right but also because the system will not continue to function otherwise.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
on't ever do a trade show at a hall with a union contract - you won't be allowed to plug in your power strip. You have to hire two (buddy system, apparently) union electricians to do it for you, because safety.
Don't forget that you suddenly became too feeble to push a cart or carry your own gear in, got to wait for a couple of teamsters to come do that for you as well.
Seems to me like the solution is to make the booth a robot (or fleet of robots) that come in and self-deploy. Neither you nor the teamsters has to plug anything in. Of course, they'll lobby against self-charging robots next, setting up the world for the union meatbags v robots wars of 2088
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Be careful what you take in your mind. They are tying to convince you that Unions are the enemy and Unions must go. You took part of the bait. I'm glad you were lucky and had your grandfather to talk to you. You have no idea of how hard Washington and Corporations want to kill unions. That way you will have absolutely no defence against what they pay you, treat you, or anything they want to do to you. For instance: Take having "The right to work.in your State. The true statement is "The right to work for less pay". People find out about it later..much too late. What you said about Unions in the 70's is true. They got too greedy and made a lot of idiot mistakes. (So do politicians to this day). I think Unions realized their mistakes and have changed for the better. But today you can be part of a Union and not pay dues! This is their way of crippling Unions. The United States Post Office is one of the biggest Unions to exist. Why do you think they wanted them to pay retirement benefits 75 years into the future?? They want to kill the post office and it's Union. They are also under the illusion that privatizing the post office will bring a profit to them. It will in the city, but be a huge loss in the rural areas.
Publicity trick to convince Musk into surrendering.
Tesla Factory Workers Pushing For a Unicorn Send Letter of Requests To Company's Board Members
I live in a right to work state, and I make more than you.
Yes, I would. Yes, I have. Now I manage both Bob and Jim (who was hired to replace me when I became the boss), plus a bunch of other people. That's how it works for successful people, they stop thinking about themselves and think about the bigger picture. Keep holding yourselves down, libtards.
they won the battle.
I find this recurring and interesting in and of itself. There are so many movements and ideas that "won" yet there are a lot of people that still hold on to some notion that it still needs to be solved or pushed despite it being the law of the land.
Be careful what you take in your mind. They are tying to convince you that Unions are the enemy and Unions must go. You took part of the bait. I'm glad you were lucky and had your grandfather to talk to you.
The theory of unions is just fine. The history of unions is important, their achievements great. However do not confuse these things with the state of unions *today*. Today many unions are corrupt and work for the interests of the union itself, not for the workers they represent. Today many do not uphold the standards of the industry, the craft, making sure members live up to the standards of quality of the industry. Do not confuse the unions of the "golden era" with those of today. They have little in common. Many of the rights and benefits workers receive today are due to law, not union membership or contract. Yes, laws brought about by the unions of that "golden era", but law never the less.
You have no idea of how hard Washington and Corporations want to kill unions. That way you will have absolutely no defence against what they pay you, treat you, or anything they want to do to you.
Other than the law of the land?
For instance: Take having "The right to work.in your State. The true statement is "The right to work for less pay". People find out about it later..much too late. What you said about Unions in the 70's is true. They got too greedy and made a lot of idiot mistakes. (So do politicians to this day). I think Unions realized their mistakes and have changed for the better. But today you can be part of a Union and not pay dues! This is their way of crippling Unions.
The first hand accounts I've heard from the late 1990s show little difference from the 1970s.
The United States Post Office is one of the biggest Unions to exist. Why do you think they wanted them to pay retirement benefits 75 years into the future?? They want to kill the post office and it's Union. They are also under the illusion that privatizing the post office will bring a profit to them. It will in the city, but be a huge loss in the rural areas.
Government employee unions are a separate topic, and a trouble idea to begin with.
"“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd."
"The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”"
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo...
""All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management." Roosevelt didn’t stop there. "The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations," he wrote. When Walker claimed FDR said "the government is the people," he had Roosevelt’s next line in mind. "The employer," Roosevelt’s letter added, "is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, pro
they won the battle.
I find this recurring and interesting in and of itself. There are so many movements and ideas that "won" yet there are a lot of people that still hold on to some notion that it still needs to be solved or pushed despite it being the law of the land.
Those (union leadership) financially benefiting from the "battle" don't want to see their rewards end. In this regard unions are similar to the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us of. Again, not my idea, my 40+ IBEW union member grandfather's observation.
Unions only make sense when there's a shortage of jobs.
Vote with your feet.
If I were Musk and my employees voted to unionize my solution would be simple: Any union member that shows up Monday morning is fired, on the spot, up to and including 100% of our workforce. We'll start from scratch before we'll deal with the cancer that is the unions. Period.
Good Work Keep It Up http://www.pakinewsnetwork.com/claim-fox-news-composed-seth-rich-story-with-oversight-from-white-house/
And then there's this gem:
even if your grandfather is a made-up person
I also love how in most of your comments here, you seem to think that because people don't support some current unions, they think unions should be banned. Newsflash: saying a specific union (like the UAW) has done some bad things, or that you don't want to join it, doesn't mean you want all unions everywhere to be illegal.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
I've been in a union for many years. A union isn't a cure all. It has pros and cons. One of the major features, also has drawbacks. A union has "collective" bargaining. That means a couple of things. The first being is that they bargain the contract for all members, so you do not have to go it alone. This essentially allows that together you have more power than apart, but I'd say from experience that it acts more as a stabilizer than anything else. When times are bad it acts as a bit of a buffer/protection, however at the same time when they are good, you may not always get the best deal. This also means you CANNOT individually bargain at all. Sometimes you may have processes where you might grieve something through the union, but it is typically a long drawn out process. I know I have had instances in the past where I am certain given my situation I could have bargained a much better deal for myself, however was totally unable to do so. You just accept the whatever deal the union makes. I've mostly seen (due to economic climate etc...) a decline in most benefits, while wages struggle to keep above inflation, however without a union that erosion may have happened at a more accelerated rate (maybe).
Anyway I think they are generally a good idea, only that they are not the answer to everything, and they certainly have their own drawbacks. One of the concerns I have really is that at a certain point a union can be simply just self-perpetuating, that is more concerned with increasing membership, dues, and it's own survival than actually looking out for their members well being. I have a feeling that the super large ones may have this issue, also linked to organizational costs. A good analogy might be those large charities you see that when you look at their books all the money goes to admin, marketing, etc... and only a small percentage actually goes to the cause in question. In the case of a union, this can be perhaps dealt with by increased union involvement, tho I certainly can't be bothered with that so I can't really complain (much).
"useless bureaucracy working to perpetuate their own existence and the salaries and perks of the union staff/leadership, not the members." ... "management and union had this working symbiotic relationship perpetuating their interests, neither of them thinking much about the workers interests."
Those would be my concerns from my experience. They exist to self perpetuate their existence, and work with management just enough to justify their existence to their members. Sometimes the workers gets a slight benefit as an indirect result. That said, the fix for that is for increased worker involvement in the union, however most are too ambivalent to care.
Anyway a union isn't a cure all, they have drawbacks, but can have improvements. We had layoffs a number of years ago. As a result of the union LESS people got laid off than probably would have otherwise. However it still didn't prevent people from getting laid off. It did however make sure that those people that did got a bit more severance than they would have been obligated to by law, so there is that. So while a union can help, it doesn't always, and when it does many times the advantage is only slight to moderate.
Just more willful obtuseness. A worker being opposed to unions on principle is as asinine as a woman being opposed to the right to vote or being able to own property, a black person opposed to the repeal of Jim Crow, or a wheelchair-bound person being opposed to equal-access laws. Of course, it's near impossible to find women, blacks or disabled people engaged in such levels of willful dumbfuckery, as opposed to corporatist bootlickers who hate unions ignoring corporate failures & corruption while handing 90% of their output over to the boss.
Newsflash: that's just more dumbfuckery. If you've been paying attention to my posts, all of them have been in response to mindless anti-union FUD. If the posts were saying the UAW shouldn't be allowed into Tesla because they were instrumental in Volkswagen's emissions cheating or GM killing 100+ people with faulty ignitions (in some other universe where that happened) I wouldn't have commented. But of course that's not the case. It's all the same "unions only protect the lazy derp derp" and vague handwaving "my brother's girlfriends cousins uncle said blah" bullshit.
So, yeah, if you work for someone else and hate unions on principle, you are a traitor to your class and are a fucking idiot. Like I said the first time.
Except: you can vote to replace that union executive. How are you, as an employee of XYZ company, going to replace the CEO or other top management at the company. If you don't like union leadership, you must be itching to break out the torches and pitchforks on company headquarters.
Except: "a rising tide lifts all boats", and unions have traded compensation in return for reduced rates on health insurance. A higher minimum wage forces up wages for other workers, including unions, and nationalized health care would mean (lots) more money in union worker's paychecks, because it wouldn't be going to premiums and deductibles.
So, any union executive arguing against either is likely to be a corporatist plant, and in need of replacement.
Awesome! Probably means the FBI has a file on you, though.
The person you replied to was literally just complaining about corruption in current unions, and how in some cases they don't represent the workers well or don't have their best interests at heart. But keep lying that it's general anti-union FUD.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.