[Discuss] Discuss - Software Engineering union

[markw at mohawksoft.com (Mark Woodward)]

Here's the problem that unions have: the right-wing media owners are out 
to get them, and the public is gullible. Are unions perfect? Absolutely 
not. No organization of human beings is perfect and without corruption.

Some unions will be corrupt. Fact. MOST unions will not be. FACT. Those 
are the facts. You can look nation wide and look for union abuses, and 
find some. All unions? NO! A small number, YES!. The ratio of good to 
evil? Pretty low.

Now, compare the abuses of "private industry" vs union corruption, and 
tell me which is the over whelming problem. Which does more good than bad.



On 04/18/2012 09:47 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org [mailto:discuss-
>> bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of Mark Woodward
>>
>> I come from a blue-collar background, my dad was a union iron worker.
> I recognize that sometimes unions do good things.  Whenever a company is too
> greedy, and exploits the employees too much.  But unions are also sometimes
> bad.
>
> I am close to someone who works at a restaurant, which is part of a hotel.
> Staffing is done through the hotel, and the majority of hotel employees are
> housekeeping.  (Foreign, generally non-english speaking, paid certainly
> minimum wage or better, but the point is, it's a low-paying job.)  But in
> the restaurant, they have well paid chefs and etc.  But when you unionize,
> you can't just unionize a few - it's all or nothing.  The union came in,
> made vague promises of better pay and better work conditions, and
> housekeeping voted to unionize.
>
> I can't say whether or not housekeeping has benefited, but I can say with
> certainty, it has sucked in the restaurant.  One guy took the restarant
> vodka and got drunk while cooking in the kitchen.  Dangerous, and worse.  He
> was fired.  He took issue with the union, because he can only be fired for
> "just cause," which means in effect, somebody needs to gather evidence as if
> it's a criminal trial.  Everyone knew he was drunk, but now he's saying he
> wasn't.  It seems coincidental that the vodka bottle disappeared from the
> store room at the same time it appeared half gone near his workstation, his
> breath reeking of alcohol, and obviously impaired...  But he says he had
> nothing to do with it, and somebody was smelling something else, and he was
> behaving perfectly fine.
>
> There's also this concept of "restaurant week," where all the restaurants
> are crazy busy.  Well, one dishwasher simply didn't show up for a week.  No
> call, no nothing.  After restaurant week was over, he had his wife call from
> Florida, to say his grandfather had passed, and they would be staying in Fla
> for another week.  I can understand bereavement, but there's no excuse for
> not calling, and ... length of time ... and "It's not my fault it happened
> at the beginning of restaurant week."
>
> The union promised all sorts of things like "regular raises," and "better
> health insurance."  So first of all, "better" health insurance is a relative
> term.  Previously, it was a high deductible health plan + health saving plan
> + matching contributions to HSP.  Moving forward, it's a full-health plan.
> Guess what, the full-health plan is better for some, while the HDHP is
> better for others.  Because the HSP could be used for vision&  dental
> overages&  deductibles... physical therapy, acupuncture, massage and other
> forms of therapy, whereas those things are simply out-of-pocket on the
> "full" plan.  Also, with the HSP, you save your funds lifelong and you keep
> it when you retire.  Unlike the full plan, where you're uncovered as soon
> (or soon thereafter) as your unemployed.  At an old age, you either have
> something you've saved up your whole life, or you have nothing.  But anyone
> who has high expenses this year would be better having the full plan this
> year.  The upshot is:  Each type of plan is better for some.  It's not fair
> to simply promise "better" health insurance.  The union sales force is being
> deceitful.  They don't get paid unless your organization decides to
> unionize.  The union workers are not unbiased about your decision, and not
> above lying to get your patronage.  Once you're unionized, it's extremely
> hard to get out.
>
> The upshot of the "better pay" is that the restaurant now has a maximum wage
> they're able to offer newhires, and the work schedule is assigned based on
> seniority.  End result, whenever they have an entry-level position to fill,
> they do ok filling it, but whenever they have an upper-level position to
> fill, it goes unfilled.  The head chef left for another restaurant some time
> ago, and they can't offer a competitive package to acquire a new head chef.
> But they can't leave the position open - So they hire somebody who's not
> qualified to be there.  Everybody who works there can see this.  They all
> formerly had aspirations for career paths and learning opportunities, but
> now they feel there's no way they can learn anything or improve themselves
> any more, because their superior(s) are not superior.
>
> Long story short, IMHO:
>
> Unions are good when workers are over-exploited.
> Unions are bad when the fair market is actually fair.
>
> What makes the fair market actually fair?  Low barrier to entry for small
> organizations.  If the whole market is dominated by a huge company, then
> maybe the union might be good.  But if a small group of skilled workers
> could go out on their own, form a small company and be successful...  Then
> the union is ultimately a negative.  IMHO.
>