HennieBogan1966:"Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't union members have to vote on contracts that are presented to them by employers? If that's the case, then the members are controlled by the unions, and not free to work or not work, based on their personal views and feelings related to those contracts. Waltdisny made the comment that he felt it should be left up to the PEOPLE to make their own way about wages, then in the next sentence said that the FED should level the field. So which is it? Can't be on both sides of the fence here."
First, the membership controls the union through whatever process in in place. In the case of my union, we elect a Master Executive Council who represents us before the company. In my profession we are governed by strict laws about how negotiations take place. Once a contract is presented to the membership, they accept or reject. If it goes down, the process starts again, or the stuff goes into the fan. The members ARE NOT controled by the union, just the opposite. At my company, the current negotiation was so badly bungled that the entire MEC is going to be voted out, and the contract as well. The employees must decide whether the contract is worthwhile, and majority rules. Simple democracy at work.
Second, That is NOT what I said. I said I look for the people to change things through their votes, and through grass roots efforts, such as collective barganing when appropriate. YOU said that labor laws, such as right-to-work are a STATES RIGHTS issue, and NOT the FEDS. I disagree, the constitution clearly states that the congress has the power to regulate interstate comerce, of which labor laws are a part. Further, I said that it would be better for ALL states if the laws were uniform. That doesn't take "Big Government", it takes responsible leadership, something that has been rare in the last few decades.
I also said that the PEOPLE can change the labor laws by voting. Hence the term, by the people and for the people.
"I'm not comparing hourly wages to that of salaried employees, but to the idea that if you don't like the wage offered to you, work somewhere else. And don't try to convince me that somehow people don't have a choice about whether or not to actually "take" the job. That works for ANY job for which you are applying......"
That's a very idealistic statment. A quick look at the history of labor relations in this country and elsewhere shows that it often just doesn't work that way. Look at WVA, where the coal mines were the only game in town. What choice do the miners have? Walmart didn't exist then as a viable option. Management can and will exploit labor if they're given a chance, as you said, financially it makes sense. Labor has to fight back, and in many places unions are the best and only method with which they can get what is fair.
Let me give you an example, I work in a safety sensitive industry. There are times, when something breaks for example, when I have to say, "Nope I'm not going to do it." Now, that costs the company big bucks, and they'd love to be able to intimidate me into taking the risk, but they can't because I have a union.
"Now, as for the ridiculous notion that I would see fit to scrapping labor laws."
Your words, not mine. To say that company's have no moral obligation to their employees is saying just that.
And BTW, what does abortion have to do with any of this?
"No, businesses don't have a moral obligation to pay you the most that they can. What they WILL do is pay you what they believe is fair based on your experience level against the min/max for that position."
That is NOT what they will do, there are many situations where a business can and WILL force wages to absurdly low levels if given the chance, because they make more money! BTW, I said they have a moral obligation to pay what is fair, NOT the most, and that it is in their financial best interest to pay well, that's an important distinction. DO NOT put words out there that I DID NOT USE!!! Typical conservative spin......
"What I DIDN'T say was that they shouldn't be responsible for providing a clean, safe working environment. Don't put words out there that I DID NOT USE!!! Typical liberal spin. You take one comment, misrepresent the facts, and accuse someone of something they didn't say or do."
You JUST SAID IT AGAIN! You said:"They shouldn't have to provide a safe work environment!!" Again, you're saying you want to throw away a century of often bloody progress. Who's mis representing the facts now, Sir?
" Labor laws are there for a reason."
Exactly my point. Thank you.
" And guess what? If you read that entire poster that's posted on your bulletin board at work, it also refers to the wage laws!!!"
I have read it, and it says Federal Minimum Wage, NOT State minimum wage.
"Again, for those of you out there that aren't listening, here's what I said and meant. The easiest way to affect change in this country is by how we vote."
Agreed. That is in fact, what I said as well.
"My reference to WVA is a great example. People complain about how poor that State is, yet continue to vote the same politicians back into office year after year. Don't you wonder why that is? "
For the reasons I said, WVA has regulated itself to the point that it can't compete with other states. There is no reason why a beautiful place like WVA shouldn't have a booming economy like Colorado. That's why I said it would be in the best interest of all states for the Federal Government to control labor laws. Uniform laws would benefit everyone.
"I'll tell you why. It's because the coal mines and unions pour millions of dollars into the campaigns of those in power who will agree with them....."
While I'm sure the unions and the mines do infact pour $$ into elections, that becomes 1) an issue for campaign finance reform 2) It implies that the unions and the minimg companies are working together, which by extention indicates that the unions in WVA are therfore flawed, and not an applicable model for unions elsewhere. 3) and by YOUR OWN argument, don't the people of WVA have an obligation to educate them selves and vote what is in their true best interests? Are you saying that the unions are coercing their members to vote a certain way? If so, that again indicates a flawed union.
"And further, if your vote doesn't count, why have the union at all. Aren't they just going to vote what THEY want and not always what's best for you?"
Who said your vote doesn't count? oh right, YOU DID. Again, your missing the point, if the union only serves itself, then it is a flawed union, and not an acceptable model for measuring the Disney union, or anyone else's for that matter. As I SAID an effective and productive union partners with management to get what is FAIR for it's members, and to ensure the members have acceptable working conditions. A union that drives a company into bankruptcy just to get every last dime is a flawed union. Like it or not, in many industries management can exploit labor, and therefore unions can exploit the company. Neither extreme benefits anyone, and I never said it did.
I've twice used South West Airlines as an example. Conservatives hate SWA because they fly in the face of every argument you used here. They have a union, they pay every dime of what is truely fair for the work their people do, and THEY MAKE TONS OF MONEY!! Why? BECAUSE HAPPY PEOPLE MAKE MORE MONEY FOR THE COMPANY!!!! Refute that, if you can. I for one would MUCH rather be well paid in a union than poor with principles.
"I don't believe that the way to best serve ourselves as FREE individuals in this country is to depend on unions or the government. It's for us as individuals to make the best life we can for ourselves. ...."
What is the purpose of government? To secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's in the Declaration of Independance, in case you haven't read it.
There can not be freedom without some government. With out the rule of law tyranny prevails, history has shown it. Left to their own devices, men are barbarrians. That's why we need responsible leadership to secure those rights.
The Government has infact FAILED at that task in the past, that is WHY we have unions in the first place. When government fails to act, the people will, in some cases by forming unions. It's the American way. The King screws up, we start a revolution, the government screws up, we form unions.
"To work long enough and hard enough at a job that you are able to move up the ladder and experience a better wage scale. Problem is, most people don't stick with jobs long enough to do that. They bounce from one to the other, hoping to grab the brass ring. This furthers the problems with wages, as employers use turnover rates to depress wages as well. ............. "
Hah!! you JUST CONTRADICTED yourself AGAIN! On the one hand, you say that people should be out there negotiating for that good deal, and if they don't like it they should GO SOMEPLACE ELSE. THEN you say that MOVING FROM job to job IS A BAD IDEA and LOWERS WAGES. Which is it? It can't be both. If it is, then it's a game you can't win unless you CHANGE the RULES. and that's what a union Does.
Going back to my orginal post, I made the argument that it is implicit that an employee who stays with a company will be rewarded for that loyalty, and you disagreed, saying that the company has no obligation to do so, yet here you are SAYING the SAME THING I did: People should be rewarded for their loyalty, and given that opportunity to advance.
"Now back to the unions. Don't sit back and put your fate in someone else's hands to determine what you will make for a living or what kind of, if any, benefits you will receive. No company comes to the table thinking, hmmm, how can we give more to the employees and just take less profit. "
Your argument is equally true whether their negotiating with 1 or 100,000 people. Therefore, who will have the most leverage against the company's arm? The one or the many? Again, you make my point for me. In MANY cases, unions can and do negotiate better wages and better conditions than the individuals can. Especially in situations when the skills are generalized, like in a coal mine, or when the worker is easily exploited, like in the theater or in a safety sensitive field like aviation.
If you have a highly specialized skill, especially one that is in high demand, then, yes, there is no question you can do better one-on-one. BUT you cannot apply that argument to every field of endevour. By your own logic, if a company can take advantage to maximise profits, they will. If a bigger stick is needed to get their attention, then I see no problem using it.
You are not "leaving your fate in someone elses hands." Unions work for their members, they are made up of members, therfore a properly run union is another example of by and for the people.
"When Disney offered the top job to Michael Eisner, do you think he took the first offer, or do you think that he negotiated the best that he could out of Disney?"
You're compairing apples to oranges, Eisner is in a very different position to negotiate. As I said above, he has a specialised skill that is in demand, of course he could do better. This is very different from a fellow who is trying to get a job selling turkey legs.
" Do you think they said, look we'll give you whatever you want, or did they come to the table with a min/max number in their minds? Do you think he would have relied on a union to negotiate his contract? Let's use some common sense out there. "
Yes, please do so.
"And this is about class envy. When people talk about how the middle class (why even mention a "class") if you aren't using class envy as your strategy, and how far it has fallen behind in the last so many years? "
Again, I don't have class envy, I am firmly in the middle class. I am merely pointing out that history is repeating itself in "the new economy" and it would be preferable for everyone to learn the lessons of the last century. Second, anytime you mention labor management relations, class has to come into it. Class systems are a part of human existance. Not that they're good, I think it's one of those things we should try to evolve away from. But like our capacity to do evil things, denying it's existance doesn't mean it doesn't exist, even in an egalitarian society such as ours.
Do you deny that Corporate Feudalisim did not take place in this country in the 19th and 20th centuries? Do you want to create an aristocracy in this country? You claim to love freedom, But I say Tyranny is still tyranny whether it comes wrapped in the "free market" or not.
"And no one answered my questions that I posted last regarding the last contract negotiation, and who voted for it? These questions, once answered, will tell you a lot about what's REALLY going on here. "
I'll answer: The union negotiated it on behalf of it's members. The members voted on it. Sounds like representational democracy to me, OH NO!!! what shall we do? Those radicals!!
"Again, I agree that they should be paid more, but don't think that won't come without a price tag attached. Disney WILL get that money back one way or the other. "
Your right, they can get that money back and more besides because HAPPY WORKERS MAKE MORE MONEY FOR THE COMPANY.
"Face it, they're in business for profit, not charity. I wouldn't give it up either."
Again, you make my point. Because of people like you, people like me support unions. I am NOT expecting charity, and I do want the company to make money. But I also want the company to give me what I'm worth, in exchange I give them my best efforts. It's a square deal.
" As for the quality of help being hired, what are you then saying about the cms that have been doing this for years, or about those who did it for years during the last 30 years? Were they all substandard? How many trips did YOU take to Disney that you disliked due to poor service?"
Frankly, I have noticed a decline over the past 5 years or so. No offense to anyone here, because it's still just isolated bad apples, but their numbers seem to be growing. IMHO, lower wages will make the trend worse.
" You act as though this pay thing just happened overnight. It did NOT!!! This has been the case for many years."
No, the pay did not change, but the economic environment did change radically over the past 4 years. If you don't think it has, then I'll remind you denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
" If most were honest with us, the truth would be that most of the cms who work part time, don't do it for the money, but the benefits. Park entrance, discounted merchandise, resort prices, etc.etc. Now, if that's the case, aren't they then taking the "perks" as a more imnportant aspect of why they work there, rather than the actual pay scale? "
That's true, BUT in this case the union is representing FULL TIME employees. Very few people would want to work 40 hours a week just to save 20% on park passes.
"My Wife and I worked as seasonal cms at a local DS and guess what? We did it for the benes. Not the pay scale. When they said 5.35 I said okay. Now, if I don't like that pay later, who's fault is it? And should I look to a union or the government to swoop in and fight for me? Not at all. Just go do something else."
Again, you're compairing apples and oranges. These are people who have to use this money to pay the rent, not to save on their vacation.
Would you have objected if the government had raised the minimum wage above what you were making?
" What we have here is that people don't want to work for what they agreed to."
NO, what we have are people who are saying that circumstances have changed, and are renegotiating for a better deal, essentially they are taking YOUR advice.
" Ronald Reagan had a problem like this during his administration. Know what he did? He fired them all. Not saying this would be the best course of action in this case, but it does illustrate what can happen when push comes to shove."
OOH, you just landed a jucy one in my yard. Now you are using "play book" rhetoric.
First, some REAL facts about the controllers strike. It wasn't just about pay, like the government said: it was about job protection for whistle blowers, expensive safety enhancements to the airtraffic control system the government didn't want to pay for, and basic working conditions that contraviened common sense and safety.
This is THE classic example of why a union is needed in a safety sensitive industry.
What most people don't realise is this: Regan fired thousands of experienced people, and protected his principles, BUT in order to replace those people, the government was forced to give in TO EVERY demand the original controllers had made, and then some.
In the end, when you include the enhancements, and the cost of training thousands of new controllers, Regan's actions cost the tax payers hundreds of millions MORE than it would have cost to have settled the strike at the table in the first place.
Again, HAPPY PEOPLE MAKE MORE MONEY FOR THE COMPANY.
" I can tell you this, if I lived in Orlando, and were able to work for the Disney parks, part-time, at min. wage, I'd do it. Because I would already have a full time job which would pay the bills and I would use the benes to enjoy great times and merchandise from Disney. "
You are indeed fortunate that you have situation that allows you to do that.
Oh, one question: If everyone did as you said, where is Disney going to find 20,000 part timers that are available 9-5 Monday through Friday? And where are those people going to find 20,000 night jobs in Orlando? Face it, someone has to work at Disney full time. Sorry that was two wasn't it.
"And therein lies the options. Quit or keep on keeping on."
Exactly what they're doing, isn't it?
