dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
14
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

zod5000 to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues

Re: R.I.P. Twinkee?

I tend to think unions are both good and bad. The whole reason they started was because companies had bad working conditions, low wages etc.. (While making pretty big profits). I still think there's a use for unions today. There are still many companies making a killing but pay their employees sweet **** all.

The problem is that many unions aren't flexble. They're like a rolling snowball, always wanting more. Even when the company they work for is having a hard time maintaining operations. The union my dad is a part of accept a 10% wage rollback in an attempt to help the company get out of creditor protection. Which seams to have worked for now. Unfortunately many unions don't do things like and the company folds.

Without unions we have many large companies making cash hand over fist. Meanwhile the employee benefits/wages are pretty meh. I think real wages have gone down in the last 20-30 years?

It's a bit of a condundrum. Without unions, the corporations have all the power. With unions, the unions have all the power. It's virtually impossible to strike a balance.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

said by zod5000:
I tend to think unions are both good and bad. The whole reason they started was because companies had bad working conditions, low wages etc.. (While making pretty big profits). I still think there's a use for unions today. There are still many companies making a killing but pay their employees sweet **** all.
the reality is, if a company doesn't pay very much money, that will be reflected in the workers they get...for example, if the company zod5000 pays its workers $15/hr, you will get "$15/hr type of workers"...if your positions require trades (etc), you will likely get first year or inexperienced workers...that will be reflected in your product or service...now, if the company zod5000 wants to offer the best product/service, part of which requires top tier staff, you offer more money when you hire, to attract better quality workers...that's how the real world works.
quote:
It's a bit of a condundrum. Without unions, the corporations have all the power. With unions, the unions have all the power. It's virtually impossible to strike a balance.

it's impossible with the inflexible unions and degraded corporate ethics we have here...look at Germany...plenty of unions, and companies make good money...but the unions there (and companies) work together for the better of both...here, it's an "us vs them" mentality, and that simply doesn't work because each side is out to fuck over the other...it's what has happened because of how the relationship between the two has been the past few decades.

milnoc
join:2001-03-05
Ottawa

milnoc

Member

said by dirtyjeffer0:

the reality is, if a company doesn't pay very much money, that will be reflected in the workers they get...for example, if the company zod5000 pays its workers $15/hr, you will get "$15/hr type of workers"...if your positions require trades (etc), you will likely get first year or inexperienced workers...that will be reflected in your product or service...now, if the company zod5000 wants to offer the best product/service, part of which requires top tier staff, you offer more money when you hire, to attract better quality workers...that's how the real world works.

Or you outsource to China where you have a highly skilled labour force, low wages and no unions.

Ever wondered where many of the ingredients from packaged foods comes from?

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to zod5000

to zod5000
said by zod5000:

The problem is that many unions aren't flexble.

Neither are corporations. Look at what Cat did to London.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

said by DKS:

said by zod5000:

The problem is that many unions aren't flexble.

Neither are corporations. Look at what Cat did to London.

CAT made somewhat reasonable offers (albeit starting offers), but they knew full well the Union would refuse ANY concessions...CAT had no plans to keep this plant anyway...the fact it didn't close 15 years ago was a gift to the union.

Thane_Bitter
Inquire within
Premium Member
join:2005-01-20

Thane_Bitter

Premium Member

DJ their starting offer was a 50% reduction in salary, hardly a reasonable starting point. Now that they have closed the plant, built a new one (with some peachy local tax breaks) and cut their labour costs in half, they still sell the locomotives for the same price.
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

zod5000 to dirtyjeffer0

Member

to dirtyjeffer0
said by dirtyjeffer0:

said by zod5000:
I tend to think unions are both good and bad. The whole reason they started was because companies had bad working conditions, low wages etc.. (While making pretty big profits). I still think there's a use for unions today. There are still many companies making a killing but pay their employees sweet **** all.
the reality is, if a company doesn't pay very much money, that will be reflected in the workers they get...for example, if the company zod5000 pays its workers $15/hr, you will get "$15/hr type of workers"...if your positions require trades (etc), you will likely get first year or inexperienced workers...that will be reflected in your product or service...now, if the company zod5000 wants to offer the best product/service, part of which requires top tier staff, you offer more money when you hire, to attract better quality workers...that's how the real world works.

I tend to disagree. I think corporations are more focused on profit than quality products. They want to make the biggest gap between production costs and sales that they can. That doesn't always result in wanting the best product made by the best workers.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

said by zod5000:

I think corporations are more focused on profit than quality products.

I'd say such a comment is erroneous as you're applying your ideology standpoint as a blanket statement against 'corporations' when it varies between company. Some companies need to put out a quality product for various reasons and other companies are proud to put out quality products and other companies have procedural standards to ensure they do so, especially corporations that produce ingredients used by other corporations.

I've been to large corporations where those motto banners they have on the wall are a widespread sentiment shared by everyone at the company from the top down.

I think the biggest problem we have is what a person considers when they think "corporation". Some have turned the word into something other than what it literally means.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0 to Thane_Bitter

Premium Member

to Thane_Bitter
said by Thane_Bitter:
DJ their starting offer was a 50% reduction in salary, hardly a reasonable starting point.
it was a 50% reduction in salary to standard assembly workers, not everyone...the skilled tradesmen there were offered something like $33/hr, down from $35/hr...the assembly workers (most of them) were your general "high school" educated "factory workers"...would it suck to go from $35/hr to $17.50...of course it would...but the union is the ones who pushed up general labour wages to trades people incomes...now none of them work there.
quote:
Now that they have closed the plant, built a new one (with some peachy local tax breaks) and cut their labour costs in half, they still sell the locomotives for the same price.

the new plant in Indiana was there for a year prior to London closing...many of the workers from London were transferred to Indiana to train the workers down there on how to do the work...as well, when the London plant originally opened, it took assembly jobs away from the Illinois plant (GM Diesel back in the day) to take advantage of the lower dollar at the time as well as help procure various government contracts.

we discussed all of this in the EMD thread earlier this year.
dirtyjeffer0

dirtyjeffer0 to Thane_Bitter

Premium Member

to Thane_Bitter
said by Thane_Bitter:

DJ their starting offer was a 50% reduction in salary, hardly a reasonable starting point.

i was looking for it and found the offer:

»www.thecomingdepression. ··· 2011.pdf

skilled trades were $34/hr, production workers (basic labour) were $16.50-$22/hr...as i said before, had the wages not ballooned over the years, perhaps they would all still have jobs...the cost of the trades wasn't the problem, it was the basic labour workers pay that was the deal breaker.

TLS2000
Premium Member
join:2004-02-24
Elmsdale, NS

TLS2000

Premium Member

While I won't dispute that these people were probably overpaid for what their skillset was, I'd like to see you take a cut in pay of 50% and tell me that you just had to suck it up for the good of the company.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

said by TLS2000:

While I won't dispute that these people were probably overpaid for what their skillset was, I'd like to see you take a cut in pay of 50% and tell me that you just had to suck it up for the good of the company.

that's not what i was saying at all...i was simply saying that had their wages not got out of control in the first place, it is quite possible none of that would have happened...in the case of the EMD workers, perhaps if the regular labour workers were making $22/hr, they might still be there (doubtful, but possible)...if the offer for concessions was made, going from $22/hr to $17 isn't as big of a drop as going from $37 to $16.50...as well, if they were making $22/hr, it is quite possible there might be other opportunities for them to work elsewhere at or close to that pay...not at $37/hr though...those jobs no longer exist.

Mark
I stand with my feet
join:2009-07-11
Canada

Mark

Member

And their union, the caw had zero interest in negotiating such a precedent with the big 3 contracts about to expire.

Thane_Bitter
Inquire within
Premium Member
join:2005-01-20

Thane_Bitter to dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

to dirtyjeffer0
You are ignoring is the other changes in the contract which serverly cut or completley eliminated certain programs and benfits. EMD had no interest in keeping the plant, had the workers agreeed to the cut they still would have been out of work soon after.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

said by Thane_Bitter:

You are ignoring is the other changes in the contract which serverly cut or completley eliminated certain programs and benfits. EMD had no interest in keeping the plant, had the workers agreeed to the cut they still would have been out of work soon after.

the offer sheet i posted has the details of coverage...the coverages are what most would consider "somewhat average" for the private sector...but i don't disagree with you about the closing of the plant...that plant hasn't made a dime since the mid-80s...the fact it wasn't closed in the 90s is a bigger surprise than when it closed earlier this year.

and speaking of plant closures, depending on what happens with the upcoming contract negotiations, things could get tense at Cami.

»www.lfpress.com/2012/11/ ··· -new-car