Unions

I think they're beneficial for unskilled labor. Unskilled labor doesn't have a leg to stand on without them and that's not right. Workers should at least have some basic means of bargaining collectively with management. Right to work states are the worst, workers are replaced like spark plugs for no good reason and unions are basically castrated. Granted most unions are old, outlived their usefulness, and became corrupt. Because of that it's really easy to convince people unions are bad, but when used properly they're valuable.

So yeah, my two cents on the subject.

On the other hand, unions can have too much power. For example, the workers at the Delphi Diesel factory forced those in research and development (who were not unionised) to work reduced hours as well, despite R&D already being under a lot of pressure developing the products that wouldn't be made for another five years at least. In other words, the workers were jeopardising their own futures by insisting R&D be cut back as well. Management know R&D is more important during a low selling period than production. The union either didn't know or didn't care. The people who work on the underground have a lack of foresight as well, insisting that jobs aren't cut when the companies they work for simply don't have the money any more. It's like they think a recession is something that only happens to other people.

Skilled labor has no right being unionized, they have their expertise to help them.

R&D weren't unionised, and the workers set terms for them which interfered with their ability to do their job. How is that fair?

I dunno the details.

I do, because I was doing work experience with Delphi Diesel R&D at the time.

The company wanted to reduce working hours at the factory because production was much higher than demand due to the recession. The union insisted that R&D had its hours reduced too, despite the fact that they were working full tilt trying to design new types of injectors and injector systems to meet future emissions legislation without reducing performance. Some departments always worked overtime. And now they were being forced not to by a union that couldn't comprehend the idea that development needed all the time it could get.

Then the management needed to get it's balls stapled back on and tell them they either unionize the R&D or they quit complaining, because they're out of the union's jurisdiction.

I don't think more unions are the answer. Unions need less power. The management had to roll with the union because if not they could lose the whole of production. Unionising R&D would just create another power group to wrestle with and make things more complicated. It seems to me that unions think nothing bad should ever happen to them, that economics is something that happens to other people.

On the other hand without unions unskilled labor is pretty much a subjugated plebeian underclass with little hope of upward advancement.

I said less power, not none at all.

In a right to work state the unskilled laborers have no power at all. Even if they do exactly what management wants of them they will be fired or laid off like machinery the moment they become slightly inconvenient. There is no job stability and it is almost impossible to make any headway. There are even companies such as Food Lion who make you sign yellow dog contracts preventing you from joining unions.

I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. In Britain at least, unions have too much power. I do not want to abolish unions. I want them to have less power than they do now.

Unions are only good while they're useful, old and corrupt unions work only to tarnish their image.

There is nothing wrong with unions if companies had no where else to go for cheap labor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Editor

I do, because I was doing work experience with Delphi Diesel R&D at the time.

The company wanted to reduce working hours at the factory because production was much higher than demand due to the recession. The union insisted that R&D had its hours reduced too, despite the fact that they were working full tilt trying to design new types of injectors and injector systems to meet future emissions legislation without reducing performance. Some departments always worked overtime. And now they were being forced not to by a union that couldn't comprehend the idea that development needed all the time it could get.

---

i dont have a problem with that. forcing the company to look for other cost-cutting measures besides fucking over workers. why not try to cut management salary, suspend bonuses, and reduce dividends instead of cutting production hours. if after all that is done and there is a need to cut production hours, then you can. unions should do everything in their power to make that a last resort.

So why were they fucking over the guys in R&D? I know enough about economics to realise that when cutting things you look to lose bits which are less important. Reducing working hours in production due to lack of demand makes sense. Reducing hours in R&D does not, because they're working to make sure the company still has a product in the future.

to make it more painful on the company to reduce production hours. to make it less easy to do so and to send a message that doing so comes with consequences. were i a member of the union organization i would be doing so in order to try to force the company to come up with other cost cutting measures instead of reducing production hours. i would imagine thats why they did it.

You do realise that would mean everyone loses their job, right?

no. it means the company looks for other cost cutting measures. perhaps lowering management salaries, suspending bonuses, reducing dividends, selling stock, finding ways to reduce other sorts of overhead. if that isn't sufficient, then they can cut hours as a last resort.

not if everyone lives to US standards then it works perfectly no cheap labor

I fail to see how cutting hours in R&D is better than cutting hours in production when production was the division without enough work to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Editor

I fail to see how cutting hours in R&D is better than cutting hours in production when production was the division without enough work to do.

---

re read my posts the editor. it has nothing to do with the merits of r&d. its a political play.

Oh, well, that's okay then. Except it's not. It's bloody stupid. Production had its hours reduced because Delphi didn't need to produce as much stuff at the time. Demand was greatly reduced, so production needed to be reduced too. The union refused to see economic sense and insisted R&D had its hours cut as well. Cutting hours in production would prevent waste and reduce the surplus of injectors which cost money to store. Cutting hours in R&D could cause a schedule slip and put the entire company at risk. Why put your future employment at risk for the sake of office politics?

Also it may be worth noting that no one was getting fired. Working hours were being temporarily reduced in production until demand picked up again.

to force other cost cutting measures and make cutting hours a last resort. how much were management salaries and bonuses cut before they tried to cut hours?

Yes, they did. However, that's beside the point. Cutting hours in production was a sensible move at the time. You don't employ people to stand around doing fuck all, or worse, waste time making a product you can't sell and then have to pay to store.

I would also argue that cutting hours would have been reasonable even if they hadn't made any other money saving moves, simply because there was not enough demand to justify maintaining the production hours at the time. You don't waste money paying people to make things nobody is buying. This is very stupid. Workers need to get used to the idea that when they have nothing to do they shouldn't be getting paid.