Why worker unions completely suck.

[Eckels]

http://www.usfreightways.com/NewsDocuments/RS%20Press%20Release.pdf

I found out about this from a driver that delivered his last run to me today. It's a damned shame.

For those of you who don't like to read, i'll sum it up for you.

On friday, the teamsters union walked into Red Star and told all the drivers that they're on strike. Neither the employees or the bosses even knew it was coming, but the drivers must comply with the union because they are bound by contract. The drivers had to strike.

By end of the friday business day, many of Red Star's accounts were scooped up by competing freight lines. Red Star lost so much unrecoverable business in that one day, that by Sunday it was clear that they would have to shut down. Their last day for deliveries is this coming Friday.

I knew quite a few of Red Star's drivers. They were excellent drivers who had worked for them for years. Their trucks were almost always on time, or early, and rarely did loads arrive damaged.

Teamsters == assholes.

[slothman]

I'm wondering what contract would force them to strike. Is it some sort of stupid closed shop where only union workers can join. "Either strike or quit."

[Gerudo]

what pricks... its a damn shame for those who were "forced" to strike... (like ecks said, they were bound by contract)

[Eckels]

I'm wondering what contract would force them to strike. Is it some sort of stupid closed shop where only union workers can join. "Either strike or quit."

Do you know what a union is?

[Dragon Omega]

Yet another example of a good idea being corrupted...sad state of affairs, really. I wish them the best in their future indevours (the ones that were forced to go on strike, not the ones that forced them to strike. They can blow dead baby camel balls.)
:mischief:

[mrz84]

obviously, they had to since it was in the contract they signed in order to work. one of those kinda things where the fine print bites you in the ass later...

[SixTen]

I'm wondering what contract would force them to strike. Is it some sort of stupid closed shop where only union workers can join. "Either strike or quit."
If they are bound by the contract of the union, then if they don't comply with what the union wants to do, legal action can be taken against them for breach of contract. Still, there must be some law somewhere, or at least I think something went wrong when nobody heard ahead of time. I thought the union had to give everyone plenty of notice before striking.

[Eckels]

Did some more research, and here's the "conspiracy theory" that the driver had tried to explain to me.

Fifteen Red Star office workers, who were not in a union, walked off on monday. They were demanding union representation. 1500 other employees of Red Star were already union members - like Drivers, Dockworkers, Loaders, etc.. Mostly the physical labor jobs. So the teamsters union, demanding that the office workers be supported in their demand for union representation, told the union members to strike.

Now, the existing union members didnt know anything about the office workers wanting to be represented, nor anything about what happened between them and the teamsters until they were told to strike. (not that they would have been able to do anything, but it just goes to show you how out-of-left-field it was, to the drivers) All they know is that they were instructed to strike, and they did so, because they had to.

Now the conspiracy is... were the office workers working with the management to get the company closed? See, the Teamsters are accusing Red Star of wanting to close their doors, to cover up poor business decisions. Did they know what would happen and plan to use the strike as a reason to close?

The other conspiracy is... did USF use Red Star as an example to it's other conglomerate of freight companies that they shouldn't unionize? USF has been accused of union busting by the Teamsters Union. That's not to say that the teamsters are right... But I highly doubt USF would close a profitable and respected freight carrier to make an example of fifteen workers who want to unionize (and join the other 1500 other employees who are already in the union).

Honestly I think it's bs. If you work in shipping and receiving at all, you know how important reliability, and speed is, to the bottom line. A massive halt in movement can destroy a freight company, especially a company that's acting alone.. I.E. not multiple company workforces, striking together. Plus Red Star is a huge company, that had good business.

But this viewpoint does add another flavor to the story, and I thought it was worth sharing.

[Ibis, God of Magicks]

Man, I've always been against Union. It's a whole bunch of crap. Like, The local Grocery store "SafeWay" is all union workers. Baggers, people that do nothing but bag food start at 8.00/hour. And they are the lowest paid in the store. Hell, Some of the cashiers make upwards of 15.00/hour. It is nutcase. They pretty much get what ever they want, cause if they don't, then they all strike.

IMHO, Unions is the biggest reason why all of the US' factories are closing shop and going over seas. That's what I'd do. Think of it, "Hello Boss, I do the job of a monkey, just pushing a button on the production line, but, you're only paying my 8 bucks an hour, Well, we want a raise. And if you don't give it to us, we'll all go on strike." Okay, then everyon's fired, and I'm moving the plant over seas. They'll be HAPPPPPY to make five dollars an hour.

[Rainman]

I'm looking at a few jobs this summer that will essentially force me to join a union. I'm not exactly looking for job security here. It's a summer job. This wouldn't bug me if I wasn't forced to pay union dues. I'd be paying for a service I don't want.

[slothman]

Well unions can be good, but also bad. I think closed shops should be illegal. I think someone should sue the company and appeal because they were not hired for that reason. Oh wait this is the US. The company can do whatever it wants.[flame mode] Screw the people and citizens. It has the gov't on it's side. [insert more stuff not even allowed in hell]...[/]

[Starkist]

It all depends on which party is in power, slothman. In a conservative government, the companies screw the workers. In a liberal government, the unions screw the workers. Either way... :blah:

[Michael Moore]

Thats one of the dumbest things I ever heard, the employees didn't ask for a strike, and now they lost so much. Sad really, I mean the (and I quote) "teamsters" literally just mad them lose out bigtime for what? I am not saying I hate Unions and stuff like that, cause their needed, but this was just stupid. :-/

[SixTen]

I think closed shops should be illegal.
Closed shops (i.e. where you must join the union to get hired) are illegal in states with 'right to work' laws. The viewpoint is that everyone has a right to work wherever they want. Closed shops, i believe, are legal in Pennsylvania, thanks to all the shipping that comes through here, and likewise, all the union activity that would oppose any anti union legislation.

I think today for the most part unions aren't really necessary. They were needed back before workers had many rights, and employers (like at a coal mine for example) would restrict what the workers can and can't do, or where he could or could not go shopping. This eventuall lead to indentured servitude, where the employee owed the company money, and couldn't get out of debt, much less skip town.

The unions helped get workers out of some really hard times, but for the most part I think they are not really necessary today...at least not in as many industries as today.

(On a side note, the American Teachers Union is considered a terrorist organization. :badrazz: )

[Starkist]

Teacher's unions are the worst. Here in Washington the WEA wields enormous power, dictating school policy in most districts. They are always demanding more money, even though the money they have is being sorely mismanaged. They oppose vouchers and charter schools, which would siphon money away from the public schools. They are more concerned about political action than actually teaching children. A year ago the teacher's union in Marysville went on strike, demanding pay raises and more benefits, although the teachers of Marysville were already some of the highest paid in the state. They forced children to stay home from school for several months while they waged a public relations campaign against the 'evil, anti-teacher, anti-education' school board. A teacher is an easy public relations victory, who wants to say they oppose education, they oppose children? After the strike, which is illegal anyway since they are public employees, the union led campaigns against the school board members. Three of the five were voted out and replaced by pro-union patsies, while the other two faced recalls. After the dust settles, who has won? The school children? The parents? The city? Or the union?

[SixTen]

It is particularly bad if the teachers go on strike. Think about it. The kids would have to stay home( :D ) and some of the parents would have to stay home from work to keep the kids out of trouble ( :( ) the bus drivers would be out of work until the strike ended ( :( ) all of the school's administration, cooking, and janitorial staff would be out of work until the strike ended ( meh ) meanwhile, many companies would be hurt because of parents that needed to stay home. This, if it gets severe enough, could eventually lead to a pretty big economic slump for the community, or whoever.

[C-Dawg]

Oh my GOD. Are you really suggesting that a large, elected bureacracy could ever do anything FOOLISH and STUPID?

Eckels, this gripe has nothing to do with unions generally. This is a problem with collective action. A bunch of people want to get things done, so they rally behind a few leaders who can organize them. Sometimes this means you get yanked along with stuff that you didn't want to have anything to do with. (Iraq war, anyone? Good half of the country wasn't keen on the idea.)

-C

EDIT: SixTen - I'm not so sure about that. How do we know that getting rid of the machinary of unions wouldn't end up re-creating those problems? I'm not convinced either way, but I dont think you've made your case.

[SixTen]

I apologize ahead of time for the length....



I think today for the most part unions aren't really necessary. They were needed back before workers had many rights, and employers (like at a coal mine for example) would restrict what the workers can and can't do, or where he could or could not go shopping. This eventuall lead to indentured servitude, where the employee owed the company money, and couldn't get out of debt, much less skip town.

The unions helped get workers out of some really hard times, but for the most part I think they are not really necessary today...at least not in as many industries as today.

Ok, C-Dawg. Let me try to explain this a little clearer.

When the industrial revolution came around, there were few if any laws to protect factory workers or mine workers etc. For whatever reason, the workers were unable to get politicians to pass any lasw to help them out. So they formed unions. Now early on, unions were looked down on, and often illegal. There are several incidents where violence has been taken out on union members for obstructing the free trade of a given company.

An example of a union's demands at this time would be shorter work day (from a 15 hour day), a larger salary (from like $1 a day), or safer working conditions in factories or mines, where work is often fatal. Now, even if the workers could protest in some way, having a boycott, pickett line, or going on strike for example, the company could still have a lockout. The truth being that the company could go without money for longer than the employees could. The company could also hire strike breakers to replace the striking workers. These would often work for less than the current employees, because they needed the money...assuming they could get into the factory safely without being harrassed by the people on strike.

At the time, the government viewed organised labor the same as organised crime. Even laws that were passed to prevent monopolies, (Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890) could be used against unions because people on strike could be considered to be restricting the free trade (one of the rights in the Constitution) of teh company. Therefor the courts would order the strikers to go back to work. The first relief from this was when congress passed the Clayton Antitrust Act in 1914, which basically said that labor is not an economic commodity, and unions should not be regarded as illegal conspiracies in restraint of trade.

Workers still had to endure sometimes barbaric working conditions though. Relief came to them in 1932 with the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which prevented companies from taking legal action with unions that were involved in peaceful strikes or demonstrations. Thus forcing the companies to deal directly with the unions. The Wagner Act of 1935 gave workers the right to join a union and to engage in collective bargaining with their employers.

That was then...

Today there are laws in place which if they were in place at the end of the 19th century, maybe unions wouldn't have been around for so long as they have been. Laws like sanitation in the workplace, minimum wage, child labor, overtime pay etc. Laws like these would do a great deal to prevent a return to the former working conditions that existed before. While unions may be (I am not an expert so I really don't know) necessary in some fields, they are in my opinion for the most part not needed, considering their original purpose was to enable the workers to have humane working conditions. Today, it seems to me that people just want more, so they go on strike. That's why I tend to look down on unions today.

Again, sorry about the length.
Questions?