02-16-2006, 10:13 AM
Self-reliance, promotion by merit, etc. etc. etc. are all great things, and would be the the ideal solution in an ideal world.
It's not an ideal world. Take DP's example. "Flipping the bird" is exactly what the company did to its employees, ESPECIALLY when you consider that an agreement was made when these retirees were workers. Who enforces these agreements? The government? Please, they can's run themselves let alone someone else's business. Most of the government legislation; health and safety guidelines, vacation time, worker compensation, etc. that the general public enjoy now were a result of union action. Remember that government is on the side that has the money -- that isn't the worker.
I've worked in both union and non-union shops. I mean shops as in technical, labour-intensive work and not of the pencil-pushing variety. Non-union shops where they treated the workers like peons, poorly lit, unsafe and promotion/pay increases weren't based on merit but but how well you gargled the bosses' beans. If you're a peon running a boring mill, turret lathe, etc. and you do it well, the last thing a boss wants to do is promote you off that job; you're of most use there. Usually the time you get promoted from that is when you threaten to leave, which is in essence a 1-man strike.
I understand the downsides of the union, the slackers, and yes it's a problem; but there are slackers in every profession. Even today; I have a friend/neighbour across the street that works for Toyota in Cambridge. The system of favoritism vs. unionism is just as corrupt, just in a different form. He's not ecstatic to go to work every day (well technically, he's off work hurt, on worker's comp (meaning government (your) money) with severely reduced wages.
I understand the public frustration when they hear threats of union action to what is deemed an "essential service". But (for example, take Chad), don't even police deserve a safe workplace (at lease as safe as possible)? Or when an agreement is made as to wages/pension/benefits that their employer doesn't honour? It's always easy to sat that "it's not fair" or "they get paid too much" when you're not the one actually doing the work.
Sometimes I think people take too much for granted when it comes to civil servants. The general public usually don't realize how much these "essential services" are worth until they're withheld, or scaled back.
It's not an ideal world. Take DP's example. "Flipping the bird" is exactly what the company did to its employees, ESPECIALLY when you consider that an agreement was made when these retirees were workers. Who enforces these agreements? The government? Please, they can's run themselves let alone someone else's business. Most of the government legislation; health and safety guidelines, vacation time, worker compensation, etc. that the general public enjoy now were a result of union action. Remember that government is on the side that has the money -- that isn't the worker.
I've worked in both union and non-union shops. I mean shops as in technical, labour-intensive work and not of the pencil-pushing variety. Non-union shops where they treated the workers like peons, poorly lit, unsafe and promotion/pay increases weren't based on merit but but how well you gargled the bosses' beans. If you're a peon running a boring mill, turret lathe, etc. and you do it well, the last thing a boss wants to do is promote you off that job; you're of most use there. Usually the time you get promoted from that is when you threaten to leave, which is in essence a 1-man strike.
I understand the downsides of the union, the slackers, and yes it's a problem; but there are slackers in every profession. Even today; I have a friend/neighbour across the street that works for Toyota in Cambridge. The system of favoritism vs. unionism is just as corrupt, just in a different form. He's not ecstatic to go to work every day (well technically, he's off work hurt, on worker's comp (meaning government (your) money) with severely reduced wages.
I understand the public frustration when they hear threats of union action to what is deemed an "essential service". But (for example, take Chad), don't even police deserve a safe workplace (at lease as safe as possible)? Or when an agreement is made as to wages/pension/benefits that their employer doesn't honour? It's always easy to sat that "it's not fair" or "they get paid too much" when you're not the one actually doing the work.
Sometimes I think people take too much for granted when it comes to civil servants. The general public usually don't realize how much these "essential services" are worth until they're withheld, or scaled back.