Where'd you get that?
I don't know all of the specific details. What I do know is that a basic safety net is necessary in order to ensure a prosperous and secure society.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
GC employees unionizing...
- Thread starter chicago_mike
- Start date
Where'd you get that?
I don't know all of the specific details. What I do know is that a basic safety net is necessary in order to ensure a prosperous and secure society.
Thanks for the info. For anybody else who's interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act
"The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was a United States federal law of the New Deal era which restricted agricultural production by paying farmers subsidies not to plant on part of their land and to kill off excess livestock. Its purpose was to reduce crop surplus and therefore effectively raise the value of crops. The money for these subsidies was generated through an exclusive tax on companies which processed farm products. The Act created a new agency, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, to oversee the distribution of the subsidies.[1][2] The Agriculture Marketing Act, which established the Federal Farm Board in 1929, was seen as a strong precursor to this act."
NO- as an 18 year paramedic (in nursing school) I can assure you that we take it up the highway quite hard, in fact more than most people. Working weekends, holidays, mandatory overtime (I was forced to work 60 hour weeks for 8 months at my last medic job before I walked out) not to mention long shifts with no lunch breaks (we're exempt from some labor laws due to the nature of our job) the list goes on and on. I've been held over 4 or 5 hours at the end of a 14 hour shift, and forced to stay on many times after a 24 hour shift because the next crew had someone out sick and I had to stay until a replacement was found. And... WE HAD A UNION! Imagine if we didn't!
Figure that a new paramedic makes ~$11/hr and a new EMT just above minimum wage working for a private ambulance company and you're talking about some pretty high turnover rates. Even most firefighters start at around $35k/year. We don't do it for the money but we certainly aren't going to be abused. We don't have unions so we can be grossly overpaid, we are just trying to maintain some sort of basic human rights, which corporations will and do take away at any opportunity.
You may not like unions for whatever reason, but whenever workers are being treated unfairly (like they are at most workplaces) unions can be a godsend.
That being said, I refuse to shop at GC, ever. We have a few kick-butt mom and pop shops around town that I would much rather spend my money at.
I have a few EMT friends and they tell me all the time they do not get paid nearly what they're worth. From the stories they tell me, I believe them. The working conditions you all go through is beyond believable.
All I can say is I'm thrilled to be making more than my non-union brethren. I get help with any dispute I have and I get to vote at every contract and election. It's well worth my dues money. I don't care if the CEO's are making billions and I don't care if my dues are going towards an international Teamster space station for wayward politicians. Keep paying me a fair wage and keep treating me well on the job site. Non-union or not, CEO's and politicians are going to get their money. Americans have made it quite clear that we lack the attention span to stop crooked business leaders and such. So they shouldn't complain when their rising tide lifts my little boat too.
Typically unions vote before striking. If you didn't like that you went on strike, blame your coworkers, not the union....
I think we're in agreement that a union is only as bad/good as the people who are in it, much like rock bands, wrestling matches, and bass forums.
Okay,, Valid point ; as we did have the opportunity to vote prior to the strike.
But as the union is a nationwide affair, our local shop which voted like 90% against the strike was overruled by the rest of the country.
It just left a bad taste in my mouth.
No pun intended.
Funny how some people on here are so adamant about labor unions when they like to use the free market to sell their own products. I suggest they use their businesses to hire some people and make sure they unionize. Better start paying them a 'living wage' too. I suspect they will start singing a different tune. Those rules are for thee and not for me.
When I was a kid I spent some time growing up in coal country in West Virginia. I saw first hand how union workers damaged property and treated other people who were also just trying to make a living wages. Throwing rocks at vehicles, threats, etc. Their children were particularly vicious to 'scab' children (non-union) workers. Spitting, name calling, fighting. It was a cancer on the whole area. When I got to college I did a co-op at a power plant. Again union workers. The pure laziness that it bred was unbelievable. People would literally do anything to get out of work and nothing could be done about it. Now I see how my old home in Ohio has changed. 90% of those union jobs are gone. Left for the south or Mexico or China. Other than for public servants (who I do not believe should be allowed to unionize) I believe unions are fine. However even private unions I believe eventually lead to higher costs for customers so that business inevitably declines. Government gives far too many privileges to union voters and there is no balance.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
And to them, those who undermined the union were a cancer on their ability to demand fair pay and treatment. The coal industry has been an ugly one and it's only been through hard fought battles with many casualties that employees have acquired rights.
I don't know why a power plant would agree to a contract that didn't allow them to fire employees for not doing their job. That seems rather shortsighted by the one half of the party.
The middle class jobs are gone. They weren't there before unions, they are gone without unions.
You can argue whether unions caused an unsustainable imbalance, but comparison with other industrialized nations suggest it was more of a case of greed at the top working around unions, rather than unions working themselves out.
Yes. There is slightly higher costs to paying employees fairly, but what goes around comes around. A race to the bottom trying to lower everyone else's wages will result in lowering your own too. Raising everyone else's wages will do the inverse.
Obviously, the purpose of a union is to create unity among workers which itself creates leverage against companies to provide better wages, benefits and working conditions, for its employees than the free market would, otherwise. This has the effect of correcting the net imbalance of quality of life between company executives and the worker drones.
I believe most reasonable people will agree that this is a clear benefit, not just to the unionized workers, but to society as a whole. Yet basic economic principles can introduce factors which undermine these gains by trading off large long term benefits to gain small short term ones.
Specifically, there are now roughly a billion new participants in the global workforce and the cast majority of them are educated and ambitious Asians who, until recently, weren't part of the equation. The reality is that they don't have any unity power and will thus work for wages that are trifling compared to those typical of the traditional markets of Europe and North America.
There is no avoiding this situation. No amount of union strengh or government regulation can keep companies that hire cheap labor from out-competing companies that pay workers more than the free market allows. Over time, many European and North American companies have either moved their operations to these new, cheap labor markets or else gone out of business because they couldn't compete for customer dollars with those that did.
This is where the union jobs have gone. The global imbalance of labor costs has meant that unionized companies are the first to go bankrupt while their non-union competitors do everything they can to cut costs. Some of the more successful companies maintain their competitiveness by innovation, which adds value to their product and allows them to charge higher prices to offset the higher labor costs.
Retail stores like Guitar Center have a similar problem, though their competition is with other local stores not other countries. They now have to compete with the juggernaut of online retailers and many of them just can't. The ones that can are providing some kind of value to their customers that the online shops can't - such as face to face, expert customer service. Theoretically, Guitar Center is providing exactly that. In reality, GC's business model means their face to face customer service is nothing more than pushy sales staff fighting for the best commissions.
Perhaps if GC employees did unionize they could use their unity power to entice the company to update its business model into something more competitive. If customers see value in going to the store in person as opposed to shopping online, they'll be willing to pay higher prices which makes more money available for worker wages and benefits.
On the other hand, if a newly unionized GC workforce simply used its power to extract immediate monetary gains from the company at the expense of lon term profitability, then the company is finished and the workers and management alike will be out on the street looking for new jobs.
IMO, of course.
I believe most reasonable people will agree that this is a clear benefit, not just to the unionized workers, but to society as a whole. Yet basic economic principles can introduce factors which undermine these gains by trading off large long term benefits to gain small short term ones.
Specifically, there are now roughly a billion new participants in the global workforce and the cast majority of them are educated and ambitious Asians who, until recently, weren't part of the equation. The reality is that they don't have any unity power and will thus work for wages that are trifling compared to those typical of the traditional markets of Europe and North America.
There is no avoiding this situation. No amount of union strengh or government regulation can keep companies that hire cheap labor from out-competing companies that pay workers more than the free market allows. Over time, many European and North American companies have either moved their operations to these new, cheap labor markets or else gone out of business because they couldn't compete for customer dollars with those that did.
This is where the union jobs have gone. The global imbalance of labor costs has meant that unionized companies are the first to go bankrupt while their non-union competitors do everything they can to cut costs. Some of the more successful companies maintain their competitiveness by innovation, which adds value to their product and allows them to charge higher prices to offset the higher labor costs.
Retail stores like Guitar Center have a similar problem, though their competition is with other local stores not other countries. They now have to compete with the juggernaut of online retailers and many of them just can't. The ones that can are providing some kind of value to their customers that the online shops can't - such as face to face, expert customer service. Theoretically, Guitar Center is providing exactly that. In reality, GC's business model means their face to face customer service is nothing more than pushy sales staff fighting for the best commissions.
Perhaps if GC employees did unionize they could use their unity power to entice the company to update its business model into something more competitive. If customers see value in going to the store in person as opposed to shopping online, they'll be willing to pay higher prices which makes more money available for worker wages and benefits.
On the other hand, if a newly unionized GC workforce simply used its power to extract immediate monetary gains from the company at the expense of lon term profitability, then the company is finished and the workers and management alike will be out on the street looking for new jobs.
IMO, of course.
Well put, but there has to be a balance between "long term profitability" and better wages and benefits for workers now.
It can't be all one or the other (not saying that's what you are implying).
The greedy corporation has to meet the greedy (potential) union halfway, IMO.
That was, more or less, the point I was trying to get across. Unionizing their workforce for better benefits and base pay could attract a much better sales force who could create value and increase customer satisfaction.
Of course, the hope is that as many of these countries become more industrialized, pressure will be put upon their governments by their citizens to enact more humane employment and labor laws. A pipe dream? Perhaps, but it will be interesting to see how places like China deal with its growing industrial base, particularly if its work force doesn't see itself as a simple commodity.
And a bit of a side bar here - not picking on you hbar, but I find it interesting that many people see the negotiated wages in a CBA as somehow existing outside of market forces (I know you were talking about global markets here, but many people are obviously talking about local markets when they bring this up). In fact, I see quite the opposite. Thinking that union wages somehow exist outside of market forces shows a fundamental ignorance about the theory behind striking, which is the primary economic weapon of labor. U.S. labor law gives wide discretion to employers when it comes to hiring replacement workers. Economic strikers aren't entitled to automatic reinstatement after a strike in the same way that unfair labor practice strikers are; they have to wait until positions become available (so they have a lot to lose if the strike doesn't go their way). The idea behind a strike is that it provides negotiating leverage through the withholding of labor. If an employer cannot adequately continue the operations of the business by using scab labor, then doesn't the strike serve as a market correction device?
Again, I know you were talking about global markets, which have a very different implication in this discussion, but this was something I've been wanting to address in this thread.
While global markets do obviously have an effect on unionization numbers in the U.S., that is only a piece of the puzzle. Issues within the labor movement, an emphasis on the business union model, employer intimidation, the professionalization of the workforce, union strategy of organizing smaller bargaining units, and issues with labor law itself all have a hand in causing unionization numbers to go down. Interestingly, while private sector union density has dwindled, especially since the 1980s, public sector union density has grown.
That's a good point. I think a lot of it would come down to how much "ownership" GC employees feel with regard to their positions - and there's some empirical scholarship that informs my opinion on this. One reason union workers in trades have had longevity is that they are embedded in a career and take a lot of pride in what they do. If GC employees were to see their position as ephemeral - just something they're doing until they find something more "career-oriented" - then they may not make much investment in either their union or employer. Unfortunately, it really may be about short-term gains.
From what I understand, it sounds like the reason they are trying to organize comes down to working conditions and doing away with the fading system (which, matches my experience...anecdotally speaking, I find that most organizing attempts come down to working conditions and being treated fairly by management than having to do with getting more money). But if the organizing attempt is successful, it's still in up in the air regarding how things will go.
I don't know about you, but I *hate* waiting for shipping. A lot of electronics retailers are now beating Newegg prices, even before shipping. They figured out how to adapt, and have gotten me into their stores for it. (One chain that we have here never fails to have the item I want in stock, usually a selection. That leads into...)
The other problem is that if a store carries something, it needs to be in the store, on a shelf, where I can come get it that day. If I have to order ahead for in-store pickup. I'm going to the online retailer that might be a hair cheaper instead. If you're not going to have it on the shelf, admit that you don't really sell it and get the crap off your website.
Unionizing isn't going to fix this, but if it allows them to retain a staff that makes this type of store work better for a customer like me, they'll definitely pick up that business.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
And have it shipped directly to my home or place of business so I won't have to drive here a second time, needlessly.
Well then let's pass a law that $200/hr is the minimum wage. Might as well pass a law that requires companies to hire people while we are at it. I think the stats are pretty clear. Companies go where unions are weak and leave where they are strong. I'm not sure how you argue that isn't the case. Should we not let companies leave the strong labor union states? Don't the owners and employers also have a right to employ where they want to employ? Do you give up your rights when you decide to hire someone? It seems sometimes that you do. No wonder good jobs are in short supply. We do everything possible to discourage employers.
An employer can establish facilities wherever they please so as long as they do not violate zoning ordinances or other laws, but moving as a union avoidance tactic (known as a "runaway shop") is an unfair labor practice.
While I am not anti-business or anti-employer, I'm going say that this is a bit melodramatic. United States labor and employment law is rather pro-employer, particularly when compared to the rest of the First World. Unless modified by contract, employment-at-will is the default relationship between an employer and an employee. Employers can generally dismiss any employee for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all so as long as they aren't violating a few key statutes, including ADA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the NLRA (which is pertinent to this thread). And proving a discrimination case under Title VII is incredibly difficult, since the employer only has the burden of production while the employee has the burden of persuasion to establish pretext after first establishing a prima-facie case. Along with some state whistle-blower laws, there is a very small body of common law that deals with things like constructive discharge and being fired for being insubordinate when a directive would endanger the public welfare, but these types of cases are a blip on the radar screen.
I will concede that FLSA compliance probably creates the most headaches for employers, but considering many of the wage and salary abuses FLSA was intended to remedy, I think it is a fair trade-off for the public good.
At the end of the day, employers are in a much better position than employees with regard to employment law, not only because they can afford more expensive counsel, but because statuary language, stare decisis, and administrative procedure have traditionally favored them. Relevant to this thread, I know NLRB agents with heavy case loads who may only recommend complaint once or twice a year to their supervisors.
As an employer, for over 20 years, this is pure unadulterated BS.
As just an example. go to ANY unemployment hearing. (FYI employers pay your UI, you don't. They also pay your work comp, half your SS and medicare and we don't forget federal UI) The employes ALWAYS lose. I ran a garage once. Fired a guy I caught red handed stealing. Ended up having to give him his job back.
Bottom line is this. If you think your employer is unfair, get a different job.
