"If it Fits, it Ships"

[audtatious]

I wonder if the "findings" are more skewed due to Union workers or something. I don't think any of them (research articles) are showing the real truth, just hinting at it.

Probably, to some extent, but I'd love to see what you guys say in a breakdown of unionized government workers and unionized private sector workers.

Good point. Unions, whether private or gov sector, fuk things up anyway so that would not be a major factor unless there is more Union blight on one side vs the other.

[IBCoupe]

"Fuk things up" from whose perspective? I kinda like my boss needing a reason to fire me. I like having a company-matched retirement fund. I like having my wages rise with the cost of living.

[audtatious]

I kinda like knowing my boss can fire me for any reason which ensures I stay on my toes and do my job. I can also leave whenever I want if I don't like my job and go to something else. I also like my company-matched retirement fund. I also like having my wages rise with the amount of technical knowledge I receive (that the company pays for) as my value to the company goes up.

Gee, all that and no union to protect me.

[IBCoupe]

I do my job because it's my job, and not doing it is reason enough to fire me. But I like that my boss can't fire me because he doesn't like my girlfriend. I like that I can't be fired for offering unconventional suggestions. I like that I can't be fired for proposing radical, perhaps unpopular, changes in the way we do business.

I, too, can leave my job any time I want and go do something else.

I, too, like to have my wages rise with bonuses for participation on high value projects, but I also like the reassurance that my current value remains a constant, relative to the ever-increasing cost of living, as opposed to someone in say, Greg's position, who doesn't have that benefit. It's a nice thing to have: the knowledge that you are no less useful to the company, and you're worth just the same amount.

[audtatious]

Sorry, I feel a private corporation can hire and fire pretty much who they please as long as they don't break any laws. If the owner of the company does not like my car and decides my value is not great enough of an asset vs his dislike then I should not be there and I'm probably better off somewhere else anyway.

Greg has a choice. He can stay for the benefits or he can leave. It's up to him.

[wingFeather]

I wandered away from the screen when it started making it into a political thing.

I noticed this about you. You blindly vote for these idiots, then can't be bothered to spend 10 minutes reading about them. Good job!

[IBCoupe]

Sorry, I feel a private corporation can hire and fire pretty much who they please as long as they don't break any laws. If the owner of the company does not like my car and decides my value is not great enough of an asset vs his dislike then I should not be there and I'm probably better off somewhere else anyway.

Greg has a choice. He can stay for the benefits or he can leave. It's up to him.

I think they should be able to do that, too. I also think that employees should be able to collectively negotiate for work, if they so choose. I'm not suggesting everyone should be in a union, I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with collective bargaining.

Greg does have a choice, but I bet he'd like to have had a cost-of-living pay increase, if it were possible. That might have been something that a unionized contract could ensure him.

I noticed this about you. You blindly vote for these idiots, then can't be bothered to spend 10 minutes reading about them. Good job!

Who'd I vote for? And are you sure it was blindly?

Obvious troll is obvious.

[audtatious]

Sorry, I feel a private corporation can hire and fire pretty much who they please as long as they don't break any laws. If the owner of the company does not like my car and decides my value is not great enough of an asset vs his dislike then I should not be there and I'm probably better off somewhere else anyway.

Greg has a choice. He can stay for the benefits or he can leave. It's up to him.

I think they should be able to do that, too. I also think that employees should be able to collectively negotiate for work, if they so choose. I'm not suggesting everyone should be in a union, I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with collective bargaining.

Greg does have a choice, but I bet he'd like to have had a cost-of-living pay increase, if it were possible. That might have been something that a unionized contract could ensure him.

So, in your opinion the employee should have a right to dictate to the owner what their labor is worth? If the owner declines (as you also state they should be able to do) then the employees should have the opportunity to form a union and force their demands on the owner via binding arbitration? That seems to be the unions direction with Card Check legislation.

Seems to me if the job didn't pay enough then people would not work the job which would then force the owner to increase the pay scale until he gets qualified labor willing to do the work.

Greg does have a choice, but I bet he'd like to have had a cost-of-living pay increase, if it were possible. That might have been something that a unionized contract could ensure him.

Yet we all know unions use strong-arm tactics to manipulate pay and number of employees at companies. There is no reason Greg could not have his own contract with his employer as to goals and gains. Granted, that does not mean the employer has to accept them either.

[IBCoupe]

So, in your opinion the employee should have a right to dictate to the owner what their labor is worth? If the owner declines (as you also state they should be able to do) then the employees should have the opportunity to form a union and force their demands on the owner via binding arbitration? That seems to be the unions direction with Card Check legislation.

Why shouldn't they? If a company doesn't want to negotiate with a union, who's forcing them? With few exceptions (and I'm not even sure about those), no one is. I don't know what binding arbitration has to do with anything. Maybe you meant something else? "Collective bargaining," perhaps? Binding arbitration is an alternative to a lawsuit, where each side participates in choosing a private "judge." It's two parties contracting to let someone else decide their fate.

If it's "collective bargaining" you meant to write, well, it just looks like the contract, which in legal theory is ideally a well-bargained thing, is suddenly a battle of two equals, as opposed to being a battle of one guy with 51 cards out of the deck.

Seems to me if the job didn't pay enough then people would not work the job which would then force the owner to increase the pay scale until he gets qualified labor willing to do the work.

In a world where there are no other considerations, you may be right. That said, what's inherently wrong about negotiating for your contract? What's inherently wrong with giving yourself more leverage? If it's not coercion or duress, there should be no problem, right?

Yet we all know unions use strong-arm tactics to manipulate pay and number of employees at companies. There is no reason Greg could not have his own contract with his employer as to goals and gains. Granted, that does not mean the employer has to accept them either.

Unions can, but so can employers, and a union can be sued by an employee for failure to adequately represent them. What can Greg do about a mischievous employer? Quit? I'm sure his wife would like that. Greg's got a much better chance of getting a better deal if his coworkers back him up.

[audtatious]

Why shouldn't they? If a company doesn't want to negotiate with a union, who's forcing them? With few exceptions (and I'm not even sure about those), no one is. I don't know what binding arbitration has to do with anything. Maybe you meant something else? "Collective bargaining," perhaps? Binding arbitration is an alternative to a lawsuit, where each side participates in choosing a private "judge." It's two parties contracting to let someone else decide their fate.

If it's "collective bargaining" you meant to write, well, it just looks like the contract, which in legal theory is ideally a well-bargained thing, is suddenly a battle of two equals, as opposed to being a battle of one guy with 51 cards out of the deck.

In general terms, I agree. By that, should employees get together and voluntarily band together to bargain with their employers over terms and conditions of employment they should be able to negotiate a contract with secure terms which would provide a better product or superior service as a reason for the agreement. That was the original concept of "unions". Today's unions are not that way and they use coercion of both employees and employers to grow and gain more control.

Yes, collective bargaining is utilized after unionization of an employer. I believe unionization can be forced upon an employer if the NLRB sides with the employees. At that point I don't think the employer has a choice. Binding arbitration is a portion of Card Check which unions are trying to press through the Gov.

In a world where there are no other considerations, you may be right. That said, what's inherently wrong about negotiating for your contract? What's inherently wrong with giving yourself more leverage? If it's not coercion or duress, there should be no problem, right?

Nothing. I negotiated my "package" with my employer. If the employer did not have a package I agreed to I would be working somewhere else. If Sally Sue had 5 years of fast food experience then she would have the ability to discuss pay greater than minimum wage with the potential new employer. Again, union coercion is well known.

Unions can, but so can employers, and a union can be sued by an employee for failure to adequately represent them. What can Greg do about a mischievous employer? Quit? I'm sure his wife would like that. Greg's got a much better chance of getting a better deal if his coworkers back him up.

Right, because there are no Fed nor state laws on the book to protect individuals. Were would we be without unions coming to the rescue?

[IBCoupe]

In general terms, I agree. By that, should employees get together and voluntarily band together to bargain with their employers over terms and conditions of employment they should be able to negotiate a contract with secure terms which would provide a better product or superior service as a reason for the agreement. That was the original concept of "unions". Today's unions are not that way and they use coercion of both employees and employers to grow and gain more control.

Give me numbers.

Yes, collective bargaining is utilized after unionization of an employer. I believe unionization can be forced upon an employer if the NLRB sides with the employees. At that point I don't think the employer has a choice. Binding arbitration is a portion of Card Check which unions are trying to press through the Gov.

Arbitration is standard for large companies, and for any company that negotiates with unions. It's cheaper than going to court, and in most employment disputes, it's probably the preferred method of dispute resolution.

And the NLRB can't enforce something that isn't bargained for. If you, the employer, want to allow yourself to hire people who don't have to join the union in a period of time after hiring, put it in the contract. If you, the employer, don't want a union security clause, don't allow it to be put in the contract. Now, you might have to go ahead and give some to get that, but, hey, that's contracts, baby!

If this seems unfair, I can only remind you that an employer can't get very far without his workforce's cooperation, and if the workforce is smart enough to realize that they've got more power in numbers, well, tough luck for the employer.

Nothing. I negotiated my "package" with my employer. If the employer did not have a package I agreed to I would be working somewhere else. If Sally Sue had 5 years of fast food experience then she would have the ability to discuss pay greater than minimum wage with the potential new employer. Again, union coercion is well known.

So is employer coercion. If you know of an instance of union abuses, contact the NLRB. They exist to levy injunctions against either the employer or the union. If you feel they're not doing their job fairly, sue the administrator. That there can be abuses in formalized unions is not an argument against collective bargaining.

I'm not arguing that you had no leverage as a solo employee, negotiating a deal. I'm just arguing you have less. I simply asked what was wrong with getting more.

Right, because there are no Fed nor state laws on the book to protect individuals. Were would we be without unions coming to the rescue?

Fed and State law will get Greg cost-of-living increases, so that his pay does not actually fall, when accounting for inflation? I'm sure he'll be very happy to hear that.

[audtatious]

Yes, collective bargaining is utilized after unionization of an employer. I believe unionization can be forced upon an employer if the NLRB sides with the employees. At that point I don't think the employer has a choice. Binding arbitration is a portion of Card Check which unions are trying to press through the Gov.

Arbitration is standard for large companies, and for any company that negotiates with unions. It's cheaper than going to court, and in most employment disputes, it's probably the preferred method of dispute resolution.

You questioned it, I just explained where "binding arbitration" came from.

And the NLRB can't enforce something that isn't bargained for. If you, the employer, want to allow yourself to hire people who don't have to join the union in a period of time after hiring, put it in the contract. If you, the employer, don't want a union security clause, don't allow it to be put in the contract. Now, you might have to go ahead and give some to get that, but, hey, that's contracts, baby!

But, can they force unionization on an employer? That's one nugget I've looked for but can't really find the answer to. I believe the answer is "yes".

If this seems unfair, I can only remind you that an employer can't get very far without his workforce's cooperation, and if the workforce is smart enough to realize that they've got more power in numbers, well, tough luck for the employer.

And people won't have a job if there is no workforce. You can't have one without the other either. Of course, anyone who owns a company must be rich so it don't matter.

I'm not arguing that you had no leverage as a solo employee, negotiating a deal. I'm just arguing you have less. I simply asked what was wrong with getting more.

No, I surely didn't have less. They came to me for the job, I didn't go looking for it. I have companies contact me all the time wanting me to work for them so the ball is in my court.

I look at this issue as if I were the owner. I start a business that takes off. I hire more and more people to do "X" job at "X" price. I have lots of people interested in doing the work. I'm growing the company, I'm making profit, I'm employing people who wanted a job (I did not force them to work for "X" price). Next thing I know I have some union being put together that I have to contend with. Those who were happy to work for the agreed upon wage now want more more money, benefits, time off, etc etc. because my idea and work to create the company is successful. I'm now in a position where I have to refer to a 3rd party, who is making money off the whole situation, to make hiring and firing decisions and have to constantly employ specialized lawyers for contracts and worry about the union forcing the employees to strike until I relent. Sounds like such a wonderful deal for me, the employer.

Fed and State law will get Greg cost-of-living increases, so that his pay does not actually fall, when accounting for inflation? I'm sure he'll be very happy to hear that.

So what? That's Greg's choice. The more you talk about this the more you sound like someone who believes businesses are only around as a means to give people employment, benefits, etc.

[IBCoupe]

But, can they force unionization on an employer? That's one nugget I've looked for but can't really find the answer to. I believe the answer is "yes".

There's a way to view it as if "yes" is the answer, but I don't believe that this is the case. An employer cannot interfere with the formation of a union. It cannot coerce, it cannot retaliate against employees for participation in union activities or actions (for example, a strike). They also can't shut down the plant and restart somewhere else and hire a whole new set of people for the simple reason that a union was formed.

With that said, there's nothing that says an employer has to reach an agreement with the union. There's a requirement to bargain when a union actually is formed and to do so in good faith, but there's no legal requirement to agree to anything or give anything.

And people won't have a job if there is no workforce. You can't have one without the other either. Of course, anyone who owns a company must be rich so it don't matter.

Codependence is all the more reason to look favorably upon equitable bargaining positions.

No, I surely didn't have less. They came to me for the job, I didn't go looking for it. I have companies contact me all the time wanting me to work for them so the ball is in my court.

Congratulations. Now go work in construction. Maybe you with your individual skillset and your individual industry are in a position where you start out with more power, and that might make a union unnecessary. That's fine; I haven't ever argued that a union is always necessary or best.

I look at this issue as if I were the owner. I start a business that takes off. I hire more and more people to do "X" job at "X" price. I have lots of people interested in doing the work. I'm growing the company, I'm making profit, I'm employing people who wanted a job (I did not force them to work for "X" price). Next thing I know I have some union being put together that I have to contend with. Those who were happy to work for the agreed upon wage now want more more money, benefits, time off, etc etc. because my idea and work to create the company is successful. I'm now in a position where I have to refer to a 3rd party, who is making money off the whole situation, to make hiring and firing decisions and have to constantly employ specialized lawyers for contracts and worry about the union forcing the employees to strike until I relent. Sounds like such a wonderful deal for me, the employer.

You're absolutely right that it's not a better deal for the employer (though it doesn't lack upsides - drafting one contract certainly can be a lot easier than drafting more than one, especially if a potential employee like yourself carries such great power that an employer caves to their demands), but it's not meant to be a boon to employers; it's meant to level the playing field when it comes to contract negotiations. It's meant to be a boon to employees.

So what? That's Greg's choice. The more you talk about this the more you sound like someone who believes businesses are only around as a means to give people employment, benefits, etc.

I don't know what would have given you that perception - if anything, I should sound like someone who believes a union is only around as a means to give employees employment, benefits, etc. I'm simply explaining to you the benefits that a union brings to an employee. It doesn't matter to me what Greg chooses, I'm simply saying that he might get those cost-of-living wage increases he mentioned he doesn't get.

[audtatious]

But, can they force unionization on an employer? That's one nugget I've looked for but can't really find the answer to. I believe the answer is "yes".

There's a way to view it as if "yes" is the answer, but I don't believe that this is the case. An employer cannot interfere with the formation of a union. It cannot coerce, it cannot retaliate against employees for participation in union activities or actions (for example, a strike). They also can't shut down the plant and restart somewhere else and hire a whole new set of people for the simple reason that a union was formed.

With that said, there's nothing that says an employer has to reach an agreement with the union. There's a requirement to bargain when a union actually is formed and to do so in good faith, but there's no legal requirement to agree to anything or give anything.

Strategy #4
http://www.iww.org/organize/laborlaw/steps2.shtml

"This is the most common and established strategy for winning union recognition from an employer in the United States of America. In many industrialized nations (for example, Canada), 50%-plus-one support is sufficient to achieve union recognition. Not so in the USA.

If you manage to sign up as little as 30% of the non-management employees in your workplace, you may ask the union of your choice (or an independent union or your own creation) to petition the NLRB (or PERB) to hold a secret ballot election for Union Representation. If 50%-plus-one vote in favor of unionization, your union may legally represent your bargaining unit. If you are successful, your employer is legally required to recognize your union as the legal representative for your bargaining unit."

Codependence is all the more reason to look favorably upon equitable bargaining positions.

Companies today already know they need trustworthy and valuable employees and they will pay accordingly. If not, they don't get the staff they need. Usually only dumb/poor workers like Unions in the first place as it's a way to force a good salary from someone for your crappy work ethics.

Congratulations. Now go work in construction. Maybe you with your individual skillset and your individual industry are in a position where you start out with more power, and that might make a union unnecessary. That's fine; I haven't ever argued that a union is always necessary or best.

If I were good I would be paid more than the starter. Alas, I'm in IT

You're absolutely right that it's not a better deal for the employer (though it doesn't lack upsides - drafting one contract certainly can be a lot easier than drafting more than one, especially if a potential employee like yourself carries such great power that an employer caves to their demands), but it's not meant to be a boon to employers; it's meant to level the playing field when it comes to contract negotiations. It's meant to be a boon to employees.

Of course it's meant to be a boon to employees and a financial landfall to the union bosses who garner money from those underlings in the Union itself. Honestly it's better for the crappy-lazy worker than it is the good worker as it levels the field for them. Like in sports today they all get the same participation trophy.

I don't know what would have given you that perception - if anything, I should sound like someone who believes a union is only around as a means to give employees employment, benefits, etc. I'm simply explaining to you the benefits that a union brings to an employee. It doesn't matter to me what Greg chooses, I'm simply saying that he might get those cost-of-living wage increases he mentioned he doesn't get.

Again, what Unions started out being is not what they are today (for the most part).

[IBCoupe]

With that said, there's nothing that says an employer has to reach an agreement with the union. There's a requirement to bargain when a union actually is formed and to do so in good faith, but there's no legal requirement to agree to anything or give anything.

Strategy #4
http://www.iww.org/organize/laborlaw/steps2.shtml

"This is the most common and established strategy for winning union recognition from an employer in the United States of America. In many industrialized nations (for example, Canada), 50%-plus-one support is sufficient to achieve union recognition. Not so in the USA.

If you manage to sign up as little as 30% of the non-management employees in your workplace, you may ask the union of your choice (or an independent union or your own creation) to petition the NLRB (or PERB) to hold a secret ballot election for Union Representation. If 50%-plus-one vote in favor of unionization, your union may legally represent your bargaining unit. If you are successful, your employer is legally required to recognize your union as the legal representative for your bargaining unit."

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. That isn't inconsistent with what I wrote: there's a requirement that they bargain in good faith when the union is formed, but there's no requirement that they actually come to an agreement with the union - meaning, there's no requirement that they actually draw up a contract with the union, or ever draw up a contract with the union.

Companies today already know they need trustworthy and valuable employees and they will pay accordingly. If not, they don't get the staff they need. Usually only dumb/poor workers like Unions in the first place as it's a way to force a good salary from someone for your crappy work ethics.

They will pay accordingly within the context of their industry. If an employer really wants to keep someone of value, they must only pay them more than the competition would. Regardless of what you think of people who like unions, your assumption that an employer will always do the right thing for an employee seems naive.

If I were good I would be paid more than the starter. Alas, I'm in IT

I don't understand.

Of course it's meant to be a boon to employees and a financial landfall to the union bosses who garner money from those underlings in the Union itself. Honestly it's better for the crappy-lazy worker than it is the good worker as it levels the field for them. Like in sports today they all get the same participation trophy.

If this is where the conversation is headed, I don't think we have much more to talk about.

Again, what Unions started out being is not what they are today (for the most part).

Give me numbers. That's a great bumper sticker you've got there, but I'm gonna need more.

[audtatious]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. That isn't inconsistent with what I wrote: there's a requirement that they bargain in good faith when the union is formed, but there's no requirement that they actually come to an agreement with the union - meaning, there's no requirement that they actually draw up a contract with the union, or ever draw up a contract with the union.

I believe they try and bargain in good faith at first but should the employer not agree to any terms then they can be forced upon them. I could be wrong but I simply see nothing that allows the employer to tell them to take a flying f***. In fact, I believe once the union vote has happened then the employer can't even fire them nor close shop and move to another location (by law).

They will pay accordingly within the context of their industry. If an employer really wants to keep someone of value, they must only pay them more than the competition would. Regardless of what you think of people who like unions, your assumption that an employer will always do the right thing for an employee seems naive.

"Do the right thing" is defined by whom? Maybe I'm simply naive in my 28 years of work experience where an employee has the option to leave and work for another company at a higher pay or the employer has the option to increase compensation to keep them.

So, let's meet Sally. Sally makes $10/hr on the processing line making part of a widget. $10 is the amount she is happy to accept and the value the employer has for her job. Sally works for 2 years at said job with minimal pay raises (slow economy, lack of profit for the business...maybe a stingy employer). Sally's skill is now worth $10.25 to the employer as that is the cost that a new "Sally" would accept for said position. Sally has the option to stay at said employer for $10.25/hr or can go elsewhere for more money (should a position exist). This is the job market I'm used to. Both sides have a choice.

The union way:
Instead, Sally, over the last two years, has more expenses/costs of living to pay and wants more money. She knows she is not going to get it in her current position and does not think she can find a similar "skilled" position elsewhere making more money. She begins to speak with her coworkers about getting more pay and benefits for what they currently do. They contact a Union and take a vote. At this point they now have Union and law behind them to begin chipping away at the employer to force their demands for more pay and benefits. Yet, in all this, the employer is the bad guy for not simply giving his employees what they think they are worth. When all is said and done, the employer is penalized, growth is stagnated, paid positions are artificially inflated and the Union has more people paying them dues.

If I were good I would be paid more than the starter. Alas, I'm in IT

I don't understand.

If my skills grew and my value grew to my boss then I would be paid more than an entry level "starter". I'm in a white-collar IT role with little competition and lots of need so I don't have to deal with that situation. "Sux to be them" I guess as I chose a better path to take? Same with you as there is always a need for a lawyer...can work for one of those accident lawyers you see on TV commercials

Of course it's meant to be a boon to employees and a financial landfall to the union bosses who garner money from those underlings in the Union itself. Honestly it's better for the crappy-lazy worker than it is the good worker as it levels the field for them. Like in sports today they all get the same participation trophy.

If this is where the conversation is headed, I don't think we have much more to talk about.

OK

Again, what Unions started out being is not what they are today (for the most part).

Give me numbers. That's a great bumper sticker you've got there, but I'm gonna need more.

Nah. I took too much time answering this than I really have time for today. Maybe you can post your numbers which unequivocally show me as wrong?

[IBCoupe]

I believe they try and bargain in good faith at first but should the employer not agree to any terms then they can be forced upon them. I could be wrong but I simply see nothing that allows the employer to tell them to take a flying f***. In fact, I believe once the union vote has happened then the employer can't even fire them nor close shop and move to another location (by law).

There's no legal basis for a belief that an employer has to come up with an agreement with a union. There's protections for workers in forming unions that prevents employers from taking actions to discourage a union formation, and you've listed the big ones, but there's nothing that says an employer has to draw up a contract, if, in good faith, an agreement cannot be reached.

"Do the right thing" is defined by whom?

The worker who might just want better than what the employer is willing to offer (it might help if you look at it this way: what an employer is willing to offer is probably not the same was what the employer can provide). Your work experience works for you in your field. You have already established that employers were falling over themselves to hire you. I'd say you're the exception, bucko.

I have happily admitted that maybe a union wouldn't be right for your field. But your field is atypical, and what isn't necessary for your field might very well be necessary for another.

The union way:

Accounts for inflation.

If my skills grew and my value grew to my boss then I would be paid more than an entry level "starter". I'm in a white-collar IT role with little competition and lots of need so I don't have to deal with that situation. "Sux to be them" I guess as I chose a better path to take? Same with you as there is always a need for a lawyer...can work for one of those accident lawyers you see on TV commercials

Are you making an argument about anything in this? I'm still not getting it.

Nah. I took too much time answering this than I really have time for today. Maybe you can post your numbers which unequivocally show me as wrong?

You haven't made a substantive claim. You haven't said what unions were, and you haven't said what they are. All you have said is that those two things are not the same.

And I haven't said you're wrong. I'm simply asking you to substantiate what you're talking about, and you haven't yet.

[AZhitman]

Side note:

Our COLA's were approved by the JLBC and placed on the payroll schedule.

They were pulled at the last minute without explanation, never to be seen again.

And no, a union would be completely impotent to do anything about it.

Different situation, but I deal with our union reps all the time, and not once has one successfully protected an employee's job in front of an Administrative Law Judge in a case I've been involved in.

[IBCoupe]

Well, that doesn't surprise me, Greg, because unions are more about contract negotiation than they are about litigation. And there's a difference between getting better compensation for all and keeping an individual in his or her job.

[heliochrome85]

unions are the reason why my hospital has so many nurses that should be shot on sight. they literally cant be fired.

[AZhitman]

There's no "contracts". We're a right-to-work state, and 60-70% of our employees are uncovered (which means they're at-will employees).

[AZhitman]

unions are the reason why my hospital has so many nurses that should be shot on sight. they literally cant be fired.

^ THIS.

May your God pour abundant blessings on your laundry-wrapped noggin.

[IBCoupe]

What do you mean, "there's no 'contracts?'" Exactly how do you guys do work in Arizona? On faith that you'll maybe get paid?

[heliochrome85]

i would prefer 1-72 virgins.

[IBCoupe]

Hey, do you guys like Dungeons & Dragons?

[AZhitman]

What do you mean, "there's no 'contracts?'" Exactly how do you guys do work in Arizona? On faith that you'll maybe get paid?

Yep. You have a contract?

Tariq, I have seen your promised virgins. You might want to come to church with me.

[heliochrome85]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
win.

[AppleBonker]

unions are the reason why my hospital has so many nurses that should be shot on sight. they literally cant be fired.

I see this at my job as well. I am not in the union, but our hourly employees are. I'm not sure I can argue past merits versus current merits of unionizing, but I certainly think it is a hindrance to the advancement of good employees at my facility. We recently went through a contract renegotiation, and I was amazed to hear stories of what the sticking points were for the union. They apparently fought hard to keep certain restrictions on firing workers (mainly absenteeism) than they did for gaining more benefits for those who deserved them. If they had spent less time arguing absenteeism (which would've probably resulted in the firing of some employees - maybe 10% - with attendance issues), they could've focused more on reducing health care costs or raising pay.

From my outside point of view, it seems that the union awards mediocrity (as I said, I'm not a member and I do not have extensive experience). Those who are average workers don't seem to benefit much, but they aren't harmed. The workers that maybe should be fired for lack of performance are more difficult to get rid of (so I would argue that they benefit). But the major problem I have is that those that work hard and exceed expectations are not truly rewarded for their extra effort (which, IMO, is harmful). They receive the same benefits as those who are average. The most they get extra is a pat on the back. While nice, that hardly helps pay the bills.

[IBCoupe]

Yep. You have a contract?

Yes. I have a copy of it in my drawer at work.

[AZhitman]

Odd.

You can research "right to work" state employment laws, but in my previous gig at the Supreme Court, we served at the pleasure of the Chief Justice. Basically, you could be let go without cause.

When we terminate an uncovered employee here (typically those in middle to upper management are uncovered), they're simply told "Your services are no longer required."