Why Unions must be broken

[Chili]

And how come the Penguins, one of the supposedly most financially dire teams in the league can go spending crazy with an impending lockout?

Huh? They signed one significant free agent who has been a very productive player and who is taking a huge pay cut in the deal. And also important was his link to the team's Cup years & veteran presence on a young team.

How is that 'spending crazy'?

 

[gretzky1545]

Nope. You don't want to learn from history. It's not as if it has it's own fun little way of repeating itself.

You cannot use history a reason to keep unions. Union's remedied many problems, and many of those problems are now solved by things outside of the existence of unions, so simply b/c the problems needed unions to be solved originally does not mean that they currently need the union in order to prevent the problem from ocurring again. The detrimental aspects of unions may now outweigh their benefit, thats all you can go off of, so leave the idiotic cliches at the door.

 

[Robert Paulson*]

And how come the Penguins, one of the supposedly most financially dire teams in the league can go spending crazy with an impending lockout?

Maybe you haven't heard, but the Penguins are not one of the "most financially dire teams in the league." They've announced months ago that they can survive a full year of lockout. They aren't as poor as you think.

 

[SmokeyClause]

Some good points, but the thing is, if they disappeared you can be dead certain that many of the things workers have fought for over the last 100 years would probably disappear quite fast.

Not necessarily. This modern era of business is quite different from past years. Sure, if there were no unions, some management teams would resort to archaic methods. But all it takes are a few that don't to keep the bad ones honest. In a free market system, if you don't like who you work for, work for someone else. It sounds simple and, while it has certain levels of friction built in, it remains simple. If Company A drops all employee benefit packages/programs and lowers wages, then Company B could easily make themselves a viable company by feasting on the desirable employees of Company A and offering them higher wages plus benefits. Company A would either be forced to produce an inferior product at a lower cost with their depleted and hapless staff, or they would be put out of business. The idea of treating your employees as your most valuable asset isn't new, but it only reached the mass-adoption stage a decade or two ago. While I'm sure Unions had their say in it's development, their time, as a power, has long sinced passed. You can see it in Union membership numbers and you can see it in CBA battles throughout industries. The Union is dying because it's members don't deem it as necessary as it once did. This reliance on Unions has faded significantly in the past few years and there is no reason to think it will not continue.

 

[SmokeyClause]

Nope. You don't want to learn from history. It's not as if it has it's own fun little way of repeating itself.

The lesson you learn from history is to treat your employees fairly. Employees should learn this lesson, if you don't feel you are being treated in appropriate fashion, there is always a company out there who will treat you that way.

History tells us NOT to form Unions. It tells us to avoid Unions and others of that ilk and just be an honest management team.

 

[SmokeyClause]

Secondly, I'm sick of seeing so many Americans agree that workers are no longer entitled to pensions, benefits, decent pay, etc.
Just drive off in your imported car and throw your garbage at the newly unemployed standing on the sides of the roads.

Workers are entitled to nothing more than they are worth. If that means a pension, benefits, decent pay, then they will get it in a free market system sans Unions. If they don't have a job that provides that, and they think they deserve it, then go find one that does because they are out there.

And don't knock import cars. It's not their fault that 20+ years ago they looked at a U.S. automobile industry that thought it's presence in the American garage was a birthright instead of a priviledge. They stepped in with superior cars and stole a significant portion of that marketplace. You want to ***** and moan about someone blame the middle to upper management of Chrysler, Ford, GM in past decades. They put American Autos in this mess. Now, they are climbing out of that whole slowly but surely, but a man who buys imports isn't necessarily evil or bad. He could be a man who wanted quality and reliability at a reasonable price. It's not always easy to find that in America.

And quite the crap about throwing trash at the unemployed. So someone who is anti-Union must immediately be a self-serving ******* who thumbs there nose at everyone else while buying import cars (who were likely produced in American factories). Rrrrrright.

 

[rwilson99]

Maybe you haven't heard, but the Penguins are not one of the "most financially dire teams in the league." They've announced months ago that they can survive a full year of lockout. They aren't as poor as you think.

Probably because they fielded an AHL team last year.

 

[djhn579]

For a time, a big part of my job was visiting steel mills throughout the US and Canada. I saw a lot of interesting things during those years.

One thing is that some union workers work 12 hour shifts 3 days a week, then get 3 days off. That's pretty good, right? But those 12 hour shifts are one hour on, one hour off. They actually only work 18 hours every 6 days and get paid >$25/hr for 36!

Another thing I saw is a video tape of steel workers deliberately doing something that resulted in $500K to $1M of damage to the company. You would think an employee doing something like that would get fired, right? No! The union had a clause that the cameras can only be put in to monitor quality, not to be used against somebody doing something wrong, no matter how deliberate!

Then I got to hear stories too. I heard how many steel jobs could have been saved if the unions agreed to salary cuts. But the people in the union making those decisions refused because they already had their retirement benefits and didn't care if the younger workers lost their jobs or not.

Unions played a large roll in bringing up workers salaries and improving working conditions for everyone, not just their members, and we will be forever grateful to them. But, these days, the only thing you hear from unions is maintaining benefits when companies are losing money. This is especially true in gov't unions. They don't care if the local gov't is losing money and they make more than most people in the community, they won't give up anything. Unions may have out lived their usefullness...

 

[SmokeyClause]

For a time, a big part of my job was visiting steel mills throughout the US and Canada. I saw a lot of interesting things during those years.

One thing is that some union workers work 12 hour shifts 3 days a week, then get 3 days off. That's pretty good, right? But those 12 hour shifts are one hour on, one hour off. They actually only work 18 hours every 6 days and get paid >$25/hr for 36!

Another thing I saw is a video tape of steel workers deliberately doing something that resulted in $500K to $1M of damage to the company. You would think an employee doing something like that would get fired, right? No! The union had a clause that the cameras can only be put in to monitor quality, not to be used against somebody doing something wrong, no matter how deliberate!

Then I got to hear stories too. I heard how many steel jobs could have been saved if the unions agreed to salary cuts. But the people in the union making those decisions refused because they already had their retirement benefits and didn't care if the younger workers lost their jobs or not.

Unions played a large roll in bringing up workers salaries and improving working conditions for everyone, not just their members, and we will be forever grateful to them. But, these days, the only thing you hear from unions is maintaining benefits when companies are losing money. This is especially true in gov't unions. They don't care if the local gov't is losing money and they make more than most people in the community, they won't give up anything. Unions may have out lived their usefullness...

As someone who has dealt with Unions as well, I can echo many of the horror stories. They aren't just confined to steel mills.

 

[Robert Paulson*]

Probably because they fielded an AHL team last year.

I won't even get started.

 

[me2]

good seats to a Habs games 2000 - 75 bucks
good seats to a Habs games 2004 - 123 bucks

payroll of the Habs in 2000 = 44M$
payroll of the Habs in 2004 = 45M$

It's easy to blame the payroll & the players to the ticket price but I don't believe for 1 second that ticket price will lower in Montreal even with a 5M$ cap.

You will only get the owners richer & the fan will still be output to business man.

Weren't the Habs in financial trouble around 2000 (sold)? There was talking of the team moving (remote though it was), they were losing money, only one buyer when Molson sold them to American George Gillett. The fact they had to put up the prices by 66% to cover the same level of payroll suggests the financial pressure they were under.

A 2004 $45m payroll is lower than a 2000 $44m payroll based on player inflation inflation. The fans are forking out 66% more money, and getting less.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

unions should be illegal. its collusion in reverse.

 

[Gary]

The thing is, give the owners too much leeway and we'll be back to having players earning less than a McDonalds clerk.

I respectfully disagree. The NHL wants to be the #1 league in the world and to be that...they need to pay more $$ then anyother league in the world. If you can make $1 million playing in Europe-then you can bet the bank the average NHL wage will be higher then that IMO.

 

[kurt]

A western world without unions

Jeez! I've been trying and trying to approach this thread with my comments, but I keep getting too long winded... here's the quick-and-dirty version of my ten cents.

One thing is very true, and it goes back to the "collusion in reverse" statement. The key problem is the 'artificial' power they posess, the fact that they're propped up by legislation. Unskilled workers' unions in particular are problematic, and have caused real economic problems in many communities. Look at Flint. Michael Moore loves to blame the car manufacturers for the problems there, but IMO, the unions priced their labour out of the market, and did their part to force the mass exodus.

Simply speaking, unions are unnecessary. Legislation protects today's worker. And those who make critical contributions to the success of their employers have negotiating power. Those who don't, don't. Workers deserve only their market value, and if a worker walks out, by all means, replace them. If you can't, then you better start paying them what they deserve!

Guess where this leads us to! Let's get back to the NHL. Union laws or no union laws, the NHL is the world's elite hockey league. If they wish to remain the elite league, they simply MUST pay elite wages. If not, the players are going to walk. These guys deserve exactly what everyone deserves. Their market rate.

 

[ExplosiveLEAFman]

Probably because they fielded an AHL team last year.

 

[kurt]

AHL Team

It's funny, but it's absolutely true. They did what they needed to do to put some money in the old war chest.

 

[joechip]

unions should be illegal. its collusion in reverse.

I understand your sentiment but actually what would work better is the converse. Collusion should not be 'illegal.' If one side can organize why can't the other? Cartelization (or collusion) is a temporary situation that is remedied by either new technology (demand for a complimentary product) or natural competitive forces. Just like the need for a Union. The most celebrated cartel in the world is OPEC and they really only used 'cartel' powers to gouge their customers during the 1970's, after that, member nations ignored OPEC rules of production quotas and the price of oil dropped like a stone, along with an increase in production by other producers, like the U.S. and USSR/Russia.

The Players want a Free Market, then give them a Free Market, one where the owners have all the weapons available to them the players do. In the current situation, that is simply not the case. It's like having a duel where Bob Goodenow is wielding an AR-15 (with flash hider and bayonet lug) sitting on top of a hill and Bettman is holding a sword trying to charge his position.

That's precisely why there's a lockout.

Ta,

 

[H/H]

Maybe you haven't heard, but the Penguins are not one of the "most financially dire teams in the league." They've announced months ago that they can survive a full year of lockout. They aren't as poor as you think.

Exactly my point and I think the same goes for most teams.

 

[kurt]

collusion

Collusion should not be 'illegal.' If one side can organize why can't the other? Cartelization (or collusion) is a temporary situation that is remedied by either new technology (demand for a complimentary product) or natural competitive forces.

This is also precisely true. The problem is, the time taken for market forces to equalize prices can often be much longer than an individual's lifetime.

For example, a middle-aged OPEC oil baron decides to exercise his power, and artificially hike prices. Sure, this raised price leads to an increase in business opportunity for other nations (Russia, Canada, the list goes on) to begin exploiting their own oil reserves, which were previously too expensive to put to use. Andm as you said, technological development also plays a big part in bringing the market back to normal. In the meantime, this oil baron has earned millions, perhaps billions of dollars, has retired, and no longer cares about the success/failure of the company.

You could also argue that environmental regulations are unnecessary. Free market forces ensure that the environment will not be destroyed, as it would jeopardize businesses' opportunity to gain future revenue. However, again, large industrialists don't care whether or not their company is successful in 200 years.

 

[Kaiped Krusader]

Workers have every right to form unions ... why shouldn't they?

If owners can pool their capital and allocate it in such a way to maximize their profits, then why can't workers do the same? Their labor is their capital. Why shouldn't they be able to band together to keep an eye out for their own welfare? Saying legislation will do that for them is a bit naive. The American way is to watch out for yourself, not expect the government to do it for you, is it not?

If owners get tied into bargaining agreements with ridiculous salaries or rules (such as the camera surveillance one mentioned above) then they have only themselves to blame for agreeing to those terms. It's no different from the current NHL situation where the owners have no one to blame but themselves for allowing player salaries to get way out of whack with respect to league revenue streams. Like any other worker-owner dispute, this will correct itself eventually. Sometimes, it's the owners that have to cave in, other times, it's the workers. The trend in recent years seems to be that the workers have gotten too much of the pie (the NHL dispute, labor concessions with respect to hours and pensions in France and Germany recently, etc,) but that doesn't mean that unions should be banned.

Having said this, I'm no more pro-union than I am pro-management. I basically believe people should have as much freedom to try to get the best they can for themselves, whether they're a white-collar manager or stockholder or a blue-collar worker. Workers should be able to unionize and companies should be able to take their business elsewhere (overseas if necesessary) if its in their interests. Each side needs to weigh the benefits and risks of how they decide to deploy their resources - if either side demands too much and won't budge, they risk losing everything. That's how it works and that's how it should work.

 

[SmokeyClause]

Workers have every right to form unions ... why shouldn't they?

If owners can pool their capital and allocate it in such a way to maximize their profits, then why can't workers do the same? Their labor is their capital. Why shouldn't they be able to band together to keep an eye out for their own welfare? Saying legislation will do that for them is a bit naive. The American way is to watch out for yourself, not expect the government to do it for you, is it not?

You are contradicting yourself. Union's are rarely in the best interests of workers. There are instances both in the past and in the present where they have helped, but they do little to help the average worker. And the American way is to watch out for yourself, not forming inefficient groups who serve only the interests of a few.

 

[djhn579]

You are contradicting yourself. Union's are rarely in the best interests of workers. There are instances both in the past and in the present where they have helped, but they do little to help the average worker. And the American way is to watch out for yourself, not forming inefficient groups who serve only the interests of a few.

Exactly. Unions are more socialist than capitalistic. Promotions are not based on performance, but by seniority. This are more in the interest of people that perform poorly than those that perform exceptionally. To unions, people that work hard are bad, because then everyone might be expected to work hard.

 

[Lobstertainment]

I have no problems with Unions but with a lockout I want to smash some things so who wants to break the players Union?

ok rules

no hurting star players

no hurting fan favorites

that's it, now lets go crack some Cory Cross knee caps.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

unions should be illegal. its collusion in reverse.

WIthout unions, we would never have had a strong middle class.
WIthout a strong middle class, America wouldn't have become the great nation that it is.

I suppose everyone should work for minimum wage.
Oh wait. Minimum wages are bad too.
As are evironmental laws. And health and safety laws. And consumer protection laws.

Let the market run wild.

Move to Indonesia, baby, if that's what you want.

 

[Kaiped Krusader]

You are contradicting yourself. Union's are rarely in the best interests of workers. There are instances both in the past and in the present where they have helped, but they do little to help the average worker. And the American way is to watch out for yourself, not forming inefficient groups who serve only the interests of a few.

I'm not contradicting myself at all. People will naturally do what's in their interests.

If "the average worker" finds the union isn't suiting his needs then he should do something about it. If someone is a high achiever and feels they're being held back by the union, then it might be in their best interests to operate outside the bargaining framework somehow, either by setting up shop as an independent, by finding a more lucrative line of work, or by - gasp - finding a way to work into the management ranks.

Are unions "socialist"? Well, I guess they are, but that's what the socialist cause represents, isn't it - the working class? Do you expect workers to form a group that's going to fight to get a bigger piece of the pie for their employers?