Journalism?

I wonder....

Does anyone here have any ideas of how unions could actually return to being a force of positive outcomes for workers?

It seems all too easy to take potshots at them, complain of inefficiencies and corruption, and just assume they can't ever be improved.

There was a time in history when the union steward's job was to make sure the work being performed met the criteria and quality of the union standards. That is why the union label meant something. It meant that the work had been performed by people who had been taught how to do it the right way, and that it had been checked to ensure that it had been done the right way. The end product was worth the extra price because of that attention to detail and quality. But all of that ended when the unions became interested in political power.

We could easily return to the days when even professionals served apprenticeships. An engineer who takes on an apprentice pays as much, or more, attention to his protege than the professor in a university setting does. Everything that apprentice does reflects on the person who they served their apprenticeship under. You don't need to go to college for 4 years to become an engineer, a lawyer or even a family physician - and you could likely emerge as a better one if you learned your profession as an apprentice. The reason that college has become so expensive is that we have passed a bunch of laws that mandate your attendance to enter into certain professions. If you could still become a doctor by serving an apprenticeship and passing the examinations, we would still be allowing a way for those who come from less privileged backgrounds to climb out of their humble beginnings through hard work and dedication without burdening the taxpayers with the cost of their education or burying them under an all but insurmountable mountain of debt.

But this is the type of educational reform that is a non-starter for the unionized government education collective. It would mean less students for them to teach, which would result in college becoming less expensive, which means their pay wouldn't be as high, which means that they couldn't expect to retire with a defined benefit pension plan that paid them 80% of their 3 highest years of pay for roughly the same amount of years after retiring that they ended up actually working to teach students.

Sorry about that - I don't know what came over me.

Well said Printsmith! I also think that lazy HR depts. That don't have a clue of what skills are needed for the jobs they are hiring contribute to a large degree.

Aspenvally- I think like the companies the unions have gotten too big to adequately represent the rank and file. Just like we should discourage too big to fail in business we should do the same in unions.

chickaree wrote: No doubt unions have abused their power, but do a little reading about how it was pre-union, or check the working conditions in the factories overseas where our "cheap" products are made. Is it your ambition to have your kid work under these conditions? It is de riguer lately for all righties to hate and denigrate the workers and their unions, but it is naive to believe that manufacturers would continue safe working conditions without unions to apply pressure.

I'm very much aware of how it was pre-union. Basically it comes down to poor management, meaning managers who do not look out for or care for their employees. Responsible organizations do not need union to keep them safe. That is a myth. Good organizations respond to employee concerns. Besides, there are plenty of government watch dogs who play that role, so no need for a union. During my years at Shell, the unions tried to come into the company. They were voted out. Why? Because Shell is an outstanding organization with responsive management.

And let's get another thing straight. Cheep does not have to imply shoddy products. That decision is made by the company, not the just the quality of the work force. Again companies that want to produce inexpensive but quality products will do just that.

And finally, the whole idea of what represents safe work conditions is subjective to a degree. Would I want my kid working in an unsafe setting? Of course not. Working where one does is a choice. No one is making you take a job with an unsafe organization. Everything in life involves choice. If you elect not to gain viable skills or look for other opportunities, it too is a choice.

AspenValley wrote: I wonder....

Does anyone here have any ideas of how unions could actually return to being a force of positive outcomes for workers?

It seems all too easy to take potshots at them, complain of inefficiencies and corruption, and just assume they can't ever be improved.

I touched on it AV. The union could once again become a positive force by returning to being more concerned about the quality of their work than they are about their defined benefit pension and medical plans. They could return to what they started out being, a way to pass along the heritage and pride of the skill they had spent a lifetime perfecting. The unions once sought perfection of craft, not protection of employment. Union workers were hired because they were the best of the best in what they did, not because the government contract required union labor. Unions used to run out, rather than protect, the lazy and disinterested among their number. You didn't achieve the master label simply because you had spent X years in the trade - it was something your work said you deserved, and that work was judged acceptable only by other masters. If they said your work didn't qualify you as a master, no amount of years in the craft would overturn that judgement.

When you hired union workers, you knew that you were getting the value you were paying for in those days. You didn't have to worry about that master plumber installing the shutoff valve upside down. You didn't have to worry that that master mason had used the wrong mortar, or that he had mixed it too thick or too thin. You didn't have to concern yourself that the course of bricks would undulate down the side of the building. You didn't have to worry about the chimney leaking gasses back into the dwelling. You knew that the work he was doing for you was as good as, or better, than he would do for himself.

If the unions want to reclaim their honor, they must return to practicing their crafts in the manner in which they first earned their reputation as being the best of the best and worth every penny that they were paid rather than someone who decided to join the group so that they could get paid more and have better benefits. That goes for blue collar trades as much as it does teachers. They need to weed out, rather than protect, the people who sully their name.

AspenValley wrote: I wonder....

Does anyone here have any ideas of how unions could actually return to being a force of positive outcomes for workers?

It seems all too easy to take potshots at them, complain of inefficiencies and corruption, and just assume they can't ever be improved.

Yes, Simple really.
They could work with the Companies, and compromise, instead of work against the workers and stealing their dues, to support they're leftist friends, and they're agendas.