Union/ Non-Union Jobs

[JoanieBlon]

Originally Posted by TAPPY

Zactly -

and for the most part I see Unions as something that was needed in the past - not so much today.

I have worked in both enviroments - very hard to get rid of a crappy worker in a union environment.

My feelings exactly ~ AND if you are a GOOD and CONSCIENTIOUS worker who reports to work every day who is working alongside someone who does next to nothing and doesn't give a diddly-squat, it can REALLY get on your nerves when you realize that person is being "protected" by the Union and is getting the same pay and benefits you are ~ when what they deserve is a good, swift kick in the ass and being FIRED.

[Rissask]

I just want to be clear that I am talking about Canada here...our labour and health and safely laws are far more comprehensive up here. For example, everyone in Saskatchewan gets three weeks a year paid vacation- every single employee.


It is actually still fairly difficult to fire people here too, you really have to have all your ducks in a row, as in paperwork tracking their infractions, warnings given, etc., union or non-union, to fire someone. And even then, you have to give them notice or pay in lieu of notice, unless the reason is a blatant one (which is the same as what unions do, right?).

[roni]

Originally Posted by Rissask

All good things. But most of those points have been taken care of by legislation that covers ALL workers, here in Canada.....so no need for unions, not any more.

I am glad we have Canadians with diverse viewpoints on this

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by roni

I am glad we have Canadians with diverse viewpoints on this

I am so glad to so many differing viewpoints in the USA too.


I have to ask...unions JUST protect the workers who work at one place, for that one union.

Is it not preferable to have a set of laws that protect ALL workers in a country? Is that not what you should be aiming for- true, fair equality for ALL? Not 'just' those who happen to be 'lucky' enough to be hired by a union company?

jeez, maybe it's just the socialist in me ...but I should think equality for ALL, is far more preferable.

[roni]

Originally Posted by Rissask

I am so glad to so many differing viewpoints in the USA too.


I have to ask...unions JUST protect the workers who work at one place, for that one union.

Is it not preferable to have a set of laws that protect ALL workers in a country? Is that not what you should be aiming for- true, fair equality for ALL? Not 'just' those who happen to be 'lucky' enough to be hired by a union company?

jeez, maybe it's just the socialist in me ...but I should think equality for ALL, is far more preferable.

Most countries have worker protection laws. Most countries also have laws that allow workers to unionize.

This is as it should be in civilized societies, in my opinion.

[Rissask]

That didn't really answer the question.

So- people who are fortunate enough to join a union are just luckier than all the other peons, eh?

okay

[_Josephina_]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Definitely a good point....but our OH & S legislation in Canada is actually pretty comprehensive today.

I used to work as an HR officer at my previous employer (a factory that made farm equipment) and there were a few areas that had fairly dangerous jobs, requiring respirators, overhead hoists, working with dangerous chemicals, etc. And safety was always #1.

We had very few on the job accidents there, (a non-union shop) and another thing that was an incentive for the company, and any large companies in Canada, is that Worker's Compensation give massive rebates on the premiums they have to pay, the lower the accident/incident rates are. Those premiums can be fairly steep if there are a lot of on-the-job accidents. The old 'hit them where it hurts' rationale- which makes them be far more proactive in reagards to safety.

I still say for the most part they are outdated up here....and that far too many of them are greedy and just pocket the money from employees/members while telling them how much they are doing for them, when in actuality, any good company would be required legally to do the same things they bargain for.

As for wages, the market mainly determines those, collective bargaining or not....if there is a demand for oil and gas and few workers, they have to pay a lot of money...if MacDonalds become unionized, they still wouldn't be making a ton of money.


Edited to add: In any case, if a company around here these days DOES get a union voted in, that usually means they deserved it, because they didn't do enough to keep their employees happy. But, often the employees end up unhappy with the union anyway, because they were unrealistic in what they imagined they were going to 'get'...not realizing they still have to bargain for every point.

Our OH&S is very comprehensive but unfortunately it has not stopped non-union jobs from hiring unqualified employees. People have been killed within the last few years because of this. Also, there was the entire rework job that my dad had to do because a very large non-union company (and I mean a BIG company, international even ) screwed it up and the repair costs were in the BILLIONS! I know I already mentioned that but I don't want the "costs" to be solely pawned off to the unions as a good portion of those costs wouldn't exist if the non-union employer had done the job right in the first place. Ftr, this was a major project at one of the Ft McMurray Oilsands.

On the wages note - Safeway cashiers are union and they used to make significantly more than non-union. Last I knew of (and these are dated amounts) a union cashier made $12/hr compared to the $7/hr of the competition.

Originally Posted by TAPPY

Zactly -

and for the most part I see Unions as something that was needed in the past - not so much today.

I have worked in both enviroments - very hard to get rid of a crappy worker in a union environment.

There are ways of getting people off a job Mr J is a temporary employee and always will be. That is his choice as those are the slips he pulls - there are permanent jobs with the union but they don't line up with Mr J's choices. Anyways, if a person is not a good employee then they are certainly let go. On the other hand, Mr J is an excellent employee and is rewarded with overtime and tasks to vary his skill levels. Those who are crappy are not given overtime because crappy employees are usually the ones who show up late or break other job site rules.

Originally Posted by JoanieBlon

My feelings exactly ~ AND if you are a GOOD and CONSCIENTIOUS worker who reports to work every day who is working alongside someone who does next to nothing and doesn't give a diddly-squat, it can REALLY get on your nerves when you realize that person is being "protected" by the Union and is getting the same pay and benefits you are ~ when what they deserve is a good, swift kick in the ass and being FIRED.

They do get the same pay and benefits - but poor employees do not get the same hours. The way our benefits work is it is based on hours. Every hour worked goes into an "hour bank" and the hours cycle out as time passes. It has to be at a certain level to recieve full benefits. For Mr J this isn't a problem and he has 3 years of full benefits saved up if he was laid off today and didn't work for those 3 years. On the other hand, crappy employees don't get the hours and could run low on hours in their job bank - then they might have to pay additional fees to keep their benefits. There are benefits to being "temporary employees" and one of them is that it reduces the disparity between good workers and bad workers. What our union does is protects those who work hard. It also offers those who are struggling with opportunities to improve themselves (free skills upgrading/training/practice at the hall, first aide, addiction rehabilitation, school upgrading, etc, the list goes on and on).

[TAPPY]

Originally Posted by Rissask

I just want to be clear that I am talking about Canada here...our labour and health and safely laws are far more comprehensive up here. For example, everyone in Saskatchewan gets three weeks a year paid vacation- every single employee.


It is actually still fairly difficult to fire people here too, you really have to have all your ducks in a row, as in paperwork tracking their infractions, warnings given, etc., union or non-union, to fire someone. And even then, you have to give them notice or pay in lieu of notice, unless the reason is a blatant one (which is the same as what unions do, right?).

It is the same here - unemployment laws favor the worker way more than they do the company.

This coming from some one who has spent most of her working life fighting unemeployment claims for "the man" (for just cause)

[_Josephina_]

Originally Posted by Rissask

I am so glad to so many differing viewpoints in the USA too.


I have to ask...unions JUST protect the workers who work at one place, for that one union.

Is it not preferable to have a set of laws that protect ALL workers in a country? Is that not what you should be aiming for- true, fair equality for ALL? Not 'just' those who happen to be 'lucky' enough to be hired by a union company?

jeez, maybe it's just the socialist in me ...but I should think equality for ALL, is far more preferable.

The socialist in me totally agrees Which is why when we had our "information picket" it was directed towards our government. In a perfect world all the major players would follow the rules. The fact is that they don't.

Our union situation might be unique - Mr J does not work for 1 company. Over hte yeras he has worked for 6 or so companies, all under the protection of his union. These companies can choose to hire from the union or privately and the larger companies usually have a mix of both. They do NOT apply the standards equally. The non union crew gets less.

[Peach]

Originally Posted by Brent & Kim

You dont look at all like your 40!

Thanks!!!! but what picture you looking at????? LOL

Eileencc GA-pechs, first let me say that I love the picture of the adorable girl in your avatar!

Thanks Eileen!!! That's my grand daughter, Tori. She's 3 1/2 and a joy to be raising!!! Yes, starting over with raising babies.....but wouldn't change a thing!!!!

[Rissask]

_Josephina_:

On the wages note - Safeway cashiers are union and they used to make significantly more than non-union. Last I knew of (and these are dated amounts) a union cashier made $12/hr compared to the $7/hr of the competition.

Maybe....but Costco employees make even better wages and benefits. And they are NON union.

The thing is- it is not like companies have no control. It is always up to the company, not the union, what they will or won't do for their employees. A union can try to bargain for better is all, the company can still refuse and play hardball.

[supersponge]

Originally Posted by Brent & Kim

Unions are good for the most part but they are also responsible for the higher cost of manufacturing durable goods which has lead to jobs being performed in other countries. In many cases the worker is overpaid for the job performed, IMO.

I agree this is why we have no motor industries left here in England GB well at least one of them.

[Skiptown]

What ever jobs you have and feel great about and are non union, every perk you have is decended from unions working for better job conditions many years ago. Look at the history of labor and it was littered with horrible work conditions until unions started and demanded to be treated better.
Being an "at will" employee is working with a hammer over your head. All it takes is a bad supervisor that has it out for you or a boss that just does not like the way you look or your opinions on any subject and you are gone with no recourse.
I know for a fact that many of my co workers would not be at our workplace if we had no union and not because they are bad workers but just because our director does not like them or a fellow employee who has it out for you. I know this because I was the one who worked to protect the job they had. Non union employees can be canned over suspicions, real or not.

[_Josephina_]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Maybe....but Costco employees make even better wages and benefits. And they are NON union.

The thing is- it is not like companies have no control. It is always up to the company, not the union, what they will or won't do for their employees. A union can try to bargain for better is all, the company can still refuse and play hardball.

The majority are non-union - my mom works for a union Costco And the non-union ones just copy the union ones!

The non-union locations have revisions to their Costco Employee Agreement every three years concurrent with union contract ratifications in locations with collective bargaining agreements

From here (it is wikipedia - take it with a grain of salt!): Costco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All the companies that Mr J works with have a choice in who they hire. They can hire on both sides of the fence and they choose to hire out of the union. They do have to keep the employees separate on site though and they try to keep the projects seperated. Lots of bad blood due to bad attitudes on both sides.

Originally Posted by Skiptown

What ever jobs you have and feel great about and are non union, every perk you have is decended from unions working for better job conditions many years ago. Look at the history of labor and it was littered with horrible work conditions until unions started and demanded to be treated better.
Being an "at will" employee is working with a hammer over your head. All it takes is a bad supervisor that has it out for you or a boss that just does not like the way you look or your opinions on any subject and you are gone with no recourse.
I know for a fact that many of my co workers would not be at our workplace if we had no union and not because they are bad workers but just because our director does not like them or a fellow employee who has it out for you. I know this because I was the one who worked to protect the job they had. Non union employees can be canned over suspicions, real or not.

Well said.


I tried to join a union when I was working as a machinist (I'm a J'man ) Around these parts there isn't a functioning union for machinists and I wound up making crap $ and so did many other machinists (there are shops FULL of foreign workers who make $10-12/hr for skilled work!). When the boom happened the wages rose but now jobs are disappearing in the machining field. Anyways, while I made $22/hr as a J'man my husband made significantly more as a 2nd year apprentice because he is union. I left the field before the boom to pursue something else thankfully. And yes, I was an excellent machinist and could probably go to work easily even in this failing job market due to my work history so the reason I was paid so little wasn't due to my work. I think I was paid less because I'm a female.

[FrankO]

about ex or current union workers that are disatisfied with their unions.
"They" are the union. If you are disasfied with your union change it. It takes work to become a union officer.
I fought for years to become a trustee and I focused on one change at a time. It took YEARS for some of them to be implemented but they are now in place and utilized and appreciated.
If you are disatisfied it is because you don't contribute other than financially.
You should check out the AFL-CIO website or your local Labor Council websites and read a bit before branding unions outdated and ineffectual in these times.
Unions are imperfect. They are made up us imperfect beings.