British Airways have to cancel flights - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-13-2005, 06:06 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


lol, no I realised you call unions labour groups, but you wrote



and I couldn't figure out what "losudy clout" was supposed to mean - was it "losing their clout" or something else?
sorry....again...spelling.

Labor (labour) groups losing clout.

I am one of those who doesn't read before posting...leaving a lot of errors (spelling/typing)

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
What's your point? That a CEO is more powerful than workers - of course s/he is! That's exactly I believe in having unions to represent workers in order to lead to a slightly more reasonable balance of power between CEOs and workers.
But what I demonstrated with US Airways is that the balance of power isn't there. Look at Bethlehem Steel. Those unions fought themselves right out of a job and a company. There are towns all over the east coast here were former steelworkers are siting around still hoping their union will get back their jobs. The steel mills will never reopen - steel is being produced at lower costs in other countries.

Eastern Airlines mechanics walked of the job...and the company ended up closing. (Sorry for the airline examples...but it started out as an airline thread..and I am an airline guy).

With the two examples above...the power of the union only shut down the company. Perfectly good steelworkers and airline mechanics, pilots, ground workers, etc. have had to change careers (not all, but usually specific industries cannot suck up all of the jobs lost). Skilled CEOs will find equally as high paying CEO jobs.

The balance of power is only there if the two parties work together to make the company profitable/succesful.

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
And with respect, you can cite examples of union members who behave inappropriately but that isn't an argument against unions in general. I could cite you twenty examples of people I know who have been badly treated at work, whether through discrimination, being made to work in dangerous conditions or being expected to work unreasonable hours. However, I wouldn't bother doing that since it's no more than anecdotal evidence, just like your story about a union leader is.
and for every example you have, I am sure I can cite similar story to the one I cited.

I just think if there is discrimination...there should be a "no tolerance" policy. And OSHA (in the states) should fine a company (corrective action) if there are truly dangerous conditions!
__________________

__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 08-14-2005, 02:36 AM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by zonelistener
The balance of power is only there if the two parties work together to make the company profitable/succesful.
We agree that it's in both the company and the union's interest for a company to be successful. However I don't believe unions should be seen as "business partners" there to help increase profitability at all costs - their primary task is to procted their members and they should do so wherever possible. Companies often try to increase productivity through changes in working practices which are bad for their workers. Unions shouldn't support those changes - their job is not primarily to increase company profits but to protect the workers who are members of the union.

Quote:
and for every example you have, I am sure I can cite similar story to the one I cited.
That's my point - you could probably cite twenty examples of unions behaving inappropriately, I could probably cite twenty examples of employers treating employees badly. Which is why that discussion would probably be pretty pointless.

Quote:
I just think if there is discrimination...there should be a "no tolerance" policy. And OSHA (in the states) should fine a company (corrective action) if there are truly dangerous conditions!
I agree -- those things should happen. However in the real world that isn't always the case and so unions have an important role in ensuring that legislation on discrimination or working practices is properly enforced.

And, Zoney, I'm sorry about the whole spelling thing -- I honestly wasn't trying to argue about spelling, I just genuinely didn't understand that typo. Sorry about that.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-14-2005, 10:00 AM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
And, Zoney, I'm sorry about the whole spelling thing -- I honestly wasn't trying to argue about spelling, I just genuinely didn't understand that typo. Sorry about that.
No problems at all!

I think we aren't seeing eye-to-eye on this situation. I think we either need to get the National Mediation Board in to help our situation, or we need to go to a 30-day cooling off period.




...but those just might be the regulations under the National (US) Railway Act.
__________________

__________________
zonelistener is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com