This company isn't unionized. It's a wonderful company

[cali]

http://www.highmowingseeds.com/

They pay well. They provide benefits. They do a lot of environmental and social good- Tom Stearns was the force behind, and one of the plaintiffs in the case against Monsanto and sugar beets. He's a leader in the slow money movement.

http://www.vermontguides.com/2009/02-feb/high_mown_seeds.html

And the business I work for isn't unionized either, and it's a good place- more a labor of love than anything else.

I'm a big supporter of unions, but I keep seeing posts here about how every worker should belong to a union and that I just don't agree with. I think there are more than a few exceptions.

[OneGrassRoot]

1. Thanks for this...

For several reasons, but also because I was looking for a good seed company.

:hi:

[MissB]

2. I think a better point for pro-union folks to make is

that even non-union folks enjoy some of the benefits of union folks, BECAUSE unions exist and have historically fought for said rights. Some very good non-union employers exist, but the culture of a 40 hour work week and paid benefits are due in no small part to unions.

[cali]

5. Absolutely.

[rfranklin]

10. When you hear a wingnut bash unions ask them...

Do you work 12 hours a day? Do you work six or seven days a week? Do you get paid vacation? Do you get paid holidays?

Of course, most wingnuts believe that they work harder than everyone else and never got any help to get where they are and know that they would be millionaires if it weren't for the welfare queens and illegal aliens.

[NYC Liberal]

19. Also, when anti-union folks say "Why do union members

get all those benefits" tell them that what they should be asking is "Why don't *I* get those benefits?"

[OneGrassRoot]

22. Huge props to all the replies here. Great points. :) n/t

[hedgehog]

66. AMEN TO THAT! The reason my company pays well and has a

decent health insurance plan is that it is desperate to keep the USWA and ABG out of its plants!

[kentuck]

113. I agree.

Thanks.

[inademv]

3. you sure they're not a co-op?

[cali]

6. yes, I'm sure.

[rfranklin]

4. Sorry, but unions are needed because in most cases...

employers cannot resist the urge to squeeze the employees at every opportunity. The god hearted employers are few and far between.

[cali]

9. yes, in most cases, but as I'm pointing out, not in all

[jody]

17. How do you twist 7.2% union membership into "most cases..."? n/t

[Dennis Donovan]

7. I'm extremely fortunate that I work for a company that is very progressive in its HR...

...and we're non-Union. Not every company is benevolent towards their workers, and they're the reason why Unions will remain relevant.

[liberal N proud]

8. Non- union shops are good places because there are unions

Companies provide benefits to their employees either because the union is present or because they want to keep a union out.

[Populist_Prole]

60. Bingo

Certainly there are stand-up business owners who are fair and aren't wont to shit on their employees due to ideological contempt, but we can't discount the fact that unions ( in this case, the fear of unionization ) keep companies honest.

[madrchsod]

11. agree...my mom and dad worked for a family business

she started with the founder and worked for them for 60 yrs. she was paid well and the benefits included interest free loans,free vacations for 20 yrs, free health care, a tax free pension, and medicare supplement. my dad joined later in life and put in 20 yrs. he received the same retirement plan.the grandson of the founder still asked for my mother`s advise on business matters.

it`s sad that there are to few business owners and corporations in the usa that treat their employees with trust and respect

[av8rdave]

12. Here are some good nonunion companies out there, BUT

You have to remember that these companies are usually that way thanks to a person or handful of people with a sense of teamwork, ethics and service. Once those folks are replaced/retired, or the company is merged or acquired, life for the workers will change sooner or later, and usually not for the better. And unfortunately, the more successful the company is, the more likely it becomes an acquisition target for an entity that only wants to extract assets from it.

[Lasher]

13. I know of two large chemical companies.

One has a union, and the other does not. Both have good wages and benefits. I have no doubt whatsoever that workers at the non-union company would not be treated as well if the other company didn't have a union. It's the same with non-union coal mines.

Some companies give workers just enough wages and benefits to keep the unions out. Union members are paying dues for more people than just themselves.

[cali]

14. I'm not really talking about large companies

[jody]

15. Only 7.2% of workers in the private sector belong to unions versus 92.8% that don't. nt

[MissB]

24. That's a lot of private sector workers that enjoy benefits fought for by unions!

I'm sure that all 92%+ of them are grateful for the unions.

[jody]

27. Do you have proof for your claim? I know the workers in Hyundai's non-union plant five miles from my

home do not enjoy benefits fought for by unions.

I believe many benefits claimed by today's union activists were in fact earned by We the People voting through our representatives.

[MissB]

31. Oh, I totally get that you aren't posting from a pro-union view point!

I do not believe that you are oblivious to the history of labor rights in the US.

[jody]

39. I'm familiar with the history of labor rights but 2011 is different from 1900. During the 2008

election 88% of the voters were non-union and they voted a Democratic president and congress into power.

It is their representatives that pass laws allowing union members to enjoy privileges granted by We the People's government and protected by that same government.

[Dennis Donovan]

55. But 2012 will be JUST LIKE 1900 if the Right succeeds in weakening the unions

[du_da]

101. While we certainly want to stop that from occurring

claiming that we will revert to a previous state is simply incorrect at best and lying at worst. I will assume the former that you are not purposefully wrong. Today is very different, mobility and information availability create an environment that did not exist in 1900. There is a market for labor today that did not exist then. We certainly owe thanks to the unions for helping set the standards of today but they have not been critical to maintaining those standards for some time. The market for quality labor now fills that role. This is why unions must adapt and reinvent themselves into a partner in the business process for both worker and employer instead of as an obstacle.

[Dennis Donovan]

105. Neither incorrect nor lying...

The world is indeed very different, but the relationship between worker and employee isn't.

The market for quality labor? Tell that to the hundreds-of-thousands of people who's jobs have been out-sourced. It's not about "quality" labor anymore, it's about "cheap" labor.

[du_da]

110. Yet in the middle of the outsourcing craze

we managed to get our unemployment rate to incredibly low levels. Like or not a labor market exists and the relationship between labor and management is today shaped by the versatility of labor that can be traced back to mobility and information access two things that were much less restricted 100 years ago but there is no reason to believe that will occur again.

I am not saying that we don't have unions to thank for kicking off the process that got us here, just that here is not maintained by unions today. This is why they have to evolve to provide a valued service. I think they can do just that, but to do so they have to start by asking themselves the question why are we doing <insert union argument here>. If the answer to that question cannot be linked to a tangible benefit in today's society and the method in question is not overshadowed by modernized alternatives then something needs to change. Retirement plans are the biggest but there is also flexible work hours, remote work options, and training just to provide a few off the cuff ideas where unions could step in and really make some modern progress that will help the work lives of their members and the businesses they are partnered with.


Much of the cultural change that unions must make can be summed up as an end to the idea that they are in opposition to the company. They don't have to be company shills but they do have to learn to look for areas to improve both the business and the employee.

[Dennis Donovan]

111. We went from a manufacturing economy ( which paid an acceptable wage...

...and allowed people a standard of living BETTER than their parents had) to a service economy (i.e. Wal-Mart jobs) in which the standard of living has decreased for a majority of Americans, to a level closer to what their grandparents had. The difference? Decrease in Union membership in the last 30 years. That decrease has been caused, NOT by employers suddenly treating their employees better, but by years of Union-busting allowed by the government and egged on by the media.

Retirement plans? Tell that to everyone who lost $$$ three years ago.:eyes:

[du_da]

114. None of that is true and you know it.

The standard of living of no group has went backwards. Due to technology advancements it is almost impossible for that to occur. The value of pay and benefits has declined when compared to averages due to the economic balance getting further out of way but that is not the same thing as standard of living nor is there even a direct correlation between the two.

As for retirement plans, review any 30 year period (the lifespan of a pensioned career path), in the history of the market and you will see that even in the worst of times the growth far exceeds what you get out of pension plan. There are mechanical reasons for this with pensions plans being based on a static increase value compared to market fluctuation which even including the worst of years far out shadows the alternative in rate of return. You will find that the returns through other financial instruments are far better than a pension plan could ever be, unless we are going to change how a pension plan works, but if you are going to do that then wouldn't it just be easier to use existing financial instruments or come up with something different. And even with all that comparison in mind, now factor in that the average worker changes careers 7 times, what effect does that have on the desire to get that 30 year pension? The reality is that this system simply hasn't kept up with the times. I have said it before and I will say it again, I will take a 401k over a pension any day of the week and twice on Sunday and that is without matching funds. Get me a union to negotiate employer match of say 6% plus a wider spectrum of choices to include stocks, bonds, and cash so that the 401k will look more like an IRA then you really have something.

[Dennis Donovan]

117. "The standard of living of no group has went backwards..."

Are you serious? Have you looked at unemployment figures lately? You need to climb dowm from the irory tower and LOOK around you.

There's a reason the average worker changes careers 7 times now - because their position is either out-sourced or eliminated outright.

And, let me guess, you think privatization of Social Security is a good thing (given your choice of a 401K over a guaranteed pension). Welcome to DU... and to Earth.:eyes:

[du_da]

118. I have been laid off during this recession, twice.

I am well aware of situation. I am not sure you understand what constitutes standard of living. We can say honestly that SoL is not increasing as fast as we would like for every group or even at a comparable rate. However, due to advances in technology it is next to impossible for SoL to go backwards. For some individuals maybe, but those are extremely rare situations. For a group as a whole, it doesn't happen.

The study for changing careers was pre-recession. People make changes because the days of being locked into a career or with a single company are gone. The mobility of our populace has seen to this and the information age amplifies their effectiveness. People move around much more readily. Think about it this way, in 1950 how would a person go about looking for a job in a city 1000 miles away then go about relocating to that new job. In that day an age someone might do this once in a career and then generally only when they were young. Now we have people relocating to jobs all over the place thanks to the ease of mobility and the convince of the internet.

As for privatizing SS, breaking it into private accounts is a great idea. The funding aspects well that's a bit more tricky, this is suppose to be a safety net so some level of redistribution is necessary to serve the purpose of the program. How much so that it remains a safety net and not a give away that's something that would take some study to determine the exact numbers. But the general premise of the current funding would still apply however the structure would change so that the politicians couldn't get their hands on it and it would be a true obligation to the holder.

[Dennis Donovan]

119. "As for privatizing SS, breaking it into private accounts is a great idea."

Post that as an OP here...:eyes:

You seem to think the standard of living is gauged only by material wealth and posessions. I'm talking about the ability for a family to SAVE and to put their children thru college.

[du_da]

120. Saving for college is one aspect of standard of living,

but why do you assume material wealth and possessions is not also a part. There are some definitions in which they are the totality but I tend to think those are to exclusionary. Things like computers and information access, microwaves, cable TV, home size and insulation, water quality, even the reliability of the vehicles we drive are all aspects of standard of living as well. While I didn't list them yes all the "toys" count too so your cell phone and xbox are in that equation. These things all combine to help define our standard of living and because of technology short of a natural disaster it is next to impossible for the standard to go backwards for any significant length of time. Sure there are some individual exceptions to the rule but generally speaking SoL does not go backwards.

[xphile]

121. The current unemployment rate of 9% is neither incredilby low nor acceptable.

Unions do not need to go out of their way to look out for business. The business does that well enough on its own generally to the detriment of the workers. Giving up safe working conditions and going back to the days where people can't have a life for themselves in order to let the CEO make a few more millions is an asinine suggestion.

What's good for the company is not necessarily what's good for the worker. These days it is more likely that what's good for the company is not only not good for the worker but it's not good for the community of the nation either. And you want the unions to do less advocating for the workers? What the hell kind of sense does that make?

[du_da]

122. Can you quote

where I said we should go back to those days? I said unions are not what is preventing us from going back to those days. We have a competitive labor market to thank for that. Could it be more competitive sure, but the idea that we are even remotely close to the closed off system of the early 20th century where a worker often only had one choice of where to work is simply wrong. In today's society workers get frustrated and move across the street to a competitor or to a completely different line of work entirely. 100 years ago, that was uncommon even in the educated circles for the common laborer it was absolutely unheard of. Today this is standard practice.

Are there fewer jobs at the moment then there were a few years ago absolutely, but that doesn't change the dynamics of the situation. Sure a company can hire someone for less because there is more demand. However, companies still cannot start treating their people like dirt because those people will take their skills and go find another job somewhere else. Maybe it takes a bit longer when the unemployment average is higher than we would like but it still happens. This capability coupled with labor laws has replaced the union as the maintainer of our system that puts a floor on how much a company can get away with taking advantage of its employees.

Now we can thank the unions for bringing us to this point, it is doubtful we would have the labor laws in place that we do if not for the unions. However, I don't see any movement out there to remove labor laws that protect individuals from harmful work conditions. There might be some efforts to make those laws more streamlined but no one is trying to bring back sweatshops. The PR nightmare alone makes such an effort not viable even if someone with enough influence actually thought it was a good idea.

As for what is good for the company, I think you are completely off base. There is a difference between what is good for the short term profit margin vs what is good for the company. Generally what is good for the company is good for everyone involved with that company. Where unions have a future is an advocate for the employee with the notion of improving the company's position and thus improving the position of the employee as well, and there are a number of things that can be done to facility this. For example, we have mentioned in other areas moving away from pensions to other financial instruments to handle retirement for new employees. This would allow the company to get out from under the underfunded liability issue that eventually threaten to bring many of them down. Now it might mean slower growth but it would mean a healthier company and less contention with the workforce. There are a number of other areas as well such as training and flex time that unions can tackle.

[Angry Dragon]

124. How about business brings the workers in as a partner??

Name all the companies that treat their workers
as an equal partner in the business.

You are way off base

[MissB]

57. You've posted this exact point multiple times- don't you think it deserves it's own OP?

I find it humorous that you leave off public sector employment in your assertion of votes in the last election.

A new OP is in order!

[jody]

65. I used results from CNN's exit polls to the question "Are You a Union Member?" and the results

Yes (12%) and No (88%) see http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p3

If you "find it humorous" when someone posts facts rather than unsupported assertions then you have an unusual reading style.

[Dennis Donovan]

35. Do they have weekends off?

If so, they can thank the Unions for it.

[jody]

46. Even better, praise our military who fought, were mangled, and died for your freedom as a minority

never larger than 34% of the work force to protest today representing about 12% of the work force for privileges granted by the government of We the People.

In 2008 88% of the voters were non-union and they elected Obama and a Democratically controlled congress.

[Dennis Donovan]

50. Even better, praise King John for signing the Magna Carta...

:crazy:

[jody]

54. And ultimately bless God who gave Kings their divine rights and in 1776 rebels in colonies arms to

defeat Kings and enshrine the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights of each individual.

[Dennis Donovan]

58. I know not of this God you speak of...

I'm an adherent of reality, not mythology.

[jody]

68. Gods change, that's the way things are in the preternatural but nature's laws are immutable with

many waiting to be discovered.

[rpannier]

76. And...

The disparity between rich-and-poor has grown as union membership has dwindled
The spending power of the middle class has decreased since the late 1970's early 1980's

The fact that there are so few Unionized public workers is one major reason why we're in the mess we're in

Oh....and why those miners died in West Virginia

[jody]

87. "disparity between rich-and-poor has grown". But, global-warming caused that -- didn't it? nt

[mother earth]

16. Unions protect workers and labor rights, if that protection is not

needed, that's to be commended, but never do we want to lose the right to organize and protect labor rights. For too long unions have been demonized. The efforts in Wisconsin was to deal the final death blow to unions. Witnessing the backlash is inspiring.

I'm glad to see the tea party unwittingly be at the core of orchestrating the resurrection of true patriotism and waking the call for much needed, peaceful, collective protest. They never intended this, so it's ironic that they've provided the impetus for the fire they now can't put out. May it grow in strength and solidarity for labor rights and human rights everywhere.

[cali]

18. I completely agree with you.

And I wish more private sector employees belonged to unions. I'm really just taking issue with those that say every business should be unionized.

[jody]

25. What do you mean by "labor rights"? Every citizen has the same rights that our Constitution

obligates government to protect.

If you mean privileges, then those are granted by the government elected by We the People of whom 92.8% of the private sector workers are non-union.

Privileges granted by government can be taken away by government.

[rpannier]

78. That's too damned funny

Every citizen has the same rights that our Constitution obligates government to protect.
Not sure what country or planet you're living on.

[jody]

86. Glad you thought it was funny. Next step is to educate yourself by reading the two DU threads below

and offer your own understanding of the "rights issue".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x149269

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8742868&mesg_id=8746646

[elocs]

20. I don't know if anyone recall the 60 Minutes segment from many years ago.

This may have been from the Carter years. It was a steel company that treated their employees like gold and it was nonunion. They served gourmet-like meals in the lunchroom as well as selling the employees subsidized gas. In fact they had employees leaving union jobs to come and work at that plant. And as a result of how the company treated its employees their productivity was higher than at the union steel mills and and the absentee rate was lower.

If every employer was like that there would likely be little need for unions.

[tomg]

21. I can see your point, and

to an extent, I find myself in a similar position. I teach at a college that cannot unionize under the Yeshiva Decision. Right now we have a very good president and administration, and while the Board of Trustees is very heavily business oriented, our administration is good. I have been one of the contract negotiators for the faculty a few times in the past and the folks on the other side of the table have played it straight with us and we with them. To illustrate: we are a formerly Catholic college, but we also were one of the first to have partnership benefits for same-sex partners. The admin. negotiators threw their support behind it knowing the Board would be a tough sell.

At the same time, our president and senior administration are going to undergo some major retirements. There are those on the board who, quite frankly, might like a different model. In other words, it is not always the problem with the administration that we have but the one that we will have that unions can protect us from. Our president, for all intents and purposes, saved this college economically and built it. It sounds like Tom Stearns and the folks you work for are similar in that they have a real investment in building a kind of community. The problem is with who comes next. That is why we need unions. incidentally, I always enjoy your posts, even when I disagree.

[cali]

26. You're right, there's a revolution going on where I work

and the people involved in it have a big investment in the community and in, well, doing the right thing. There's been a lot of news coverage about it.

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=webhp&q=hardwick+food&aq=0&aqi=g2g-v1g-sv1&aql=f&oq=&pbx=1&fp=1479d16afb7c5e23

But yeah, what comes next is always a concern.

Oh, and thanks.

:hi:

[tomg]

28. Good luck and thanks for

the link. :)

[Papagoose]

23. I work for a non-union company and love it

HOWEVER, I fully support unions and go out of my way to patronize union companies when I can.

The company I work for is extremely unusual I think; it's a large, international, family-owned and operated business. The family that owns the company is mostly (or completely) comprised of conservative Republicans, some are even whack-job Teabaggers...but they treat their employees like gold. Our benefits are outstanding, our pay is extremely fair and we are told in no uncertain terms that our families are our primary concern, not work, not our jobs and not our company. I am given paid time off that I don't ask for or "need" when my employer senses that I am getting stressed or finds out I have issues at home with my kids. They pay for tuition, child care, etc.

I point out to my boss, part of the family that owns the company, that he preaches Conservatism while practicing Liberalism, but he just doesn't get it.

I guess each worker needs to assess his or her own situation - it's definitely not right to say that all non-union jobs are bad jobs.

[Doremus]

29. Your company and other "good" ones can have a change of ownership.

New ownership might not be so benevolent.

A union contract now would protect valued employees in the face of such possible scenarios. A truly benevolent employer would want that for his/her employees.

[rucky]

49. I'm stealing this.

a very succinct response to a lot of the discussions I've been having recently about the woes of the private sector.

[Doremus]

112. Feel free to pass it on, many times over and then some! :)

It's time for excuses to end.


Workers rise up! It's now or never!

[lonestarnot]

30. And I would wager a bet if I did that, they would not be able to operate under

the conditions they provide without unions in another time paving the way for those conditions. So yeah, may be ok now, but long-term going forward, and looking back, they arrived at where they are do to the work of unions and we'll see how that goes when they are co-opted by some richie rich who doesn't give a fuck about you or others working for him/her.

[cali]

41. As I know this company and Tom Stearns, I can assure you

that it will never be co-opted by some richie rich. And believe it or not, some people do the right thing not because they're forced to, but because that's their philosophy. Not saying it's a lot, but it's absurd to think that everyone who does the right thing does so because they've been forced to do so. That shit reminds be of fundie nutwads who insist that you can only be moral if you believe in Jeezus.

[lonestarnot]

74. Sorry if your are reminded of a nutwad. You are not calling me a nutwad by innuendo right?

And sorry if you do not grasp the historical groundwork laid by labor for your current ownership. Bourgeois typically does not give a fuck about proletariat. There are always exceptions to every rule, that's why we have the word exceptions. This exception will not make the world go round. Exploitation and opportunism is today's rule. I am glad for you that you have an exceptional work environment. :applause: to your Tom Stearns. Tom Stearns, should I know who he is? Not good with names.

[Rene]

32. I think if IT workers had been unionized we'd have our good careers back

There would have been ways to stop all the outsourcing that has decimated the IT profession in the U.S that the U.S.Chamber of Commerce has been directing for the last dozen years or so. IT going offshore has been the culprit in the loss of American middle class jobs.
You can't imagine the control of banking, insurance, financial services programming that's done from overseas now. I think it's a major security risk for our nation. I protested in NYC 10 years ago in front of conferences at Hotels where they were teaching corporate executives how to outsource. I didn't imagine at the time that it was the traitorous U.S. Chamber that was running the conferences; it's all too clear now. U.S IT workers were not protected by any union; we were all individuals being forced out of our jobs and forced to train our replacements or we wouldn't receive our severance packages.....all the while the H1B numbers were escallating at an astounding rate to take our positions. Even the HR firms were owned by foreign companies in India and American programmers were not allowed to apply.

[JCMach1]

33. For every company like this, how many are exploiting workers?

[JVS]

34. That's nice, but at this point it's a lot like saying "My kid didn't get vaccinated and is fine"

[cali]

37. no it;s not. that's an absurd comparison.

[JVS]

38. Maybe you need to think about it a little more. It's an apt comparison.

[cali]

42. no, it's really not.

[JVS]

45. Yes, it is.

[rgbecker]

89. You're gonna have to do more than just declare that an "Absurd Comparison."

Truth is, it rings true to my ears and what are comparisons or analogies for if not to help people understand a premise.

In fact, like vaccinations, unions have helped rid the world of child labor, long work days, 7 day work weeks, low wages, and voiceless participation in the market, and all workers are benefiting. People, regardless of whether they themselves get vaccinated, are benefiting from others having suffered the side effects of vaccinations in a similar way that non union workers are benefiting from the work unions have done and are doing in the market place. Looking to the future, the vaccination is only effective if it is continued to be used, and likewise the benefits won by unions will only endure if unions endure.

[Lucian]

40. +1

[kudzu22]

36. The easier it is for your job to go overseas the harder it is to have a union

Police, Fire, teachers, carpenters, plumbers, nurses -- all have to be physically present to perform their jobs, and there are unions for all of them. Manufacturing can be done overseas and the trend has been to move formerly union jobs to Mexico & China for all or part of the manufacturing process.

In my case, I work in IT. There are no IT unions because programming can be done from anywhere, and it costs nothing to move the jobs. I don't think it's even possible to put a tariff on data. This is why I'll probably never be in a union.

[BeFree]

43. Past Unions

Have helped make all the good companies even better.

Pretty much, any company would make slaves of their employees if there was no such thing as unions keeping the capitalists honest.

Every worker owes a great debt to worker's unions past activities.

[jschurchin]

44. There are some VERY GOOD employers out there

who have non-union shops. They treat their employees with respect and compassion. Pay them well and provide them with excellent benefits. These places however, are getting fewer and fewer. I know, I used to work for one.

One thing for certain. The smaller the business, for the most part, the better they treat their employees. Once they decide to become "publicly held" only the shareholders matter, FUCK THE EMPLOYEES.

[cali]

47. Honestly, is there anyone here who thinks that this place should be unionized?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=456127&mesg_id=457468

[JVS]

52. Do you think that with unionization rates at such low levels, we should even worry about...

places that "shouldn't be unionized"

Is this some kind of labor rights anorexia?

[cali]

56. I'm just responding to the posts that I've seen here saying every worker

should belong to a union. You didn't answer my question.

[Fearless]

77. Would it harm anyone if it was? No.

[cali]

85. it would kill the business.

look, it's run on a shoe string. As I said, Rache has to take out a loan every year just to open. so, yeah, unionizing it would hurt quite a few people. PPN is a beloved part of this community.

[Modern_Matthew]

48. There does need to be a viable retail union. Retail workers are heavily abused. n/t

[rucky]

53. UFCW's been fighting Wal-Mart for years.

they're plenty viable, but it's up to these workers to organize. They're often so under the gun, they're afraid to. In many cases, the company will simply shut down or relocate when there's an attempt to organize.

[Modern_Matthew]

62. I don't know if they've considered this gameplan or not, but...

As a former employee of Wal-Mart, I know they cherish their highest grossing stores and treat them like babies. Maybe if they could aggressively pursue unions at these stores first, Wal-Mart would be conflicted about shutting them down.

P.S. I lack knowledge on this subject.

[rucky]

123. sorry for the late reply...

I was going to refer you to their website, http://www.wakeupwalmart.com , but it was down when I checked in. What you suggest is a good strategy.

Here's a working link to the Wal-Mart pages: http://www.ufcw.org/makingchange/index.cfm

[jody]

51. K&R thanks Cali. 88% of the voters in 2008 were non-union & it's their govt that pass laws granting

privileges that union activist representing 7.2% of the private sector hope to obtain.

[Jackpine Radical]

59. Maybe we need to broaden the definition of unions.

All people who work for a living have certain interests in common. Like affordable health care, decent retirements, pushing the government to enforce safety standaards, etc. Unions can serve a lot of functions, even in good companies. The union role is not limited to interactions with the employer.

Thinking of my own situation, I would join a union. And I'm self-employed.*

*During the many years I worked for the state, I was in the union.

[cali]

63. It's just not practical for some businesses.

I work for a business that's seasonal- a nursery/tea garden. There are thousands of such businesses in this country.

[Jackpine Radical]

69. What you're doing is causing me to think about the nature

and roles of unions. What I'm coming up with is something like a meta-union. It would bind all the unions together, and would be available for people like you and me. It wouldn't even have to be a workers' organization--it would be a unified voice advocating for common people, be they disabled, employed, unemployed, self-employed, or whatever. This meta-union would be a force with which to oppose the moneyed interests.

[jody]

71. Your idea about a meta-union was the concept of fascism aka corporatism spawned by Mussolini.

His government would have a committee representing business interests and a committee representing labor with a powerful head of state.

In the 1930s, a few corporate heads attempted to replace FDR with their puppet and copy Mussolini's brand of corporatism.

One author, George Seldes I believe, reported that John L. Lewis who was undoubtedly the most powerful labor leader of the era convinced himself that he would head that committee representing labor.

Apparently things didn't work out and with war looming, Lewis turned to more pressing problems.

[Jackpine Radical]

81. Yes, Mussolini put the unions under control of the government.

That is not at all what I'm proposing. I'm talking about a non-governmental organization.

[jody]

84. I understand your point but if your meta-union were to become effective in influencing government,

isn't that a quasi power behind the dictator's throne

Isn't the flip side of your meta-union a meta-corporation not unlike, IMO, the power that corporatist exercise in our government today when they finance candidates from both parties?

Their puppet president can then sign bills advancing the corporatist agenda and do so while flanked by senators and congresspersons from both parties proving to the world that bipartisan government is protecting and advancing the General welfare of We the People?

[Jackpine Radical]

93. Wat's the alternative? Unilateral disarmament of the poor?

Which is to say, the status quo ante?

[jody]

97. I visited your site Jackpine Needles and loved your tractor.

I remember our first tractor below in 1946, picture of Franklin Mint model below I have on my desk, that sure beat plowing with a mule.

[Jackpine Radical]

102. That one in the pic is a 1964 International 760.

I sold it, though, along with my old Case SC. I now have a little JD 790 4wd with a cab. I was just on it plowing snow for 2 hors this morning. We have a driveway that's about 1100 feet long.

[jody]

103. "1100 feet long" I've landed on many strips much shorter than that. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

106. I wouldn't recommend you try that on our driveway.

It's pretty crooked, lined with trees, and has a lot of snow & ice on it at the moment.

[Jackpine Radical]

94. On further reflection, I think you are raising a important consideration.

There need to be carefully wrought safeguards and balances against something like this going awry, because it could certainly do so--just as our Constitution was structured with safeguards. And we have gone very awry in spite of it.

[cali]

80. I like that idea. A lot.

[aquart]

61. Hope your Tom Stearns doesn't die.

Because basing your future on one man's decency is a damned fragile way to live.

Right now you and your fellow employees have NOTHING protecting you but this man's good health.

What happens when the good king dies?

[cali]

64. I don't work for Tom

and the king shit is absurd. you know jack shit about this company and yet you pontificate about it.

[madokie]

67. During my work career I only worked out of the carpenters hall a couple times

But I support the unions just as if I belonged to one.

[hedgehog]

70. Unions are a response to how most businesses are run. It's

unfortunate that many (most?) employers cultivate an adversarial relationship with their workers, but that's the way it is. It's too bad that so many middle management people go along with this attitude. They never realize how expendable they are until they're the ones tossed off the troika.

In an ideal world, unions wouldn't be needed.

[jody]

73. In an ideal world management wouldn't be needed either! n/t

[rpannier]

72. Going to have to disagree with you

I have heard that comment so many times -- We have great jobs. We don't need Unions.
The Miners in West Virginia and their families were saying they didn't need Unions because they were making good money.
Yet, their bosses were cutting corners. Why?
Because, no one was there to look out for the best interests of the miners.
Companies don't look out for the best interest of their employees.
You can also be sure that there are people (maybe even at your company) that are using places like where you work (non-Unionized places) to convince other workers they don't need Unions.

[cali]

79. that's fine. disagreement I mean.

but seriously, it's totally impractical for a small seasonal business to be unionized. And yes, some companies do look out for the best interests of their employees. Saying that there aren't business owners who don't is like saying people can't be moral without religion.

[rpannier]

82. I'll agree with you that we disagree

I see (as you probably do) this being a discussion that runs in circles.
Some give and take with facts that eventually becomes more emotional than cognitive.
The eventually finds itself being on the level of, "Oh. yeah! Sez you!" and
"So's your old man."

Take care. :fistbump:

[Fearless]

75. No one is saying that non-Unioned people are bad. This is just divisiveness spread by rethugs.

Stop playing into their trap. Having a union does not make a job good or bad or a workplace good or bad inherently, however by and large it does make them better than they currently are. What on earth is wrong with that?

[aka-chmeee]

83. Freeloaders

That's what we always called workers at non-union shops around Topeka. Whenever Goodyear had a contract ratified, other employers around would out of the "goodness of their hearts" and from a spirit of fairness and altruism improve the lot of their own workers, who would then crow about how great it was to work for people who were so wonderful and how nice it was that THEY didn't have to pay union dues and go on strike to achieve a better life. Union shops are a minority here in Right to Work Kansas as elsewhere but that doesn't mean they aren't the driving force behind advancements in worker's rights, wages, retirement and health care.

Not infrequently, those employees who dislike unions and do not join are also those who have difficulties in the workplace. Kansas requires that even though these people do not belong to the union, the union is obligated to expend their resources and time to represent them in their need.

WE the PEOPLE have elected individuals to represent us in government and they have enacted measures to prevent employers from taking undue liberties and advantage of their workers. Of course, organized labor was instrumental in bringing about many of these changes by supporting friendly candidates and using their support to influence political movement. Political movement was necessary, if you remember, WE the PEOPLE until the middle of the 19th century seemed to be OK with slavery.

[NNN0LHI]

88. When your cost of living increases how do you receive a raise in pay?

Does your boss just give you a periodic regular wage increases to keep up with rising prices?

Or do you have to ask your boss for a raise?

How does that work?

Don

[cali]

90. Rache does the best she can by her employees

As I said, it's a seasonal business- not the business in the OP, by the way. Last year she gave us all $300 dollar bonuses. And yes, I've gotten periodic wage increases over the 5 years I've worked there.

[ProSense]

91. Why even make this argument now?

A lot more people would benefit from being a union. Workers across America are getting screwed despite a few good companies.

Also, union members fought and died for many of benefits that are now considered good.

Rachel Maddow

<...>

But for most of American history before now, when Americans have thought about Wisconsin, about what Wisconsin means to the rest of America, we have had to think about the rights of people who work for a living. You know how today is Friday? Oh, how I love Friday.

Friday—today was a particularly beautiful Friday here in New York City. But even the worst day in the world is a good day if it is a Friday. And why is that? Because after Friday is the weekend—and for most people working most kinds of jobs in America, weekends are days off. The whole concept of the weekend—again, thank you, Wisconsin!

The eight-hour workday and 40-hour workweek was a national movement. But seven protesters died in 1886 in Wisconsin while marching for the eight-hour workday and ultimately what we all know as the weekend. That happened in Wisconsin 124 years ago.

<...>

On edit, a handful of people claiming that all workers should belong to a union is nothing to make a federal case out of. It amounts to a straw man.

[cali]

92. I explained that upthread.

[Shagbark Hickory]

95. I tried to unionize my shop. None of the unions would have us.

No joke.

[Scruffy1]

104. Call the IWW

[Scruffy1]

107. Without a Union you have no rights.

So things are going ok until the economy takes a hit and you get your hours cut while incompetent suck asses or relatives don't. Your benefits are subject to being changed or terminated at any time. The main reason you got any at all is to keep a union out. The mere threat of unionization is all it takes. This is the whole neo con plan. When they finally screw enough unions into the ground there will be no more threat and the National Association of Manufacturers will have won a victory without firing a shot.
Say you like your current owner, and I think its often the case that the people who start a business care about their employees and treat them as family. Then the son takes over or the business is sold and your dealing with a whole different animal.
I have worked for over 40 years and seen every screwing that non union shops can manage. The strange thing to me is that the anti-union attitude is more of an ideology than its about money. Rarely does a Union hurt a company's bottom line. It's just natural for owners and managers to want to reserve all power for themselves.
In right to work states you can be terminated at any time with no reason given and even in strong union states I have
seen many companies who simply get rid of employees just before they turn 50 and would be covered under age discrimination. EF Johnson in Minnesota was famous for this.

[Shagbark Hickory]

109. I *am* the owner.

The unions either didn't serve this industry or they required a certain number of employees.

Sounds simple enough but the reason I posted is because the OP of the thread mentioned some good businesses that aren't union affiliated. Well, it's not like they didn't want to be. Like me, if the unions wouldn't have them- for whatever reason-, that is their decision and the workers don't have any rights because of that and that alone.

[phleshdef]

96. Unions serve the purpose of solving a problem that not every company has.

Some companies don't take advantage of their job providing power in unethical ways. Some do. Whenever a company becomes very large and their job providing power hits a certain critical mass and they become unethical in the way they use that power, then a union is needed.

[upi402]

100. To me, it's bigger than that -UNITY is all we really have

What you say I agree with. But for me it's also an arm-in-arm issue -strength in numbers is our only power. Without UNITY we are divided. If we get divided, we can and will be defeated. It's only when we use the paradigm on unionism that we have a chance to say "Now, we wont make your widgets unless you share a little and treat us fairly".

[proud2BlibKansan]

98. Unrec. Since so few workers belong to unions the odds are pretty high

that a few companies would be good to their workers without being unionized.

I also haven't seen any posts here "about how every worker should belong to a union".

[Gormy Cuss]

99. A good company has nothing to fear from unionization.

Those benefits? That pay? Both are indirectly affected by the gains made by unions.

[lonestarnot]

108. Perfect insight right there!

[LanternWaste]

115. the sick days I never use were bought and paid for with union blood.

I work for a pretty good non-union co. too. Yet I realize that almost all the benefits I currently enjoy, the wages I currently earn, the sick days I never use were bought and paid for with union blood.

I also realize what would happen without the protection of merely the threat of the Unions.

[htuttle]

116. Sure, and every now and then, throughout history, there have been benevolent kings

That doesn't mean that monarchy can be 'better' than democracy.

What happens when the king gets in a bad mood? Or goes crazy? Or he dies and his son takes over? Or in the case of a company, what happens when the owner retires and sells out to a larger corporation or an owner who isn't so nice?

The main thing that people in Wisconsin are fighting for is the RIGHT to have a union (or keep one), and everyone should have that, no matter where they work.

[Lucian]

125. You should thank unions that you have such a nice job without them.

[nomb]

126. Whether it's Union or not is Irrelevant - It's the workers right to Unionize at will that matters.

Good non-union shops of course exist statistically, but they are not related to discussion regarding whether workers have the right gather freely and collectively bargain anything at all related to - well, anything.

If people want pink stripes in the parking lot no law should prevent them from negotiating for it.