I’m of two minds on this issue. I’ve worked both union and non, my spouse always has been union. Seems to me the most specific need for a union is in the case of the big-airplane-company-in-Seattle and others like it. Unlike many if not most skilled labor, imho, at this company you likely find yourself one of potentially hundreds of skilled people in a given position. What this means is that you have little potential to distinguish yourself in such a way as to gain advancement. I’ll use machinists, as an example, although I recognize this is a limited argument, not meant to cover all work situations. Enough qualifying? Okay. As said machinist, you run a machine - you can neither speed up the machine, cause it run better, faster, cleaner, or anything else to improve the product. The machine is probably computer controlled, maintained not by you but by maintenance people; sure you can clean, but even that is of limited use. Many parts actually require multiple shifts/days to produce a product, so you’re often not the only machinist involved in the final product. Even less to distinguish yourself. Now, with the almost routine layoffs at above unnamed company, if you didn’t have a union, how would machinists be layed off? Right, the one’s not favored by management, the older worker, the one’s with higher seniority/benefits, etc. Believe me, it still happens at this company, just not to the same degree due to the union presence.
Now, I do agree with the comments that a union allows, let’s call this group “slackers” for lack of a nicer term, to survive layoffs once having accrued seniority. Seems to me every company I’ve ever worked for has had some few of those (eek! they’re everywhere!)so I can’t say it’s specific to union represented jobs. That being said, what would be the best alternative to union representation? I wouldn’t like to put my livelihood in the hands to kind, compassionate, Big Company, to be sure.
This probably best belongs in Great Debates. Off it goes.
bibliophage,
moderator, GQ