Society/Culture Why do the working class hate unions?

[Danger2Jenkins]

media brainwashing

 

[Power Raid]

media brainwashing

Are you suggesting staff requested fencing to protect themselves from union thugs as some kind of media brainwashing? That the threat was all in their heads?

interesting.

 

[Danger2Jenkins]

Are you suggesting staff requested fencing to protect themselves from union thugs as some kind of media brainwashing? That the threat was all in their heads?

interesting.

That's a rather disingenuous take. I'm sure you'd be aware there are examples of corruption everywhere. Should we agree with Hitler because Harvey Weinstein is a bad man? He's just one guy out of a whole race of people for crying out loud.

Perhaps it was just the painters & dockers and handful of others that were bad? And we should not be applying prejudice to them all? Unless your real motive for union hatred are personal reasons such as wage increases

 

[Power Raid]

That's a rather disingenuous take. I'm sure you'd be aware there are examples of corruption everywhere. Should we agree with Hitler because Harvey Weinstein is a bad man? He's just one guy out of a whole race of people for crying out loud.

Perhaps it was just the painters & dockers and handful of others that were bad? And we should not be applying prejudice to them all? Unless your real motive for union hatred are personal reasons such as wage increases

fair call

 

[Evolved1]

Are you suggesting staff requested fencing to protect themselves from union thugs as some kind of media brainwashing? That the threat was all in their heads?

interesting.

If all you need is a few examples to form a negative opinion of anything, you'll find them.

The overarching theme is that the union movement has done vastly more good than bad, and that's still true for 2019. The middle and working classes are still being brainwashed into turning on those who are fighting for their best interests.

 

[Power Raid]

If all you need is a few examples to form a negative opinion of anything, you'll find them.

The overarching theme is that the union movement has done vastly more good than bad, and that's still true for 2019. The middle and working classes are still being brainwashed into turning on those who are fighting for their best interests.

I am of the belief unions are important. That's why we should ALL be very keen to see unions unshackle themselves from criminal elements and conflict of interests, so they can focus on their important role in society and the economy.

 

[owen87]

If all you need is a few examples to form a negative opinion of anything, you'll find them.

The overarching theme is that the union movement has done vastly more good than bad, and that's still true for 2019. The middle and working classes are still being brainwashed into turning on those who are fighting for their best interests.

This is a misnomer. Some industries still certainly require union action (I'm looking at you hospitality and George Calombaris) but many others don't require this militant type action you see the CFMEU engaging in. I know a number of tradespeople who actively dislike the unions, working on union sites, or feeling bullied in to joining the union.

When there's no option but to join a union or they'll put you out of business or call you a scab, I'd say we have an issue.

The side issue is that many of the worst offenders are the large corporations like Coles or Woolworths, who have their own separate EBA that the union actually agreed to.

Much like how the government chases small business for tax offences whilst letting large corporates do whatever they like, union action seems to disproportionately impact smaller employers whilst the large corporates can negotiate their own arrangements to the detriment of the workers.

This idea that if you're not part of the union then you're a scab is complete bullshit, and one of the core reasons why so many people dislike union types.

 

[Evolved1]

I am of the belief unions are important. That's why we should ALL be very keen to see unions unshackle themselves from criminal elements and conflict of interests, so they can focus on their important role in society and the economy.

I'm in full agreement there.

 

[Evolved1]

This is a misnomer. Some industries still certainly require union action (I'm looking at you hospitality and George Calombaris) but many others don't require this militant type action you see the CFMEU engaging in. I know a number of tradespeople who actively dislike the unions, working on union sites, or feeling bullied in to joining the union.

When there's no option but to join a union or they'll put you out of business or call you a scab, I'd say we have an issue.

The side issue is that many of the worst offenders are the large corporations like Coles or Woolworths, who have their own separate EBA that the union actually agreed to.

Much like how the government chases small business for tax offences whilst letting large corporates do whatever they like, union action seems to disproportionately impact smaller employers whilst the large corporates can negotiate their own arrangements to the detriment of the workers.

This idea that if you're not part of the union then you're a scab is complete bullshit, and one of the core reasons why so many people dislike union types.

ALL industries could benefit from increased unionisation imo. I'd like to see unions flourish internationally as well.

I agree that nobody should feel pressured into joining a union, but I see the other side of the issue as well.

If you accept payrises and conditions of an EBA that have been won through union negotiation (and potential strike action by union members), without joining the union, you are selfishly piggybacking on your colleagues' efforts for your own benefit.

I think a compromise solution is best. If you don't want to be a member of your union, you shouldn't be part of any EBA or accept any benefits that result. Negotiate your own wage and working conditions.

 

[owen87]

ALL industries could benefit from increased unionisation imo. I'd like to see unions flourish internationally as well.

I agree that nobody should feel pressured into joining a union, but I see the other side of the issue as well.

If you accept payrises and conditions of an EBA that have been won through union negotiation (and potential strike action by union members), without joining the union, you are selfishly piggybacking on your colleagues' efforts for your own benefit.

I think a compromise solution is best. If you don't want to be a member of your union, you shouldn't be part of any EBA or accept any benefits that result. Negotiate your own wage and working conditions.

If all unions behaved in a reasonable fashion, I'd have no issue with this. The CFMEU is a prime example of a union that goes way beyond it's remit.

 

[Evolved1]

If all unions behaved in a reasonable fashion, I'd have no issue with this. The CFMEU is a prime example of a union that goes way beyond it's remit.

Whenever there is opportunity and motive to abuse power, people will find a way to abuse it for their own benefit. That's human nature.

Unions, politics, religion, marriage, parenting, workplaces, etc. Same s**t, no?

Expecting all unions to behave ethically seems about as reasonable as expecting all banks to act ethically.

 

[owen87]

Whenever there is opportunity and motive to abuse power, people will find a way to abuse it for their own benefit. That's human nature.

Unions, politics, religion, marriage, parenting, workplaces, etc. Same s**t, no?

Expecting all unions to behave ethically seems about as reasonable as expecting all banks to act ethically.

Yet people are happy to demonise the banks whilst union supporters believe the unions can do no wrong; see the poster calling non-union members scabs.

 

[Evolved1]

If all unions behaved in a reasonable fashion, I'd have no issue with this. The CFMEU is a prime example of a union that goes way beyond it's remit.

Just to add a real life example to my previous reply...

I remember being involved in an EBA negotiation roughly 10 years ago. My multinational employer (at the time) offered 0%, 0%, and 0% over 3 years with an offer for payrises above that generous offer dependent on 'self-funded' cost cutting. The union asked for 5% in each year, independent of productivity offsets.

The employer offered unders, the union asked for overs, and a middle ground was eventually found.

If employers were interested in being fair to their employees, unions wouldn't exist.

 

[owen87]

Just to add a real life example to my previous reply...

I remember being involved in an EBA negotiation roughly 10 years ago. My multinational employer (at the time) offered 0%, 0%, and 0% over 3 years with an offer for payrises above that generous offer dependent on 'self-funded' cost cutting. The union asked for 5% in each year, independent of productivity offsets.

The employer offered unders, the union asked for overs, and a middle ground was eventually found.

If employers were interested in being fair to their employees, unions wouldn't exist.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here? Large corporations trying to get out of things is pretty much par for the course, and so long as the union acts reasonably I've no issue with the process above.

I take issue with Unions (and Banks mind you) acting in the extreme ways that both are prone to doing, and wouldn't be against criminal sanctions being applied to either.

 

[Evolved1]

Yet people are happy to demonise the banks whilst union supporters believe the unions can do no wrong; see the poster calling non-union members scabs.

I haven't read the entire thread so I'm not sure which poster you're referring to.

The banks have adapted to their environmental conditions and are doing their best to thrive at the expense of the weak. It is what it is.

 

[Evolved1]

Not sure what point you're trying to make here? Large corporations trying to get out of things is pretty much par for the course, and so long as the union acts reasonably I've no issue with the process above.

I take issue with Unions (and Banks mind you) acting in the extreme ways that both are prone to doing, and wouldn't be against criminal sanctions being applied to either.

Do you see a 3 year offer of 0%, 0%, and 0% wage 'increases' as unreasonable and extreme?

My point is that unions act unreasonably at times, as do multinational corporations. It's all part of the game. The unions are the lesser evil, and it's not even close.

 

[Evolved1]

Are you saying that you expect unions to act reasonably in response to unreasonable expectations and demands from the employer?

Why should large corporations receive a get out of jail card that workers don't? We need to knock that thought on the head, and soon.

 

[owen87]

Are you saying that you expect unions to act reasonably in response to unreasonable expectations and demands from the employers?

Why should large corporations receive a get out of jail card that workers don't? We need to knock that thought on the head, and soon.

You're speaking about a corporate negotiation between the employer and the employees (with the union acting as their proxy) - I've no issue at all with the process as you described it. Unless either party has done something outside what you described?

If the employer had offered say 2.5% p.a. for those 3 years would the union have argued for more or would they have accepted that as a reasonable offer? Alternatively, if wages were already exceedingly high and profits had been declining (or the company running at a loss), would the union have accepted a 0% increase (or a decrease) in order to save the company?

I don't however, agree with trade unions bullying people in to joining, blockading non-union sites, or generally acting in a criminal fashion. In the same sense that there's plenty of people in the banking industry (half of Wall Street in 2009) that should have faced criminal charges for their actions.

 

[Evolved1]

You're speaking about a corporate negotiation between the employer and the employees (with the union acting as their proxy) - I've no issue at all with the process as you described it. Unless either party has done something outside what you described?

It was a simple process as described.

If the employer had offered say 2.5% p.a. for those 3 years would the union have argued for more or would they have accepted that as a reasonable offer? Alternatively, if wages were already exceedingly high and profits had been declining (or the company running at a loss), would the union have accepted a 0% increase (or a decrease) in order to save the company?

If the employer gave an initial offer of 2.5%, we would have aimed for roughly 4% in each year, as a guess. On the other hand, if we asked for 2% in each year, the offer would have likely been for somewhere between 0.5% (unconditional) and 1% (conditional). You don't seem naive.

I don't however, agree with trade unions bullying people in to joining, blockading non-union sites, or generally acting in a criminal fashion. In the same sense that there's plenty of people in the banking industry (half of Wall Street in 2009) that should have faced criminal charges for their actions.

In principle, I agree. These aren't black and white issues.

 

[owen87]

It was a simple process as described.
If the employer gave an initial offer of 2.5%, we would have aimed for roughly 4% in each year, as a guess. On the other hand, if we asked for 2% in each year, the offer would have likely been for somewhere between 0.5% (unconditional) and 1% (conditional). You don't seem naive.
In principle, I agree. These aren't black and white issues.

You said the final outcome was an amount somewhere between 0% and 5% - If the employer had offered that from the outset you're saying that the union would have agitated for more regardless?

You also neglected the latter part of my question; if an employer was being open and transparent, that they could not afford to increase wages and remain trading, would a union accept a 0% increase (or decrease) in order to safeguard the continued operation of the company - and thus the ongoing employment of the employees.

These two things are inherently linked; if you want employers to be honest and transparent in their actions, then it requires unions to do the same. This automatic assumption (as you suggested above) that you must always ask for more is just the other side of the coin as the employer wanting to offer less.

 

[Evolved1]

You said the final outcome was an amount somewhere between 0% and 5% - If the employer had offered that from the outset you're saying that the union would have agitated for more regardless?

Yes. That's how negotiations work. If you expect the real world to be fair, you're going to be disappointed.

Are you trying to have a discussion or score points?

You also neglected the latter part of my question; if an employer was being open and transparent, that they could not afford to increase wages and remain trading, would a union accept a 0% increase (or decrease) in order to safeguard the continued operation of the company - and thus the ongoing employment of the employees.

If the financial numbers were accurate, I have no doubt the 0% offer would be accepted. How would the union know that the employer was being transparent?

Pre-empting your response, my multinational corp has cried poor every single time an EBA is up for negotiation. It's as boring as it is predictable. Strangely enough, their published figures don't reflect their 'cry poor' attitude.

If a company was smashing financial targets and their share price doubled iwithin the financial year, do you think they would want their employees to receive a decent chunk of the profit?

These two things are inherently linked; if you want employers to be honest and transparent in their actions, then it requires unions to do the same. This automatic assumption (as you suggested above) that you must always ask for more is just the other side of the coin as the employer wanting to offer less.

Unions are necessary because employers aren't honest and transparent.

Most of your values and assumptions belong in an idealistic world where competing motives don't exist.

 

[owen87]

Yes. That's how negotiations work. If you expect the real world to be fair, you're going to be disappointed.

Are you trying to have a discussion or score points?
If the financial numbers were accurate, I have no doubt the 0% offer would be accepted. How would the union know that the employer was being transparent?

Pre-empting your response, my multinational corp has cried poor every single time an EBA is up for negotiation. It's as boring as it is predictable. Strangely enough, their published figures don't reflect their 'cry poor' attitude.

If a company was smashing financial targets and their share price doubled iwithin the financial year, do you think they would want their employees to receive a decent chunk of the profit?
Unions are necessary because employers aren't honest and transparent.

Most of your values and assumptions belong in an idealistic world where competing motives don't exist.

You're making a whole lot of judgements regarding my motives there without any real basis, mostly taking your own prejudice and extrapolating.

You seem to be arguing that unions are good and required because corporations are inherently bad. I don't necessarily agree that all employers are out to screw their employees, certainly in the small business sector I'd suggest it's far less common than a the multi-national corporate level, but that so long as people act in good faith and stay within the bounds of being reasonable, then I have no issue with a negotiation taking place. Both sides have their own interests and so long as there's a clear process for negotiating an acceptable outcome then that's pretty much what the union is there for.

The problem is that for every bad employer, there's a bad union as well. Bad employers should be liable to legal repercussions, as should bad unions.

 

[Taylor]

It's important to remember that although both the businesses and the union are both reactions to the demand, the union is downstream of the business.

The workers don't exist without the business, which doesn't exist without the demand. The demand sets the price, if the workers need to be paid too much that the business has to pass on those costs (which I'd expect all costs to be passed on) then the business closes when the price is above the demand and now the 10% wage increase is a 100% decrease.

I am surprised that the unions haven't started their own, worker owned, businesses competing with the private owned businesses except with better pay for workers.

 

[Evolved1]

You're making a whole lot of judgements regarding my motives there without any real basis, mostly taking your own prejudice and extrapolating.

You seem to be arguing that unions are good and required because corporations are inherently bad. I don't necessarily agree that all employers are out to screw their employees, certainly in the small business sector I'd suggest it's far less common than a the multi-national corporate level, but that so long as people act in good faith and stay within the bounds of being reasonable, then I have no issue with a negotiation taking place. Both sides have their own interests and so long as there's a clear process for negotiating an acceptable outcome then that's pretty much what the union is there for.

The problem is that for every bad employer, there's a bad union as well. Bad employers should be liable to legal repercussions, as should bad unions.

I appreciate the quality of discussion you're providing and don't intend to make false assumptions about your motives. I'm happy to be corrected when mistaken.

I'm not trying to argue that unions are good and corporations are bad, more that the disparate motivations create inherent inequalities. A union is accountable to their paying constituency, while a corporation is accountable to their shareholders.

A corporation has access to HR, legal, negotiating, and other resources that would overpower any single employee who had to fight by themselves. A corproration has accountability to shareholders before employees.

The most effective way to negate the power imbalance that inherently exists between lower level employees and their employer is through unions.

 

[Evolved1]

It's important to remember that although both the businesses and the union are both reactions to the demand, the union is downstream of the business.

The workers don't exist without the business, which doesn't exist without the demand. The demand sets the price, if the workers need to be paid too much that the business has to pass on those costs (which I'd expect all costs to be passed on) then the business closes when the price is above the demand and now the 10% wage increase is a 100% decrease.

I am surprised that the unions haven't started their own, worker owned, businesses competing with the private owned businesses except with better pay for workers.

Unions exist to balance social inequalities, as does medicare, public education, and the pension.

There is no reason for unions to compete with multinational corporations. Look at the bigger picture!

The gap between rich and poor is already overextended. If it gets much larger, I think we'll have a revolution on our hands.