FTR, unions are by federal law prohibited from contributing to candidates’ campaigns from money that comes from union treasuries.
As a union employee, when I work on a candidate’s campaign, I am either doing so on my own time; or, if it is on union time, my pay comes from the union’s PAC treasury. The PAC is funded entirely by voluntary donations.
As Tirial pointed out, a white collar union is going to have to more closely resemble a professional organization rather than a traditional blue-collar union. The Bar association or the AMA are professional organizations for lawyers and doctors, IEEE for engineers, SAG for actors, and so forth.
The other really powerful “white collar” unions are things like professional sports unions, or the airline pilots unions. In those cases there really is a big divide between the guys doing the work, and the suits. I guess pro sports isn’t really a white collar profession, despite stars making gobs of money. Airline pilot is another example of a highly skilled profession where there’s a big difference between the guys flying the planes and the managers and analysts deciding where the planes should fly.
I’m just trying to imagine what a software developer’s union would LOOK like. A professional organization that offers insurance, training, legal aid, and so forth I can see. But a union?
I’m a member of a university teaching union. I signed up originally out of sympathy for the union ideal, now I am a member purely for self-protection - dealing with stressed undergraduates, and more importantly, seriously stressed postgrads can throw up difficult situations. On top of that, my line of science is hazardous - I know colleagues who have been hung out to dry by the university following accidents in their labs. Whilst I have a lot of respect for my colleagues, I’m not impressed with the central management structure of the university. They’re second rate and I wouldn’t rely on them for any sort of support.
Getting a bunch of academics to collectivise is basically a contradiction in terms, so the union doesn’t have much meaning really. An academic department is the ultimate collection of individuals. The union also seems to be an impossibly broad church - including the guy who washes the test tubes in the teaching lab along with the FRS professor of genetics doesn’t strike me as an especially workable idea. How do you negotiate pay increases for those two people?
Having a relatively toothless union is fine with me, as it maintains the locality of scale that has previously been mentioned.
Unfortunately, the union is a caricature of a militant, gym-mats for lesbians loony-leftism - its getting to be an embarrassment being a member. Today, as it goes, they have been forced to issue a climb down from their position of calling for an academic boycott of Israeli universities, the soft twats. (To be fair, this lamentable action created uniform opposition from the rank and file local chapters). A text book example of a union exceeding its remit and trying to take a piss in the political mainstream.
This farce is the last straw for me, I’ll be resigning and just take out personal insurance in the future.
It’d be an extremely tough sell for me. One thing that would be appealing would be more union-mandated consistency across departments when it comes to things like bonuses and leave time and travel spending.
I actually don’t have many complaints about how my boss does things–I think she’s reasonable and fair and does a good job looking out for our employer’s interests without making us feel screwed. She’s an accountant and we’re the budget office, and as a non-profit educational organization I think her decisions about accountability and constraint are appropriate. It’s what other supervisors do that chaps my ass (and as the budget office, we are in a position to know).
What the Cocky Watchman says about unions on campus is true–there were some years I was forced to be in a union (it’s a “closed shop” as far as teaching assistants go) and it was downright embarrassing much of the time. To hear this group of predominantly overprivileged graduate students adopting the language of third-world revolution was laughable. I know grad school can be a hard slog and that some grad assistants are overworked–the union certainly made some important strides in helping them out. But the choice of wording often made the union seem utterly removed from reality. It’s a classroom, not a blood diamond mine.
First off, I couldn’t join any actual union, per se. I might consider a guild or professional organization, whose purpose is as much guarranteeing quality as greedily stealing every possible dime. Wages? I get what I and worth and can earn, no more and no less.
Benefits? I negotiate those. Heck, I’d rather my employer not offer them at all, so I could get the money and buy my own plan. If you’re talking health insurance, I might consider a group health plan on the side - tying them to employers was a terrible idea is U.S. law, and ought to be abolished. Something like the group health plans of some professionals or, say, the Knights of Columbus would be good. It shoudl hold seminars, training, and conferences.
Career searches would be nice. But dues would have to be non-political. And frnakly, I don’t really need anyone to negotiate for me to my employer, and it’s likely to be counterproductive, since I will most likely purchase stock from my employer.
In short, any such organization must not be a priori antoganistic to employers. The biggest and worst mistake the unions in America (and elsewhere) ever made was that they went employer by employer or industry by industry and adopted from the beginning the concept of the employer as enemy. They should have formed voluntary associations dedicated to taking criminals to court and trying toraise production and efficiency at those employers with good records and honest management. Only a fool goes out and deliberately makes enemies for himself.
Bad firms die and good ones survive - to treat them all identically because they balk and ridiculous wage demands is obnoxious and dishonest, not to mention stupid. Look at what the unions did to the rust belt. And it was all foreseeable. Unions likewise made their money by trying to keep everyone equal, no one better than anyone else - and to keep their workers from ever leaving. This is downright immoral in my view. They should be promoting skills and growth.
And the organization MUST be voluntary. Any group which tries to set itself up as the sole power will inevitably decline in utility, as it no longer has any reason to function well. Competition is the lifeblood of private organizations as well as the economy.
A reason you wouldn’t want to work in a union.
Another reason you wouldn’t want to work in a union.
Yet another reason you wouldn’t want to work in a union.
OK, this is probably a reason you might want a union, but you don’t seem to be saying you want a union.
Yet yet another reason you wouldn’t want to join a union.
Yet yet another reaon you wouldn’t want to join a union.
So, this is a possible reason to join a union, but you don’t really see it as a reason for you to join a union.
Y’knoww, entering a thread about what might entice you to join a union and listing a bunch of reasons you wouldn’t want to join a union is threadshitting. Disingenuously suggesting, in a subsequent post, that you are honestly addressing the issue is another word that start with “t”.
Evil Captor, is it not a legitimate answer to the question to say “actually, I’m not sure anything could interest me in a white collar union?” What if a person doesn’t think that unions can’t work, or that they have bad effects on corporations or capitalism, but in fact, the person’s answers to the questions in your OP are all “no?” Is that not something you are interested in knowing? I don’t think Telemark is trying to say that unions are bad, but just that the benefits you are describing are not enticing (and you DID offer up the questions in a format that begs a “yes or no” answer).
For me, probably the only thing I could think of would be the personal growth factor. I have always worked for very small family-owned companies, so the work environment and perks are pretty good, but the opportunity for growth outside of what is available within the four walls of my office is relatively small. I am in a weird position because I have a very esoteric and specific career, which is good because I am relatively unafraid of unemployment (not a lot of people have experience doing what I do, so I’m pretty employable), but bad because it’s SO specific that I’m not sure how I would break out and do something new if I wanted to. I’m not exactly sure how a union could help me with that, because I have found that organizations that are not extremely industry-specific (such as employment agencies) have really no idea what it is I do and how it could translate to other fields.
I dont see why a white collar union couldn’t have more of a professional organization feel for it than traditional unions. I’m not at all tied to the traditional format of a union. That said, wages and job security are important issues for most folks. I think any white collar workers’ org would have to address those issues on behalf of its membership. Otherwise, it’s just a happy smiley work organization, might as well be sponsored by the corporation.
Left out the teachers’ union, which is heavy duty, I understand.
Well, the teachers union is a bit… odd. First off, it’s basically a traditional union, constantly pushing for irritations. Second, they don’t actually seem to do any knd of job keeping the managers in line - they’re as pushy as ever (granted, this was a student’s viewpoint). Finally, they’re particularly obnoxious about pushing for undeserved pay for undeserving members, treating everyone identically, and protecting teachers who have no business in a classroom. They’ve blown any public sympathy people had for their cause, and basically represent the absolute nadir of a “professional” organization.
No. Not in THIS thread. Read the OP.
Me neither, but it’s interesting that several people have cited help with career goals as a good incentive.
No. Not in THIS thread. Read the OP.
Me neither, but it’s interesting that several people have cited help with career goals as a good incentive.
I read the OP and specifically referenced what it said in my question, which you did not address. Thank you for your willingness to dialogue.
Shouldn’t organisations like the AMA be considered unions?
Well, at my former employer, I would welcome a union. There are a lot of gripes a lot of my fellow co-workers have to deal with. If the Union could fix the following things, I’d be enthusiastic:
-Right now they force us to find someone to substitute for us if we can’t come in. We already take a day w/o pay (part-time job, no vacation/sick time) and yet in personal emergencies they seriously ask us if we can take care of this. I’ve heard employees getting threatened of a write-up/firing because they couldn’t find someone to cover them while they went to a funeral :smack: They need a better system, and don’t adopt any suggestions we make, so it would be nice if we were represented with an organization with some leverage.
-They are very picky about who they hire, yet the job has so many downsides they have a hard time keeping people for more than 8 months. Myself and another coworker were only there for two years out of sheer misfortune (couldn’t find a better job) but nobody else came close to being there as long as us. A seniority system there would be good also; many times employees have to deal with the whims of managers far less experienced with the companies (the manager, ironically, have an even higher turnover than we do- in two years I’ve been through six pairs of managers that were hired/quit).
-They are chronically understaffed. If there was a strike/walkout and only a fraction of the employees participated, it would paralyze them. Scabs? They’re too damn picky/it takes too long to train people quickly. When a center has one person quit, the manager queries all the other centers seeing if anyone is willing to transfer/substitute until they can train up a replacement.
With the way things are there, I certainly can’t see a union making it any worse. They say the downsides of a union is it takes away merit-based rewards, but in my case thats pointless since our merit-based raises are entirely subjective (you can be up for a maximum raise, have the manager quit, and the new manager not like your style and deny your raise). Right now there’s also no negotiation whatsoever- you either get a raise or you don’t, but you can’t talk your way into getting more money. No wonder they have a hard time keeping people. :rolleyes:
If they were to offer something that a skilled and experienced worker deserves but can’t get by keeping current on the industry and being willing to jump ship if something better comes along, maybe I’d look at it.
If they could get me the $140/share that my stocks were worth under the IPO blackout, that would have been nice. If a union had any power over the SEC and/or Wall Street, that’d be worth more to me than badgering managers.
Let’s just say we agree to disagree. I wasn’t attempting to threadshit, I merely was pointing out that the potential reasons for joining a White Collar union that you suggested in your OP weren’t very compelling to me and gave my opinion that they wouldn’t be very compelling to my co-workers. I then suggested two areas where I felt that having collective bargaining power would be attractive to me, but I’m still of the opinion that the tradiional union structure wouldn’t be the ideal way to address those issues.
If all you want is people to agree with you, then say so. I’m open to the concept of unions and they have great use in many situations, but in the high tech world (granted, a subset of white collar) I gave my opinion of why they wouldn’t be a big draw. I hoped that this would be constructive criticism, pointing out the issues that you’d have to address in order to organize the high tech world. In short, there are too many jobs and employers available for highly trained and educated employees to choose from. We have it good, and most folks don’t need collective bargaining to achieve excellent results.
If I thought a union (or a professional organization) would help me achieve more regular working hours and more vacation time without liimiting the success of my company I’d be interested. Since I’ve always had stock options and incentives the success of the company is very important to me as well as my personal working situation.
If you think that’s trolling, so be it.
It’s worth noting that in government at least, traditionally union shops, there are occasionally white collar unions. Sort of.
I work for a large multi-county municipal water utility and we confusingly and chaotically have no less that four locals in three unions. The only people exempt are upper management and a tiny handful of confidential employees.
The big union is, unsurprisingly, AFSCME, with two locals:
1.) A “white collar local” that covers the engineers, computer programmers/IT, lab technicians/biologists, watershed ranger-naturalists, surveyors, hydrologists, secretarial pool/administrative staff, etc.
2.) A “blue collar local” that covers watewater/reclamation plant operators, mechanics, electricians, instrument techs, heavy equipment operators, truck drivers, meter readers, janitors, etc.
Then there are the 35-odd water plant operators, who decertified from the “blue collar” local above during a strike in the 1980’s, then recertified with a different union a decade+ later due to perceived vulnerability and management abuse. They are by state law legally barred from striking.
Then, quite bizarrely, there is the youngest local that formed less than ten years ago, covering a substantial ( but not all, it was initially opt-in ) portion of lower and middle management. Quite the contradiction, eh? It gives you an idea of management relations at my job. Dysfunctional? Oh my, yes.
At any rate it is interesting to note that in this most recent contract dispute ( recently settled ) it was the “white collar local” that was by far the most militant - they voted strike authorization to their negotiating team almost immediately. They argued the loudest, organized the most demonstartions, used the strongest anti-management rhetoric and did indeed threaten and were planning a walk-out until upper management caved ( well, compromised ).
The “blue collar local”, by contrast, traditionally much more militant, were rather less so this time. Something I attribute to the immense seniority of much of the skilled trades folk in particular. Mostly in their 40’s - 60’s and nearing retirement, they were a bit more complacent and comfortable than in days past.
All of which is to say that at MY job, yes, from my standpoint the “white collar union” is attractive, simply due to pre-existing tensions and the history surrounding the place. For all of its ( many, MANY ) flaws it forms an important protective/collective bargaining function. A worker-friendly Silicon Valley firm, this is not.
I can see that some of the groups in my company (financial services) would want a union, mainly among the processors and customer service folks. Every now and then, someone gets fired for pretty piddly reasons, usually indicating that the termination is a payback for something done in the past that someone held a grudge over. I am sure a lot of folks would see the value of having a shop steward or something to defend that person. Job security is an issue in some of those departments.
But membership would have to be voluntary. I would hate to lose good people because they choose not to join a union and have to leave. We have folks who absolutely wouldn’t join a union and that includes me when I was an entry level guy a few years ago. Although many folks would probably sign up.
The union has to be flexible. My wife’s former firm (telecom) lost a small team to another firm that had a union. A number of folks came back. While they got a couple extra dollars every check, they also lost flextime as part of the negotiations. Five minutes late and you were written up. They also couldn’t float to other groups where there was need. A lot of folks would offer to help in other areas if for no other reason to get more varied experience. But the work rules didn’t permit that. So the ones who like a structured environment where you did the same thing every day were quite happy. Others couldn’t deal with it.
There has to be some merit pay aspect. Even in the rank and file of the company there is a large profit sharing component to your compensation. And I can guarantee that year-end bonuses are not uniform. People who make above average bonuses would chafe a bit at having to share the wealth with those that they feel don’t deserve it.
So what I am probably describing is more along the lines of a guild or something like that. But in the businesses that the wife and I work in, where people have some flexibility, where people have career paths other than working at a machine for 20 years, it would be a very tough sell. Most of the people that started with me in the entry level job have either washed out, moved on or moved up. Not a lot of lifers sitting in the same job for the same pay.
Did you know that the COBRA program assures you basically the same rate that the company paid on your health insurance premiums? The insurance company may impose up to a 2% administrative fee on the premium, but other than that, you are paying exactly what the company was paying on you when you were employed by them. Try getting that rate coming off the street…it would be 1.5-2.5x more expensive. Many of my employees (and ex-employees) have priced it and relayed that back to me over the years.
Yeah, I should have caught that about COBRA. COBRA just lets you keep your exact old insurance, but now you’re paying 100% of what your employer used to pay. If it’s a crushing burden, then your employer was paying that crushing burden for you. Of course, the trouble with COBRA no matter what it costs is that now you don’t have a job anymore. Health insurance through a union or professional organization would have the same flaw.