What are the positive and negative aspects of a company having a Union

[octothorpe]

Unfortunately, discussions of this type inevitably digress to polarized arguments. Ideally, unions should ‘police their own’. In effect, the union itself should weed out the trash, for every marginal employee helps to propagate the ‘lazy union member’ stereotype thus harming the union’s image. Similarly, the company should do its best to keep conditions such that the thought of organizing has no attraction.

Has the need for unions passed?

From the August 1998 issue of Scientific American the opening line of an article titled Look for the Union Label:

After nearly a century of union/management warfare in the U.S., a series of nationwide surveys showing that union shops dominate the ranks of the country’s most productive workplaces may come as a surprise.

(sorry on this one, you have to subscribe to download the article)

Do you need a union in order to be treated fairly?

From a 1989 paper prepared by Arthur Sharplin from McNeese State University on
The Lincoln Electric Company:

Labor and Management are properly not warring camps; they are parts of one orginization in which they must and should cooperate fully and happily.

Nearly all discussions in which i have participated in regards unions break down to ‘positional reposte’. It is generally apparent that the combatants, if you will, have made up their minds before the first argument is produced. There are no absolutes surrounding this issue. Not every union worker is exceptional, neither is every union worker horrendous. The same can be said about management workers. There is an old supervisor’s adage that states, “You will spend 90% of your time dealing with 10% of your people.” It doesn’t mention whether these people are union or management, go figure…

[county]

The American labor movement is largely responsible for the 40 hour work-week, overtime, week-ends and myriad other worker benefits.

If you don’t organize and join a union then you better hope your neighbor does because unions affect (In a positive manner) the pay and benefits in non-union work environments.

People in America died in the streets for the right to organize unions. It is the policy of the United States of America that workers have the right to organize and bargain collectively. That is the law of our nation.

A lot of people have differing opinions about unions, but the right to “form, join and assist labor organizations” is codified in law.

[TeaElle]

@county

The American labor movement is largely responsible for the 40 hour work-week, overtime, week-ends and myriad other worker benefits.

True, all of which were excellent acheivements for working people, all won long enough ago that most of us are incapable of remembering a time when such rules weren’t the standard.

If you don’t organize and join a union then you better hope your neighbor does because unions affect (In a positive manner) the pay and benefits in non-union work environments.

Care to provide some current, specific examples?

People in America died in the streets for the right to organize unions. It is the policy of the United States of America that workers have the right to organize and bargain collectively. That is the law of our nation.

Both of these are true. In what way do either of them constitute either a “positive or negative aspect of a company having a union” as requested by the OP?

A lot of people have differing opinions about unions, but the right to “form, join and assist labor organizations” is codified in law.

Also true. Again, it’s a nice platitude, but how does this respond to the questions of the OP?

[casdave]

So far most of the discussion here has been based around pay issues and demarcation.

Let’s start with demarcation.

It is always convenient for an employer to want lots of flexibilty from their workforce, however when someone does this and makes a pigs ear of it, then that person is in bother.

The issue here is usually training, many employers will allow their staff to carry out tasks that require specific training, which is either expensive, or very expensive indeed.
Small things such as being shown how to lift correctly are probably the most commonplace, however I have seen reports on people killed in industrial accidents simply because the person carrying out a task was not trained to do so, but it was a quick solution for a problem at the time.

According to the TUC, workers in non-unionised employment are more likely to suffer the consequnecies of industrial injury than their unionised counterparts.

Here is a link to the TUC Health and Safety site.

http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/index.cfm

In the UK, Health and Safety Representatives appointed by the relevant union have powers and responsibilities that are backed up by legislation, what it actually means in practice is that the governments does not have to pay for a large department inspecting workplaces and work practices because unions H & S representatives do it for them, and because they are working within the workplce their information and knowledge if more effective and relevant.

Looking at pay, it has taken years, decades and more of union pressure to ensure that all those performing a task for an employer of equal value are paid the same wage, and this is an issue that affects women who are even now, usually paid less than their male colleagues.

There is absolutely no justification for such discrimination, and other forms of descrimination such as age, race, sexual orientation, disability.
Basically unions hold the position that work is of value to an employer, and pay should be related to work output and not on the employees status, wether married, gay, black, male or female.

Recruitment is intimately connected to discrimination, and unions hold the view that the best qualified and able person available for a post should be the one hired.
One might think this is in the employers interest too, and it is, but all too often one finds a serious under representation of certain types of people in some companies simply because of the discriminatory way recruitment policies are operated.

[Bill_H]

**casdave ** wrote

Looking at pay, it has taken years, decades and more of union pressure to ensure that all those performing a task for an employer of equal value are paid the same wage, and this is an issue that affects women who are even now, usually paid less than their male colleagues.

I’m afraid I can’t agree. First off, unions are not charities that stick up for little guys everywhere. Unions look out for Union member interests. (and Union leadership interests, but that’s another story). Second, I debate how much unions caused the balancing of wages, and how much was caused by society and government. I won’t debate that unions were influencers, but I really doubt they were a major creator of change, let alone the sole reason for change.

There is absolutely no justification for such discrimination, and other forms of descrimination such as age, race, sexual orientation, disability.
Basically unions hold the position that work is of value to an employer, and pay should be related to work output and not on the employees status, wether married, gay, black, male or female.

Again, unions are not charities. Also, I as an employer wants the best employee I can find. Most I know are the same. Obviously there are exceptions, but that’s the purpose of the law.

Society’s arbitrator of what is ethical is the law. It is not unions.