"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
oups.com...
Government and employers dishonestly attack unions but let us get some
perspective.
Democracy is traditionally strongest where you have strong unions.
Solidarity, the Polish workers' union, brought down the Polish
communist government. Unions lead the campaign against the incompetent
dictatorship in Zimbabwe. Dictators, like Hitler, know that to
consolidate permanent power you first destroy the unions.

Our good conditions of employment came from union action over the
past century.

Unions provide the level playing field and the balance needed for
justice. Employer organization's refer to union bosses' excesses. They
ignore the excesses of the company bosses, their failures and their
obscene pay, 130 times the average workers' pay.

Why do we need Unions?

Only an idiot refuses to see the writing's on the wall.

" I will take the job if you will pay me two dollars per day" "No I do
not need insurance" "Yes my wife will cook dinner for you tonight."
"What time do I need to send over my little son for you private party"
" Yes I will work for free on Saturday." Yes Sunday will be okay too!"
"I need the job to feed my family"."Yes sir Supreme Boss of the
America's"

SKILLED ON PRINCIPLE ----- UNION BY CHOICE

Union Millwright Ron

I've worked in union jobs and non-union jobs, some of which needed a union
and some (my current one) which don't.

A union is at best a necessary evil. Under what circumstances are unions
necessary?

Well, at a speech given for a corporate lawyer who had spent twenty years
traveling the country fighting corporate cases against unions, he said, "The
only reasons unions exist is because of stupid management."

The problem with stupid management is that they polarize the workers vs. the
management by treating the workers like crap. The problem with unions is
that they polarize workers vs. management by not considering management's
point of view. If management is too inept to foster a spirit of cooperation
amongst the workers (through profit-sharing and/or other means) then
unionization is pretty much an inevitable result.

I hated the "us-vs.-them" attitude of the unionized jobs I had. It was a
vicious cycle: management would do something stupid (such as fire an
employee for some BS reason), the union would force them to re-hire the
employee, then management would resent the fact that their authority was
undermined and try to re-assert it by doing some other idiotic thing to an
employee who didn't deserve it. What's worse, the union also protected
employees who DID actually deserve to get fired, increasing management's
frustration.

It was an endless cycle. If the union ever dissolved, management would
become so bad that only the most desperate, inept workers would remain--and
if management stopped fighting the union, wages would increase to the point
that the company would go out of business.

I would *never* buy anything from a company that used unionized labor if
there was an alternative company which kept out the unions by adequately
compensated their workers and engendered a spirit of cooperation by, for
example, giving substantial rewards for outstanding accomplishments. This
is because it's not only better for the workers and the managers, it's much
more efficient--and I don't want any product or service provided by labor
which sees management as the enemy.

Unfortunately, it doesn't often work out that way in real life. Upper
management of competing companies have been known to conspire against
workers in order to be more competitive. For example, the major
construction companies in a given state could all agree to keep their
workers' salaries low to increase profits, without worrying that all their
workers will quit and go to work for one of their competitors--because all
their competitors in that state have agreed to do the same. Or, through
mergers and acquisitions, there might be only one big construction company
in the state--and they may decide something similar. We all know the many
advantages of capitalism, but this is one of the drawbacks of unrestricted
capitalism--the more ruthless you are, the more you screw people out of
their money, the more you stand to gain. Corporate leaders can't be counted
on to do what's best for the economy, because they're too busy doing their
job, which is maximizing growth and profits for their company by whatever
means they have.

So, while I understand the need for unions, that need itself arises from the
problem of incompetent management and the solution to that problem both
intensifies and perpetuates it.

The company I work for now doesn't have unions and doesn't need them.
Workers are not only adequately compensated, we're given generous bonuses
when corporate income during a quarter exceeds the goals set during the
previous quarter--which is usually the case. Even without the bonuses,
self-interest would make me want to do a good job for this company to ensure
they remain strong and don't go out of business or lay people off. The
bonuses add enthusiasm for going above and beyond my job duties--such as
putting in a little extra time here and there without adding it to my
timesheet--something I would have felt like a foolish ass for doing when I
was in the union mindset!