Unions under attack

[AZEMTJUNKIE]

Hello brothers and sisters of the ems world.
I was just curious about your thoughts on Private ems unions ?

 

[adamjh3]

Sometimes they're needed. Sometimes they're not.

Sometimes they help. Sometimes they don't.

In order for them to really have a positive impact, the union, the employees, and the employer need to all work together. However, if the employees and the employer were willing to work together in the first place, there's not much need for unionization is there?

At my current service, we weren't unionized when I started, and I was there for the unionization. It has it's pros and cons. The union is pretty much there to ensure that when we get disciplined or fired the company had just cause to do so.

Management is resistant to change, and obviously has their own best interest in mind. The employees don't do anything but complain about management and the union and about how crappy things are without taking any steps to change things. The union is kind of stuck in the middle getting :censored: on from both sides.

If a union is necessary, the company sucks, and always will suck, and not much can be done about it.

 

[Lozenger19]

If a union is necessary, the company sucks, and always will suck, and not much can be done about it.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Just because a company has a union doesn't mean it sucks.
Not everybody likes unions, but being a senior union steward in my work place, I've seen a lot of good things my union has done.

I'd there weren't unions, there would be a lot of inequalities at work, unfair dismissals & people getting disciplinaries all the time for no good reason.

I feel very strongly about unions and will always support them as I've seen what good they can do in the work place.

 

[Aidey]

I also disagree that a union means the employer sucks. No matter how good the overall employer is there will always be politics and petty crap that keep things from being fair. Yes sometimes it can be hard to get rid of a bad employee, but a union can also keep people from being picked on by management because someone got on the wrong supervisors bad side.

It also means that women and men get paid the same when they have equal qualifications, something that should NOT be an issue in 2012, but still is.

 

[ffemt8978]

I'm curious as to what the thread title has to do with the content of the OP.

 

[adamjh3]

I strongly disagree with this statement. Just because a company has a union doesn't mean it sucks.
Not everybody likes unions, but being a senior union steward in my work place, I've seen a lot of good things my union has done.

I'd there weren't unions, there would be a lot of inequalities at work, unfair dismissals & people getting disciplinaries all the time for no good reason.

I feel very strongly about unions and will always support them as I've seen what good they can do in the work place.

I am also a union steward

I've seen them save the jobs of solid professionals who made an honest mistake that anyone else could have made.

I've also seen them save the jobs of lazy, unmotivated, good-for-nothing employees.

Unions had a time and place, and I think they've outlived their usefulness. There are now laws in place that unions just help to enforce. If employees did their part and educated themselves about labor laws, unions would be well expired.

Most of the companies I've heard nothing but good things about are non-unionized.

Is it Doctor's or McCormick ambulance that has a position called the "Director of People?" That persons entire job is to bridge the gap between labor and management, to ensure that the employee's are happy within means that the company can provide without significantly impacting their bottom line. So that person, in effect, acts in the same capacity as a union. This is an example of employees and management working together to achieve a common goal.

When unions step in, one or both parties has already been resistant to helping the other come to an agreeable solution to problems, and there's only so much a union can do when one or both parties are unwilling to give a little, all the union can really do is make sure labor laws are followed. So while things may improve under a union, it is a sign that there has already been a significant failure at the management level and an amount of ignorance among employees in regards to labor laws.

 

[adamjh3]

... but a union can also keep people from being picked on by management because someone got on the wrong supervisors bad side.

This can and does happen even when a union is in effect. I've seen it first hand. Dig deep enough into your CBA and rule book and you can find ways to legally discipline and terminate anyone.

 

[jon51]

I have to agree with Adam. He stated that if a Union is necessary than the company sucks. Employees would not get together and vote in a union if everything was wonderful at the workplace. If the company is run well and treats employees well then it is highly unlikely that a union is necessary. Employees at good companies don't go around voting in Unions. It just doesn't happen.


To the OP,
Unions are bad and good (as Adam said). If you and your coworkers are not union and feel it is necessary then do some research because you want to make sure you chose one that has a history of taking care of its' members.

 

[Handsome Robb]

Never been in a union so I can't really comment but from what I hear and have read they seem to either work really well or not at all.

Personally I don't want someone telling me whether I can go to work that morning or not but that's just my opinion and probably has no actual basis of fact behind it other than hearsay.

 

[bigbaldguy]

The company I work for is the number 1 domestic airline in the industry. We have great benefits ,great pay, good leadership, happy employees, an incredibly good relationship with management, and i honestly believe its all because we're union.
Here's the problem with the "companies that treat their employees well don't need unions" theory. A union allows a rank and file employee in a massive company to feel as though their voice is being heard. It gives us a sense of ownership that is nearly always lost once a company goes beyond a certain size. I would encourage anyone who thinks companies that keep unions out by keeping employees happy work, to research Delta airlines. They kept their people very happy to avoid unions and now it's a toss up as to whether they'll be around in 5 years (they're northwest now by the way). When a company gets in to trouble or gets taken over, or just gets new management all bets are off.
Now all that said a union is only as good as its membership and it's leadership. An incompetent union can be very bad a corrupt one can be absolutely devestating. The only way to make a union work is to have an active membership who go to meetings, read union updates, and most importantly research and vote for good solid union officers.
Remember there are lots of laws in place to protect us in the work place and all of those laws weren't just put in place by unions but are also defended on an ongoing basis by the labor movement.

 

[mycrofft]

Recessions hurt unions, as do adverse court decisions and laziness.

Without a union the only way to defend yourself from your employer is to hire an attorney (versus the attorneys they can hire) and sue them, or go to a government regulatory commission (like Civil Service Commission, godbless'em), then play David to their Goliath. And you don't get a slingshot, you get a peashooter.

Employers are people too, and have pressures regarding profit and productivity that run amuck, especially when they get big and there is individual benefit to showing their bosses they are tough and company -minded; unfortunately for you, they (potentially) have the weight of the company behind them. Collective sharing of information, bargaining and potentially legal or job action are what allow the balance to work your way a little.

That said, large unions get to be like large companies. Sometimes to show us they are "for the workers" they can get a little overboard.

Ideally the company has its employees as shareholders with some say as to what's happening and a means to make sure disinformation and summary firings aren't used to keep employees divided and ignorant, feeling alone. It's like the healthcare debate, you don't want to pay the dues or walk the line, but you're glad to accept the pay raises and benefits having a union (or the threat of a union) bring you.

And as for unions leading to featherbedding, my experience is that competent managers can get rid of slackers if they are taught how and are not lazy themselves.

 

[MunchkinMedic]

Is it Doctor's or McCormick ambulance that has a position called the "Director of People?" That persons entire job is to bridge the gap between labor and management, to ensure that the employee's are happy within means that the company can provide without significantly impacting their bottom line.
.

It's McCormick that has the position of Director of people. Basically its one of the owners but he primarily deals with the employees & all aspects of employment

 

[looker]

Union get in a way. If my company ever becomes unionize i will shut it down and open a new one.

 

[DrParasite]

Union get in a way. If my company ever becomes unionize i will shut it down and open a new one.

because unions benefit the works, they typically don't benefit the employer (because many employers are only looking out for their own $$$, and couldn't care less about their employees).

Management doesn't like unions, because unions often prevent management from mistreating and taking advantage of the employees.

Unions don't get in a way.... they get in YOUR way, or in the way of management doing whatever they want, often at the expense of the employee.

Unions are a good thing, and if management treats their people right, they shouldn't have anything to fear from a union forming.

 

[looker]

because unions benefit the works, they typically don't benefit the employer (because many employers are only looking out for their own $$$, and couldn't care less about their employees).

Management doesn't like unions, because unions often prevent management from mistreating and taking advantage of the employees.

Unions don't get in a way.... they get in YOUR way, or in the way of management doing whatever they want, often at the expense of the employee.

Unions are a good thing, and if management treats their people right, they shouldn't have anything to fear from a union forming.

Lets make it simple, people get in to business to make as much money as they can. Yes union cost money so yes they would get in my way. My company, my rules. If they want to start bargaining for more they can find a new job. People today should look around and see how high unemployment is. There are plenty of people willing to work for whatever you offer them as long it's legal. There is no reason why EMT should be making much over $10 an hour being) he/she is easily replaceable. If economy gets hot and unemployment drops, chances are that wages will go up being replacing employees will be hard and retaining them will the be goal.

 

[truetiger]

Lets make it simple, people get in to business to make as much money as they can. Yes union cost money so yes they would get in my way. My company, my rules. If they want to start bargaining for more they can find a new job. People today should look around and see how high unemployment is. There are plenty of people willing to work for whatever you offer them as long it's legal. There is no reason why EMT should be making much over $10 an hour being) he/she is easily replaceable. If economy gets hot and unemployment drops, chances are that wages will go up being replacing employees will be hard and retaining them will the be goal.

Glad to see how you view your employees.....

 

[medicsb]

looker = a reminder why unions are needed.

 

[SliceOfLife]

We are not professional enough to talk about politics or edit our own post after five minutes. So how is it we can be discussing unions?

I'm split on the union issue for many reasons and that is all I'm going to say on that subject.

Here is a scenario for you all to ponder:

I work at a non-union site with more than half the employees being union. This is shift work. Recently a shift has opened up that was being held for a service member who decided not to return to the company after coming home from deployment. For the last year it has been filled by a relatively new hire. Since we are non-union, management can fill this shift however they would like. If we unionize the site it would be strictly by seniority.

Now the only other person who wants this pseudo-new shift, besides the guy already working it, is an employee with more seniority but a bad track record (performs poorly, calls out, policy violations). So who gets the shift? The new guy who has been working it for the past year or the poor performer with seniority?

I have had several heated arguments with coworkers about this.

 

[looker]

We are not professional enough to talk about politics or edit our own post after five minutes. So how is it we can be discussing unions?

I'm split on the union issue for many reasons and that is all I'm going to say on that subject.

Here is a scenario for you all to ponder:

I work at a non-union site with more than half the employees being union. This is shift work. Recently a shift has opened up that was being held for a service member who decided not to return to the company after coming home from deployment. For the last year it has been filled by a relatively new hire. Since we are non-union, management can fill this shift however they would like. If we unionize the site it would be strictly by seniority.

Now the only other person who wants this pseudo-new shift, besides the guy already working it, is an employee with more seniority but a bad track record (performs poorly, calls out, policy violations). So who gets the shift? The new guy who has been working it for the past year or the poor performer with seniority?

I have had several heated arguments with coworkers about this.

If it's union rules then the guy with most seniority will get shift and it's unlikely he will be fired anytime soon as in non union shop he likely would already be gone.

 

[looker]

Glad to see how you view your employees.....

I view employees as that employees. They get paid to perform specific task(s) and for that they get paid agree amount. If i find an employee to be really valuable and he/she is worth much more I will either have to pay much more or that employee will likely find a new place to work for better wage, benefits etc. There is a reason why free market works. It's all about supply and demand. A company should not have 50 step process to fire someone. It should be pretty simple, a person is not doing his/her job. They get 1 or 2 warning and if they do not start doing what they supposed to they get fired. Why should bad employee be rewarded?

Let me ask this another way. Suppose there 100 qualified people for position, yet because position is unionized I have to pay xx amount when in reality I can easily find same qualified person for x amount. Why should company not be free to fire this person in at will states and replace them with cheaper qualified person?