Unions

[Hedley]

Just imagine working for Robert Milton

Blech. You have my sincere sympathies (really). But this is where we diverge. I would as soon work for Bobby Milton as I would for Adolph Hitler or Joe Stalin or Merlin Preuss.

There just isn't enough money in the world, to make me lower my personal standards that far (shrug).

You've chosen your bed. Time to lie in it.

[Cat Driver]

quote:

" Adolph Hitler or Joe Stalin or Merlin Preuss. "

[therubberjungle]

XS BANK WROTE


Lack of pension plan - ? - WTF - do you think those things are free. Take a look at what comes off the paycheque every two weeks for one of those. Hopefully when you retire it will actually be there.

JJJ

Suffering from insomnia, decided to check-out this forum (something I haven't done in a long while) and I happened upon this thread...

It all depends on you and your company. Free money? Yup, the company contribution is.

Will it be there when you retire? Again, it depends on you and your company.

Any reputable company will meet their obligation of matched RSP contribution (to that of the employee) to the plan of the employee's choosing. Anything short of that is theft. Period. You might have to do things the "company way" for a year or two before dictating where your money goes, but once you have control of your money, and it is YOUR money, the company will make the requisite deposits each month into the plan(s) of your choosing.

Look very carefully into this. Get your money away from the company's influence as quickly as you can. Bad things tend to happen; protect what's yours while you can.

[Wilbur]

The quit if you don't like it mentality is archaic, simplistic and juvenile thinking. The progressive and effective method of dealing with labour issues, unionized or not, is to sit down, talk about the issues, and negotiate a solution that adequately meets everyones needs.

An employer with a "quit if you don't like it mentality" clearly has little regard for the investment an employee makes in a company. Move to a new town, buy a home, get your kids into schools, spouse finds a job, etc. The investment may not be directly in the company, but there is a often a tremendous personal and financial investment in taking on an employment relationship. It is an investment that is not easily walked away from. One can not too often in life eat the real estate and moving costs associated with changing jobs without doing a lot of personal and financial damage.

An employee with an "I'll quit if I don't like it" mentality is equally irresponsible and juvenile. These are the types who get a PPC and quickly move on, drift from job to job, or lack the work ethic to see their way through the inevitable tough times that happen during every employment relationship.

[2R]

Good management +Good workers+ Good communication =Mercedes Benz
Poor management+ Poor workers+Poor communication=British Leyland

Poor management gives themselves massive bonus's after gaining wage concession from the wageslaves

[gapper]

unions are like condoms...nobody wants to have them used. But try to go without, and find out what you might end up with!!

[skycoupe]

One thing that hasnt been mentioned here is the untiring work that unions do away from the bargaining table.
Granted that a company DOES get the union that it deserves .. if it treats its employees with dignity and respect, it can rest assured that it will recieve the same in return and no need for an organized bargaining unit, and likewise if the company acts in the opposite end of the spectrum, it will force a labour group to organize.
But I digress
Labour unions in general, and aviation related unions in specific, have done more than any governmental regulatory agency ever could in the area of safety.
As well, unions strive to look after and protect the well being of the members in regards to medical issues, financial insurances, human performance .. areas that many, not all, but many companies have no interest in delving.
So please dont paint all unions with the same brush, based on the actions of a few, and as importantly, without having all the information on a specific situation.

[Hedley]

An employer with a "quit if you don't like it mentality" clearly has little regard for the investment an employee makes in a company

I fell off my chair laughing when I read that one.

I'm not sure how old you are, but if you're over 25, apparently you don't learn too quickly.

At the end of the month, you get a cheque from the company. You and the company are even. You have given the company a month of your time for the sum of money that you negotiated.

That's it, that's all. The transaction is complete. Neither party owes the other anything more.

Canada has become a very strange place since Trudeau did his decades of socialist damage.

I truly feel sorry for people who were so badly damaged by him, that they fail to understand basic financial facts. "Investment in the company", indeed!

[tellyourkidstogetarealjob]

An employer with a "quit if you don't like it mentality" clearly has little regard for the investment an employee makes in a company

I'm not sure how old you are, but if you're over 25, apparently you don't learn too quickly.

At the end of the month, you get a cheque from the company. You and the company are even. You have given the company a month of your time for the sum of money that you negotiated.

That's it, that's all. The transaction is complete. Neither party owes the other anything more.

I'm with Wilbur on this one. And, by the way, I'm definitely over 25.

Hedley, you're being simplistic. You also zeroed in on one sentence. If you'd paid attention to the whole paragraph, he makes a good point.

You'd reduced an employee/employer relationship to the same status as buying groceries.

As Wilbur pointed out, there can be a substantial financial investment in a new job by an employee.

Also keep in mind the longer you stay with one employer, the more you rely on them for a reference if you want to move on. Sure, if you lose a job you've been in for five years or more you can still use references from before that employer, but it looks odd.

Just a tip, Hedley: buy a chair with arms on it. I'll help keep you from falling off it. As Air Canada says, "Safety first... and always!"

[grimey]

As Wilbur pointed out, there can be a substantial financial investment in a new job by an employee.

Yes, but more significant for the employer is the investment they may have made in the employee. Like Hedley said, they're paid for the work they do. And employers typically do provide a benefit to those who have a more substantial investment in a job: it's part of the reason senior employees get paid more than junior ones in the same position, even after experience isn't a factor any longer.

What an employer should be more concerned about when trying to retain staff is the cost of training a replacement, and the chance of finding a competent one. That is the incentive for employers to keep experienced, capable staff. If someone threatens to quit, the company should be looking at what it would cost to keep them, versus what it would cost to lose them. Most companies shouldn't be looking at what it will cost the employee to quit. Here's why: Officers at publicly traded companies can be sued by shareholders if they don't look out for what is best for the company. Smaller, private companies still have to look out for their bottom line.

Would it be nice if employers worried about what we invested in our jobs? Sure. It's unrealistic, though. Employers, with very few exceptions, will look out for what is best for them. This is not going to change, but it doesn't mean that those same companies are evil, either. Aside from legal reasons, it's simply far easier for an employer to figure out what benefits them, and still try to make moral decisions based around that, than it is to figure out what benefits each of their employees. The two are often aligned, anyway. For example, if a company has to engage in a round of layoffs, and it isn't resolved by closing a particular unit, but by selectively laying off company-wide, should the employer be laying off those people with the least seniority, and therefore those with the least invested in the job, or those that perform the worst, regardless of their investment in the job (the two are not mutually exclusive, of course)? One is more likely to lead to an eventual recovery to the old staffing level, and therefore more benefit to the employees and the company. The other is more likely to lead to another round of layoffs, with harm to both.

And I am in a union, BTW, I'm just realistic about what it can and should do for me. I've worked unionized and un-unionized, both can be good or bad.

[Hedley]

I have been a member of two unions in my life (not in one now, thank goodness) and what I saw revolted me.

Unions are just as likely to abuse their power as bad management, and I don't see how union abuse of power is a good thing, either, in the long run, for either the company or the workers.

The way I look at it is, unions are an employee reaction to bad management. I have been employed by a company with 50,000 people. It was superbly managed, and there was no interest whatsoever by the employees in getting BUZZ involved.

Unfortunately, unions cannot fix all that is bad about management.

Management that treats it's employees poorly almost certainly makes many other bad decisions that will inevitably result in the company becoming uncompetitive as the years go by.

Unions are simply a warning flag, that a particular ship is sinking. It's just a matter of when, and how, that it's going to sink or run aground.

I would never, ever own stock in a company that was unionized, for example. Look at how Air Canada treated it's stockholders - with contempt.

[snaproll20]

Good post, Wilbur.

I agree with you, but in my experience, unions can be bad.

My father went through the Great Depression, Union marches etc etc.
He eventually became the local Pres of his union and always said that a union becomes bad because the rank and file do not show up for meetings and the agendas get hijacked by the radicals, who always show up.

Nothing has changed. People are much too lazy to take control of their destinies. A 'good" union would be one where there is negotiation guided by informed input from the rank and file that benefits everyone. Not the 'mob' instinct. Yes, you can quit and move on but I know that is a financial disaster done too many times.

[Wilbur]

Well there Hedley, I suggest you get up off the floor and do a little research into the common law relating to employment relationships.

Your notion of a straight fee for service relationship has no basis in reality. The courts have long held that an employment relationship runs much deeper than that, and that both sides accept committments and responsibilities to the other that become more substantial the longer the relationship lasts. An employment relationship is far more analgous to a marriage than a simple purchase of services.

As for an investment in a new employment relationship, I moved a few years ago to take on a new job with my employer. The bill for realestate commissions and fees, hooking up services, movers, and the house hunting trip totalled $25k. I don't know about you, but I consider that a substantial investment albeit paid by the employer in my case. However, my employer didn't provide my wife with a job and doesn't pay the cost of travel to see family and friends back in our home town, etc. The reality is that we are both invested in this employment relationship and both have a vested interest in keeping it working.

When disagreements arise, we talk about them and try to build solutions that meet both of our needs. Sometimes that can't be achieved, but neither my senior manager or I have an infantile tantrum and tell or threaten the other with quitting. We each "suck it up" from time to time and move forward.