MrShag
join:2006-07-09
Hamilton, ON | reply to cdru
Re: Is It Really That Bad? '
A 'contract' does not require you to be a union member.
A 'contract' is what gives you some assurance that you'll get paid at the end of the month, etc. It spells out details of how much notice your employer must give you if he no longer wants to employ you, etc.
I have never signed anything that resembles a work contract at any of the jobs in the IT industry that I've worked at. I have had to sign that I've received an employee handbook/policies that tells me what the company practices are, but it is definitely not a legally binding contract. "
I am a union member as well. I work in the entertainment union. Same shit different pile. Do you think that you wouldn't have gotten paid without signing a tax-form, or booklet to show that you work for that employer?
Unions are there simply to make it easier for everyone to sign one contract instead 100's. As well as ensuring the safety of the employees.
If its unsafe the union says ' you need to fix this or we refuse to do this' goes a long way. |
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| First, please learn how to properly quote someone. It makes it much easier to figure out who said what. Just put the tags [ quote ][ /quote ] or [ bquote ][ /bquote ] with the spaces removed around the text you want to quote. Or use the autoquote feature.
said by MrShag:I am a union member as well. I said I was NOT in the union
Do you think that you wouldn't have gotten paid without signing a tax-form, or booklet to show that you work for that employer? The tax forms are AFAIK required by law, or if not required, strongly suggested unless you don't mind giving the government a interest free loan. The I9 is to prove my ability to work and is required, at least for legitimate businesses.
My signing the form saying that I received the booklet was a condition of my employment, but it was not a contract. It was just an acknowledgment that I received it. It wasn't a sign that I accepted to follow what it said or that I necessarily agreed with any of it. It was just there to document that I at least was given what the company's policies and procedures were should there be an issue down the road.
Unions are there simply to make it easier for everyone to sign one contract instead 100's. "Easier" is a matter of perspective. I've never worked at a company that employed a statistically significant unionized workforce. Actually, I don't think that there was a single unionized employee that was on the regular payroll. Not once did we ever have a work stoppage, a strike, etc. Never did we have to worry if our contract was expiring, what was going to happen to our benefits if we didn't sign a new contract, etc. Each year we found out how our salary or hourly rate (depending on the type of employee) was being adjusted up or down, plus any other changes to benefits. The company presented them to us and we were free to accept them and continue to work, or reject them and quit. And the process worked really well.
As well as ensuring the safety of the employees. If its unsafe the union says ' you need to fix this or we refuse to do this' goes a long way. Historically there was a great need for unions. Early meat markets, sweat shops, and auto industry was very dangerous. Unions helped reform working in those and other industries. However an argument can be made that those unsafe conditions have largely gone by the wayside. Yes there are still dangerous work environments, and accidents can still happen. Being unionized doesn't magically make you safer, just as being non-unionized doesn't make you more accident prone.
Some of the largest "industries" that are unionized are government employees, education, training, and library at nearly 40%. I've had some killer paper cuts in the past from shuffling papers, but I wouldn't exactly say that they are industries that are in seriously jeopardy of being considered unsafe. The automotive industry is traditionally been a dangerous workplace. Yet the non-unionized "foreign" automakers, that actually make cars domestically, produce better cars cheaper and their safety record is no worse then their unionized competition.
It probably isn't hard to guess which side of the union/non-union debate I side with. This article summarizes pretty much the rest of my view. |
