Talk About Network

Google





Businesses > Coops > Re: Repeal the ...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 2 of 3 Topic 109 of 144
Post > Topic >>

Re: Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act

by Alex Russell <alexander.russell@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sep 11, 2007 at 05:49 AM

Michael Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Simon Richter wrote:
> 
>> I don't care about people who simply work faster than I do if they 
>> achieve the same level of quality, after all, they are securing my job 
>> as well by enhancing the competitiveness of the company; in the same 
>> way slackers decrease my job security.
> 
> And yet I know for fact that people who work faster, without quality 
> problems ARE told to slow down so the others don't look bad.  I'll be 
> willing to accept that it's not every time, but I know for fact that it 
> does happen.
> 
> I'm also not arguing with your "slacker" comments.  In "reality", unions

> establish a "rate or work" if you will.  People who are slower then that

> rate are terminated.  However, I have personal experience, as does my 
> father, as does several coworkers of mine, that working above this rate 
> WITHOUT a decrease in product quality, will result (at times) with being

> directly told by a supervisor to slow down.  Not for quality reasons, 
> but so the others don't look bad.
> 
> I am now anti union, as is my father, as are several coworkers of 
> mine... Not because we are "pro big business" or "anti labor", but 
> because we are simply "anti union".  Were our experiences out of the 
> ordinary?  I don't know, but our experiences were real.
> 
> 
That is your only problem with unions? You must have some more 
substantive reason for being anti-union. I've never been told "slow 
down" if someone did I'd tell them where to go.

My personal experience with unions is limited to one not terribly 
'militant' union. I found the union was like a big rusty ratchet: it 
never goes backwards, but is very difficult to move forward.

Pros:
Don't get fired for no reason.
Better benefits than most non-union jobs (in my limited experience)
Less favoritism when promoting people
Management follows labour laws much better

Cons:
hard to fire people who abuse the rules
inflexible job descriptions / work force
Can take longer to get promoted for merit as opposed to for seniority
more red tape in general


I know people who work for well run non-union shops who don't want to 
unionize as there would be no benefit and they would have to pay dues. 
But the more common situation is that non-union people have a harder 
time negotiating better wages and benefits unless they are extremely 
skilled.

Alex Russell
 




 3 Posts in Topic:
Re: Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act
Michael Lewis <cmosmik  2007-09-10 13:38:27 
Re: Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act
Alex Russell <alexande  2007-09-11 05:49:30 
Re: Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act
Fred Williams <unclefr  2007-09-11 09:39:12 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
localhost-V2008-12-19 Wed Jan 7 11:24:51 PST 2009.