Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Disclosure: Mrs. Cluck is a union member.

So, we were having a chat this evening that talked about the need, or lack thereof, unions.

National Progressive Radio said that 11% of people work for unions. That is a low point for some unknown number of years (unknown to me because I wasn't paying that much attention). Why, you ask?

In the meantime, Mrs. Cluck, a teacher...and a damned fine teacher by everyone's account, is worried that PA (the state, not some father figure...although that could be debated) is trying to gut the teacher's unions....even under a Democratic Gubner.

So why are unions getting weaker by the moment, while capitalists are firing workers, good and bad, simply to raise the stock price, or because of a really poor boss? One would think that unions would be more popular than ever.

Well, in my opinion, which counts more than houndawg's, is that unions do not reward excellence.

Everyone gets the same raise no matter how well you do. You could barely be getting a passing grade at your job, yet you are given the same raise as the person who is an outstanding employee.

Frankly, that is no way to motivate anyone smarter than a turnip.

Given a choice, I would never work for a union because I know I would outwork and outperform those around me. And I would want to be rewarded for that effort. I believe most people recognize that unions do not recognize excellent effort. they take your money, and then talk about protecting jobs for everyone, not just the good workers. Then, everyone gets laid off, according to seniority instead of productivity.

Eff that.

No wonder unions are dwindling. Rewarding ignorance, laziness, seniority, and stupidity, while holding back smarter, better workers...and certainly punishing newer workers, is no recipe for success.

Why would anyone join a union when you are not going to be rewarded for your work and effort, and yet you will be punished for being new?

If unions would evolve to focus on actual employee value instead of protecting seniority and mediocrity, then they might survive...even thrive. Until then, they will continue to drive themselves, and productivity, into the ground.

Too long. Didn't read.

Synopsis in 25 words or less please.

D1B wrote:Too long. Didn't read.

Synopsis in 25 words or less please.

A union would try to save Julian's job...while giving him the same raise as T-man.

Unions suck, but could thrive if they recognized excellence.

Cluck U wrote:

D1B wrote:Too long. Didn't read.

Synopsis in 25 words or less please.

A union would try to save Julian's job...while giving him the same raise as T-man.

Unions suck, but could thrive if they recognized excellence.

Tman don't make squat.

I agree. We need unions. We need better unions.

Cluck U wrote:Disclosure: Mrs. Cluck is a union member.

So, we were having a chat this evening that talked about the need, or lack thereof, unions.

National Progressive Radio said that 11% of people work for unions. That is a low point for some unknown number of years (unknown to me because I wasn't paying that much attention). Why, you ask?

In the meantime, Mrs. Cluck, a teacher...and a damned fine teacher by everyone's account, is worried that PA (the state, not some father figure...although that could be debated) is trying to gut the teacher's unions....even under a Democratic Gubner.

So why are unions getting weaker by the moment, while capitalists are firing workers, good and bad, simply to raise the stock price, or because of a really poor boss? One would think that unions would be more popular than ever.

Well, in my opinion, which counts more than houndawg's, is that unions do not reward excellence.

Everyone gets the same raise no matter how well you do. You could barely be getting a passing grade at your job, yet you are given the same raise as the person who is an outstanding employee.

Frankly, that is no way to motivate anyone smarter than a turnip.

Given a choice, I would never work for a union because I know I would outwork and outperform those around me. And I would want to be rewarded for that effort. I believe most people recognize that unions do not recognize excellent effort. they take your money, and then talk about protecting jobs for everyone, not just the good workers. Then, everyone gets laid off, according to seniority instead of productivity.

Eff that.

No wonder unions are dwindling. Rewarding ignorance, laziness, seniority, and stupidity, while holding back smarter, better workers...and certainly punishing newer workers, is no recipe for success.

Why would anyone join a union when you are not going to be rewarded for your work and effort, and yet you will be punished for being new?

If unions would evolve to focus on actual employee value instead of protecting seniority and mediocrity, then they might survive...even thrive. Until then, they will continue to drive themselves, and productivity, into the ground.

I break wind in the general direction of your opinion.

You may be right, but the worst union abuses don't even come close the 7-figure rewards handed to the bonus pool crowd regardless of how sh*tty their performance. The bonus pool that is twice as large as the wages of all minimum wage employees in the US combined.

Cluck is correct that in a union you are only as good as the lowest common denominator. Having said that if employees work for a private business and want to unionize they should have that ability but you should not be required to join that union.

Govt employee unions should be abolished. Even FDR felt that way.

THE problem?

houndawg wrote:
You may be right, but the worst union abuses don't even come close the 7-figure rewards handed to the bonus pool crowd regardless of how sh*tty their performance. The bonus pool that is twice as large as the wages of all minimum wage employees in the US combined.

So, in other words, I'm right. That's all you had to say, and then you could work on improving your "worker" position.

But, instead, you destroy your own cause by switching the conversation to another unrelated matter.

Congrats, it is thinking like yours that 5 year-old kids everywhere use...with little success. "But, but, but, he's being a jerk, too!"

But, not so oddly enough, that tactic is used very effectively by our elected officials to dumb down 'Merica and to keep their positions.

HI54UNI wrote:Cluck is correct that in a union you are only as good as the lowest common denominator. Having said that if employees work for a private business and want to unionize they should have that ability but you should not be required to join that union.

Govt employee unions should be abolished. Even FDR felt that way.

And if employees unionize, employers should be able to fire them en masse.

AZGrizFan wrote:THE problem?

Loads of problems with unions...but I believe the lack of recognizing, and rewarding, excellence is the biggest problem. That concept, effectively entwined with the idea of protecting everyone, is killing unions from both sides. Employers hate unions because they encourage mediocrity. And why would any young/new person join a union knowing that they'll be the first laid off, no matter how hard they work..or how productive they are?

I don't mind protecting workers from bad bosses...after all, there are some pretty whacked out bosses that make arbitrary decisions that aren't necessarily good for the company. It takes some time to ferret out those bad bosses, but some sort of employee protection might be able to weed those bad bosses out faster...a win-win for everyone.

HI54UNI wrote:Cluck is correct that in a union you are only as good as the lowest common denominator. Having said that if employees work for a private business and want to unionize they should have that ability but you should not be required to join that union.

Govt employee unions should be abolished. Even FDR felt that way.

Unions would help themselves most by going after the bottom of the barrel.


I don't know where this nonsense about union employees can't be fired comes from. Union employees get fired all the time for cause. Its harder to go after them just because you don't like them, but if you have cause they can be fired.

Cluck U wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:THE problem?

Loads of problems with unions...but I believe the lack of recognizing, and rewarding, excellence is the biggest problem. That concept, effectively entwined with the idea of protecting everyone, is killing unions from both sides. Employers hate unions because they encourage mediocrity. And why would any young/new person join a union knowing that they'll be the first laid off, no matter how hard they work..or how productive they are?

I don't mind protecting workers from bad bosses...after all, there are some pretty whacked out bosses that make arbitrary decisions that aren't necessarily good for the company. It takes some time to ferret out those bad bosses, but some sort of employee protection might be able to weed those bad bosses out faster...a win-win for everyone.

Wrong. Employers hate unions because unions and government are the only things big enough to stand up to them.

We should defer to Tman. After all he started a union, before he went tits up.

Bet he could give us some deep insight into the bowels of union admin.

houndawg wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:Cluck is correct that in a union you are only as good as the lowest common denominator. Having said that if employees work for a private business and want to unionize they should have that ability but you should not be required to join that union.

Govt employee unions should be abolished. Even FDR felt that way.

Unions would help themselves most by going after the bottom of the barrel.


I don't know where this nonsense about union employees can't be fired comes from. Union employees get fired all the time for cause. Its harder to go after them just because you don't like them, but if you have cause they can be fired.

Right on cue.

Unless you murder someone, or commit some other felony, it takes TWO YEARS of unsatisfactory reviews to terminate a union employee at my wife's school.

TWO..EFFING...YEARS!

And it takes unbelievable stupidity and laziness to fail such standards.

In the meantime, the kids lose, the better employee lose, the administration loses, and the world is stuck with the Slacker teacher.

Worse, that poor excuse for a teacher, and everyone else just barely meeting standards, is given the same raise as any outstanding teacher.

And, come layoff time, that slouch stays while someone much more talented and productive, who was hired a day later than the yet-to-be terminated Slug, gets terminated.


Stop defending that which can't be defended.

houndawg wrote:

Cluck U wrote:


Loads of problems with unions...but I believe the lack of recognizing, and rewarding, excellence is the biggest problem. That concept, effectively entwined with the idea of protecting everyone, is killing unions from both sides. Employers hate unions because they encourage mediocrity. And why would any young/new person join a union knowing that they'll be the first laid off, no matter how hard they work..or how productive they are?

I don't mind protecting workers from bad bosses...after all, there are some pretty whacked out bosses that make arbitrary decisions that aren't necessarily good for the company. It takes some time to ferret out those bad bosses, but some sort of employee protection might be able to weed those bad bosses out faster...a win-win for everyone.

Wrong. Employers hate unions because unions and government are the only things big enough to stand up to them.

Again, right on cue.

11%...and probably mostly government employees.

Unions aren't standing up to anything. If they are to survive, they need to change.

Cluck U wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Unions would help themselves most by going after the bottom of the barrel.


I don't know where this nonsense about union employees can't be fired comes from. Union employees get fired all the time for cause. Its harder to go after them just because you don't like them, but if you have cause they can be fired.

Right on cue.

Unless you murder someone, or commit some other felony, it takes TWO YEARS of unsatisfactory reviews to terminate a union employee at my wife's school.

TWO..EFFING...YEARS!

And it takes unbelievable stupidity and laziness to fail such standards.

In the meantime, the kids lose, the better employee lose, the administration loses, and the world is stuck with the Slacker teacher.

Worse, that poor excuse for a teacher, and everyone else just barely meeting standards, is given the same raise as any outstanding teacher.

And, come layoff time, that slouch stays while someone much more talented and productive, who was hired a day later than the yet-to-be terminated Slug, gets terminated.


Stop defending that which can't be defended.

If your wife did a better job she could find work at a private school without a union and you wouldn't need to worry. Or to burden us with your histrionics and hand-wringing.

Cluck,

I agree with your original gripe. I'm neutral when it comes to unions. I have a buddy who is a small town city manager and a relative who is an under sheriff and the stories they tell of having to deal with the police guild and reprimanding incompetent and even insubordinate cops are amazing. The city manager however came up with a solution. He fired the entire police force and contracted policing out to the county.

I came across this article a few days ago, and believe it or not, unions are capable of evolving in some regards. I still don't think they should be allowed to finance campaigns though.

One day, I received a phone call out of the blue from the Chicago Federation of Labor asking if I could help it put together a study on how to cut that city’s budget. This is not the usual union request—nor is it the usual efficiency study I get asked to conduct. But Rahm Emanuel had just been elected mayor and had set about slashing city spending, privatizing services, and reducing the city payroll. And he issued a challenge to the city’s unions: If you don’t like my plans, come up with another way to save as much taxpayer money.

And so they did. My favorite example: Construction workers repairing sidewalks were working the standard eight-hour shifts, five days per week. Pouring a load of cement, though, takes about five hours to complete, meaning they could only pour one load per day, or five per week. If the city went to a 10-hour, four-days-per-week schedule, however, as the unions suggested, the crews could pour two loads per day, eight per week—a 60 percent increase in productivity at no additional cost and with savings on fuel and equipment rental.

Under the leadership of Jorge Ramirez, the unions worked with my firm to develop a plan to save $242 million a year. It included many proposals like the new schedule for pouring sidewalks. But the whole plan started with $40 million from something called “managed competition,” in which public employees compete against private-sector firms for contracts to provide government services.

Chicago is not alone in pursuing managed competition. It is ubiquitous in the United Kingdom, which has had at least 3,500 such competitions. In this country, cities including Phoenix, Charlotte, Indianapolis and Philadelphia have pursued managed competition as a strategy for cutting cost and improving service.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ns/387460/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote: I have a buddy who is a small town city manager and a relative who is an under sheriff and the stories they tell of having to deal with the police guild and reprimanding incompetent and even insubordinate cops are amazing. The city manager however came up with a solution. He fired the entire police force and contracted policing out to the county.

Tell your buddy I feel his pain. I was a city manager for 15 years before I escaped the job for this one. And tell him congrats on getting rid of his PD. I tried and came very close but the city council ultimately wouldn't go for it. Too worried about losing control.

Cluk's houndy trap worked to perfection. You should patent it.

Agree 110% with Cluck.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... eing-plant" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers on Monday filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board to hold an election for more than 2,400 production employees at the Boeing Co.’s Dreamliner campus in North Charleston.

A Boeing spokeswoman could not immediately be reached for comment.

The petition was filed after a significant number of Boeing workers signed authorization cards expressing interest in union representation. The specific number of workers who signed cards is not being released.

Wait, I thought Southern workers had zero interest in union membership?

Grizalltheway wrote:Wait, I thought Southern workers had zero interest in union membership?

Knowing plenty of people that work at Boeing, it's primarily blacks that called for this.

And?

Grizalltheway wrote:And?

Oh sorry, I thought you knew. They're democrats.

Ibanez wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:And?

Oh sorry, I thought you knew. They're democrats.

But they're still Southern workers, right? Or maybe just 3/5 of ones?