Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Right to WorkFollow

#52 Dec 14 2012 at 5:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I guess I'm too honest of a person then. I never would even have thought of doing something to purposefully charge customers more than they should be, and then pocket the money.That's just weird.


Unfortunately, the world is full of dishonest people. Also unfortunately, they don't tend to walk around with signs over their heads telling everyone who they are.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Dec 14 2012 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
**
476 posts
gbaji wrote:
Imagine if in 1998 the IT employees at my work had unionized. Today, we'd run a network with NT and Win98 on the windows side, and Solaris5 and HPUX9 on the unix side because the union would protect us from new and better and faster computers which might cost us jobs. After 15 years, I would be completely unmarketable because of this.


Using you example here. This is false. Tradeskill unions tend to offer training courses and discounted industry training plans to keep their members current on the latest technologies. If a guy was trained up as a Layer 1 installer back in the CAT3 (or earlier) days, at some point he would have had the chance to learn the proper installation procedures for CAT6 and Fiber. The union would have set up either a training voucher with a company or developed a course. If there was no union, the poor guy may not have enough money to pay for the courses themself. Tradeskill unions work in this case.

I personally am on the fence when it comes to unions in other sectors of industry, namely within the US Gov. In the DoD, they have several unions available in the aircraft depot facilities. They are optional to join, but are very present. I've not experienced a positive view of these particular unions. They do provide the normal protections from members that feel they are being targeted for termination (which tends to be a very long process in civil service). However, they are also the cause of numerous problems that keep the depots from being fully cutting edge and economical.

Several examples come to mind:
1. If a shop chief wants to improve work flow within his facility, he must get union approval prior to moving any union members work benches...even just 3 inches. If the union member for whatever reason doesn't want his workbench moved, the shop chief can't follow through with his plans which may end up costing productivity in the long run.

2. For military members we sign out tool kits which are visually checked by 2 individuals for complete inventories (keeps missing tools from ending up inside aircraft which is bad), it's not a trust issue but a double check for safety. Civilian workers are issued a took kit and only they have the key, they are supposed to inventory before and after shift to ensure no lost tools (this was mandated by the unions as they say you should trust the worker). The only time a kit is inventoried by another person is if that employee leaves employment or every 90-days by their supervisor (which rarely happens). If this particular person is shady, they may have lost a tool months ago and no one would know. That could present a serious safety of flight issue for plane and pilots. There are some checks later in the line (non-destructive inspection or X-rays) but if found then, it costs more time and money to try to get the tool out.

3. The union tends to hold it's members back in progression as well. The union will only authorize training if that training is directly related to job the individual was hired to do. Employees must be hired into a supervisory position prior to receiving any training to be a supervisor. So you have no idea if the person is actually able to perform until after they are hired, which is the main reason most of the civilan sups end up failing at being a supervisor. Oh, all the supervisors are non-union positions too. That was also mandated by the unions.

Just 3 quick ones off the top of my head. Again, in the commercial world I believe there is a place for unions yet. They need to clean up their collective acts to keep viable but they are still needed based on companies past performance with dealing with employees. But for US Gov workers, I see no need for unions at all. Any protections the unions feel they are needed for, their are already federal laws on the books that protect workers.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Pack your own lunch and bring nothing but Pixie Stix and Pop Rocks and get your liberty on.
#54 Dec 14 2012 at 6:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
klausneck wrote:
Using you example here. This is false. Tradeskill unions tend to offer training courses and discounted industry training plans to keep their members current on the latest technologies. If a guy was trained up as a Layer 1 installer back in the CAT3 (or earlier) days, at some point he would have had the chance to learn the proper installation procedures for CAT6 and Fiber. The union would have set up either a training voucher with a company or developed a course. If there was no union, the poor guy may not have enough money to pay for the courses themself. Tradeskill unions work in this case.


I theory, sure. In practice though the individual union workplaces tend to oppose modernization though. Classroom training is one thing, on the job experience is a whole different thing and has a lot more to do with the end skill level of the worker. When union workplaces actively block introduction of newer technology into the workplace, especially if there are any efficiency improvements (cause efficiency costs jobs), workers will tend to continue to use increasingly outdated equipment and technology to do their work. In addition to just making the workplace inefficient, it also means that the workers have little or no experience with anything newer.

Quote:
3. The union tends to hold it's members back in progression as well. The union will only authorize training if that training is directly related to job the individual was hired to do.


Which ties into what I just wrote about. If the workplace doesn't update its equipment, then there's no need to train the workers on the new equipment. But the employer is going to be hesitant to spend the money on new equipment if it's going to sit idle for months until enough people are trained on it to use it. Catch-22, right? This may seem like a minor effect, but it builds over time. Moving from the markI widget maker to the markII probably isn't that hard to do and can be accomplished with minimal training. But if you delay (for any of a number of reasons) your upgrade, it may be that now the markII is obsolete, and the markIII, and markIV during the time you waited to get the right approvals and whatnot to move forward with buying the new equipment. But now the training costs will be prohibitive and the workers just wont be able to muddle through with the markV based on their skills with the markI. This often results in the employer just throwing his hands up and sticking to the existing equipment rather than deal with the now very expensive upgrade, which may not result in any increase in productivity at the other end anyway.

I've seen the end result of this progression. It really isn't pretty. I remember running into a guy in the late 90s who'd been working in a shop for like 30 years doing government contract work. He was the computer expert from that site until it closed down. He knew everything there was to know about 20+ year old computer equipment. Which dipswitches to set, how to load reel to reel or paper tapes, swapping out ancient memory modules, programing in proprietary languages no one used, etc. There was no reason why they couldn't update their equipment and tech as advancements came along, but they didn't. In workplaces like that there tends to be a strong belief that you should just keep doing things the way you've been doing them. Change is bad.

This was a guy who had a degree in electrical engineering and at one time was on top of the most cutting edge technology. And when I met him, he was completely unhireable. Not only that but pretty much every piece of technology or equipment he knew how to use was so out of date, that it was incredibly difficult to even train him. He simply had no understanding of how computer technology had changed over time. He could use computers. It wasn't like he'd lived in a box the entire time. But he had never spent any time or effort keeping his skills up to date. He knew almost nothing about the internal components of personal computers, newer workstations, or servers. He knew nothing about the internal workings of newer operating systems (and by newer, I'm talking about anything after the invention of micro computers). It was strange because he was very knowledgeable about certain things (stuff that didn't change), but completely clueless about how to use the equipment currently being used in the workplace.


While I'm sure that's not a typical case, I've seen enough that are similar but just lesser in degree to know that this is a feature of union-like operations (not just unions, but those that have the same sort of pay structures). This is why I strongly feel that it really is better for the workers if they are forced to compete for their jobs in an open labor market. When that is the case, they know that their job skills will remain sufficiently marketable that they don't lose any power in the labor market. When you have to compete for a job, and your employer can terminate you at any point if he thinks you aren't worth what he's paying you, you're going to be much more likely to be worth what you make and to be able to get another job in your field if you want. And that's a really good thing. I think that unions seem like a great idea when someone is first starting out in a given field, but they aren't so great 15-20 years later. Unfortunately, by that time, the worker is stuck.

Quote:
Just 3 quick ones off the top of my head. Again, in the commercial world I believe there is a place for unions yet. They need to clean up their collective acts to keep viable but they are still needed based on companies past performance with dealing with employees. But for US Gov workers, I see no need for unions at all. Any protections the unions feel they are needed for, their are already federal laws on the books that protect workers.


More or less agree. I think government unionization is a really really bad idea. I don't have a problem with unionization, but it needs to be done freely and without coercion and in a fair market. If there's sufficient need for a union, one will be formed by the workers. If there isn't then it wont. Trying to force outcomes, or pass laws that require unions, or otherwise make joining a union less of a fair choice is wrong IMO.

Edited, Dec 14th 2012 4:49pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Dec 15 2012 at 2:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,191 posts
#56 Dec 15 2012 at 5:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,860 posts
#57 Dec 17 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,121 posts
klausneck wrote:
2. For military members we sign out tool kits which are visually checked by 2 individuals for complete inventories (keeps missing tools from ending up inside aircraft which is bad), it's not a trust issue but a double check for safety.
We have extensive paperwork just to get more toilet paper, and don't get me started on the safety briefings.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58 Dec 17 2012 at 10:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,155 posts
I theory, sure. In practice though the individual union workplaces tend to oppose modernization though

Nope, just reductions in workforce. For obvious reasons. Modernization doesn't equal reductions in workforce in many cases. Do they oppose replacing 90% of their members with robots? Yes. Do they oppose making widget $534 out of aluminum instead of platinum so it can be produced in much greater numbers. No.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#59 Dec 17 2012 at 3:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I theory, sure. In practice though the individual union workplaces tend to oppose modernization though

Nope, just reductions in workforce. For obvious reasons. Modernization doesn't equal reductions in workforce in many cases. Do they oppose replacing 90% of their members with robots? Yes. Do they oppose making widget $534 out of aluminum instead of platinum so it can be produced in much greater numbers. No.


They oppose anything that results in an increase in labor efficiency as well though (which, arguably, includes most tech improvements in a workplace). So if a new widget machine can produce twice as many widgets in the same time period, it will be opposed because it will now require half as many labor hours to produce the same number of widgets. In the free labor market, such advancements will be embraced because the extra labor can now be shifted to do something else (making more widgets, or making some other product), thus increasing the total productive output. But in a union labor market, such shifts are difficult due to the heavy reliance on contracts ensuring X number of widget techs, Y number of widget operators, and Z number of widget overseers, each with a set wage and benefits, etc. Throws the whole thing into chaos. Remember that the union exists because its members believe that it will protect their jobs. It does this by forcing employers to sign contracts ensuring exact numbers of specific jobs at specific pay rates exist. This sort of inflexibility absolutely hinders the introduction of most workplace improvements.

If the company's contract orders for widgets are somewhat fixed, it will only spend the money for improved equipment if they can take advantage of the improvements. In a sane world, finding a way to produce twice as many widgets in the same time would be a no-brainer. In the insane world of union contracts, it's a waste of money.

Edited, Dec 17th 2012 1:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Dec 17 2012 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Is an Asylumite not entitled to the karma of his own posts?

'No,' says the man in blue, 'it belongs to the FFXI'ers.'
'No,' says the man in green, 'it belongs to the OOT.'
'No,' says the man in orange, 'it belongs to Kao.'

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...

forum=4.

A forum where the troll would not fear the censor,
where gbaji would not be bound by petty morality,
where the great would not be constrained by the small.

And with the sweat of your brow, =4 can become your forum, as well.




Don't ask me, I've no idea why I did that. Something in gbaji's rhetoric reminded me of it, I guess.

Edited, Dec 17th 2012 4:37pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#61 Dec 18 2012 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
******
43,121 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Is an Asylumite not entitled to the karma of his own posts?[/sm]
Only a dirty liberal like yourself would believe they're entitled to imaginary numbers.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#62 Dec 18 2012 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Is an Asylumite not entitled to the karma of his own posts?

'No,' says the man in blue, 'it belongs to the FFXI'ers.'
'No,' says the man in green, 'it belongs to the OOT.'
'No,' says the man in orange, 'it belongs to Kao.'

Common mistake, but the one in blue is a girl.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#63 Dec 19 2012 at 1:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,803 posts
All your Base Karma are belong to US!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CDT