USPS paying people $25/hour to do nothing, unions, etc

[potentialeight]

Unless you're the one paying the $25 an hour, I don't understand your position.

My position is that I want to know how more about how unions work and what all of the effects are, not just the positive ones or negative ones. More specifically, I'd like to know what conditions created a situation where a large number of employees in a very large business are being paid $25/hour to do nothing. I agree with a good portion of what you're saying, but I think you're largely missing the point of me creating this thread.

 

[papajohn56]

Companies don't have a union; the workers do. Unions have nothing to do with bailouts idiot. Maybe it's different in America but in Australia, you join a union so that the company cannot fuck you and if they try, you and everyone else has a voice - attempts to stop the company just walking over the workforce.

General Motors is owned up to 25% by the UAW union. They profited off of a bailout.

 

[poisonsembrace]

You need to look at the bigger picture and not some article which is being used to upset ignorant people into thinking unions are a bad thing. 4.3 million dollars isn't a lot of money compared to other issues going on. Unions empower workers and big companies hate that. Something tells me most Americans would love to see their fellow man working in shitty Chinese conditions though.. as long as they can one up the other person, who gives a fuck if the country has gone to shit, right?

 

[Otinsdale]

Does America really need junk mail hitting our mailboxes 5 days a week?

No.

USPS debt solved.

It stinks for the individual carrier, but 5 day delivery is completely unnecessary in todays world of email and fedex.

But if the structure is reorganized then the unions won't be able to charge as high dues to sit around and do absolutely nothing.

thus the unions fight regardless of what it does to the company. the fact is, most companies aren't big enough to support what the union demands on behalf of the workers.

these are just my opinions, I know many have the opposite viewpoint of unions but I have seen unions almost destroy companies trying to get more money for the top union members and instead almost put 25k+ "brothers" out of work.

Not all are bad though...I guess.

 

[potentialeight]

General Motors is owned up to 25% by the UAW union. They profited off of a bailout.

I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

You need to look at the bigger picture and not some article which is being used to upset ignorant people into thinking unions are a bad thing. 4.3 million dollars isn't a lot of money compared to other issues going on. Unions empower workers and big companies hate that. Something tells me most Americans would love to see their fellow man working in shitty Chinese conditions though.. as long as they can one up the other person, who gives a fuck if the country has gone to shit, right?

We agree on a lot, though this isn't what I was asking about.

Unions are useless now. They served a purpose at one time, but there are countless state and federal labor laws that protect workers from exploitation now. All they do now is add to the cost of goods and services and inhibit competition. They also protect the worst workers that should be fired which then pisses off the good workers who are forced to be "equal" with the shitty workers due to seniority rules.

There are some situations where I think unions still make sense here, but what you've said here seems reasonable enough.


My Question:

How can a business owner keep a situation like this from happening where they are somehow forced into paying people for doing nothing?

 

[greenleaves]

It wasnt just the banks that fucked up the mortgage system. It was the people buying up shit they couldn't afford and small time real estate speculators. We should stop bailing out period.

Another example of tax payers and a failing company with union problems. (U.S. loses $1.3 billion in exiting Chrysler)
Taxpayers lose $1.3 billion as govt. exits Chrysler - Jul. 21, 2011

I concede that everyone is to blame for the recession.

But in the end, if you want to find a parasite on society, look at banks, financial institutions and Washington. They account for something like 30% of GDP.

They contribute nothing to the economy. They are inefficient at what they do (which is to ensure liquidity gets to those who will use it). And they have seen zero change.

They are part of the elites. They suck most of the best of society while contributing virtually nothing (look up what the federal reserve is all about). Then when the ignorant get angry because the elites leave too little on the table, they blame 'entitlements' of the 'greedy' people who live on a few grand a month.

'Creative Financial Vehicles', off shoring of jobs, turning a blind eye to illegal immigration (allowing that to erode the bases of the lower classes, which are the basis of consumer spending since they spend all they got), deregulation of banks (glass steagall act) and other shit perpetraded by the richest 0.1% of america accounts for 99% of the problem. I'm not saying the ordinary citizen was not being conveniently ignorant, so they are to blame to some degree.

But you basically implied that unions had a good bit to do with the recession. This is called falling for a red hearing. Sorry if you can't see how you are being tricked.

 

[greenleaves]

You need to look at the bigger picture and not some article which is being used to upset ignorant people into thinking unions are a bad thing. 4.3 million dollars isn't a lot of money compared to other issues going on. Unions empower workers and big companies hate that. Something tells me most Americans would love to see their fellow man working in shitty Chinese conditions though.. as long as they can one up the other person, who gives a fuck if the country has gone to shit, right?

QFT --

 

[poisonsembrace]

I agree that unions are not always right but I'd rather keep them than get rid of them.

In Australia, a lot of the rules and regulations don't apply to small business (less than 100 employees) because it doesn't make sense to do so. Small business doesn't have to pay their employees paid maternity leave etc because it just isn't possible while it is possible with large business. This allows small business to grow while at the same time providing benefits for employees who work for much larger companies.

Another example is we have the ability to hire people on different awards. I can hire a casual (higher wages but no entitlements such as sick leave, holidays etc and I can sack them at any time for any reason) or someone on a part/full time basis (sick leave, 4 weeks paid holidays, bereavement leave, superannuation (like social security) etc but lower wage).

 

[LotsOfZeros]

Nobody sends telegrams anymore. You going to cry about those workers too?

 

[johnmatrix]

^^^ This

Workers in unions think they have the 'right' to sit on their lazy fat asses living off of my hard earned money.

I disagree.

I don't think you understand... how exactly are workers in unions living off your hard earned money?

Unions simply allow the employees to negotitate with the employer on a larger scale and with more power than is possible as an individual. Unions get employees raises, benefits etc from the company. Sure it might reduce the companies profits by having to pay their workers more, but how the fuck is that anything to do with your 'hard earned money'?

All they do now is add to the cost of goods and services and inhibit competition.

The cost of your goods and services is unbelievably low, take a look around you and compare just how cheap everything in the US is. No wonder people have to work 3 jobs to survive and put food on the table.

My dad is a firefighter and his union negotiates raises and improved benefits for all firefighters. That's something you sorely need in the US, all your surviving 9\11 firefighters are starting to die of cancer from all the shit they inhaled saving lives, and they have absolutely zero fucking support.

 

[Hammi]

Unions are fine. Nothing wrong with letting employees organize.

Groups of employees being granted special privelage, and using violence to achieve their ends however is not OK. Individuals within unions who encourage the use of violence, and the offenders who actually use violence should be charged under rico like any other organized crime group.

The real problem isn't Unions, its this idea that companies or any other group deserve bailouts for any reason. If you fuckup in the market and you can't recover on your own you deserve to fail. If the government bails these companies out, the economy is fucked. That is what happened to the US economy.

I don't have a problem with people using collective bargaining to get contracts. I do have a major problem with them using legislative pull to enact legislation that protects or bails out the companies they have forced into bad contracts. If a union forces a company into bankruptcy then let it go bankrupt, and let the union workers suffer the consequences. (GM)

If a company decides to move to a less unionized state to build its new manufacturing plant, then let it. Don't use contacts in the washington bureaucracy to start harassing the company, costing it billions, and possibly driving it to build in a different country.. (boeing)

I could keep going with examples, but I think it is easy to recognize that the backroom deals between government and unions are easily as disgusing as the backroom deals between companies and the govt. These guys need to stop fucking over the rest of the country.

 

[Hammi]

Heres a beautiful little example of a bill that reeks of union input. But I think its important to remember that its the broken government we have that enables this, not the fact that workers want to organize.

Restrict government, not superstores

 

[guerilla]

Unions are anti-competitive and damage the employment opportunities of lower priced labor, specifically the very young, the very old, minorities etc.

The purpose of a union is to create wage rates that are above the market rate of labor. In other words, to suppress economic law. The result of a successful union, is less jobs, and more unemployment.

Also, minimum wage laws are a price floor, and a basic understanding of supply and demand curves will tell you what effect price floors have on an economy. More unemployment ...

No country has good economics, although some are better than others. Neither Australia's socialist policies (or America's) are anything for anyone to feel good about.

Excellent read on the history of labor unions in America.

A History of Labor Unions from Colonial Times to 2009 - Morgan Reynolds

 

[Da Capo]

Unless you're the one paying the $25 an hour, I don't understand your position. Why do you care if someone is being paid that much? Unions in Australia (and America) brought about better, safer working conditions, increase wages which then promotes a higher standard of living. The more money people have, the more they can spend so it promotes a strong economy.

These massive companies would love to have American's and Australian's working in the same shit conditions as they do in China. They work in unsafe conditions for long hours for shit money at a massive cost to their health. You know why this shit happens there? Because they can't form a union so it's each individual against the company and you cannot bargain for a better workplace in that scenario.

Anti-union talk is just bullshit propaganda being spread by the big companies because they would love to have American's and Australian's working in the exact same shit conditions for shit money as they do in other places across the globe.

People need to stand strong next to their fellow worker and not the company who will fuck you whenever possible. Unions are still massive in Australia but not so much American which is a real shame. Your country is being raped by these companies, not by the guy being paid $25 an hour.

+rep

 

[guerilla]

Unless you're the one paying the $25 an hour, I don't understand your position.

Postal service is a tax subsidized government monopoly.

The more money people have, the more they can spend so it promotes a strong economy.

This is a fallacy. The strength of an economy is based on production, not consumption.

Paying people more money for less work isn't productive. It is

These massive companies would love to have American's and Australian's working in the same shit conditions as they do in China. They work in unsafe conditions for long hours for shit money at a massive cost to their health. You know why this shit happens there? Because they can't form a union so it's each individual against the company and you cannot bargain for a better workplace in that scenario.

Millions of workers work in nice places and didn't have to form unions to have those nice work places. Most of us work from home in our underwear, doing whatever we want, whenever we want.

I think you're fantasizing about a past that never quite was.

Anti-union talk is just bullshit propaganda being spread by the big companies because they would love to have American's and Australian's working in the exact same shit conditions for shit money as they do in other places across the globe.

Actually, anti-union talk is rooted in economic science. Unions have no scientific basis for any of their claims, and can be shown to be destructive to an economy in large numbers.

People need to stand strong next to their fellow worker and not the company who will fuck you whenever possible.

Hey comrade, we're capitalists here. At least, those of us who make a good living being productive are.

Lemme guess, you have never had an employee?

 

[poisonsembrace]

LOL Australia is socialist? Fucking American's and their communist rhetoric. The proof is in the pudding.. America is up shit creek. America; where everyone is a banker and earns millions of dollars.

 

[johnmatrix]

The real problem isn't Unions, its this idea that companies or any other group deserve bailouts for any reason. If you fuckup in the market and you can't recover on your own you deserve to fail. If the government bails these companies out, the economy is fucked. That is what happened to the US economy.

But then you'll be crying about Obama losing jobs. If those companies go bankrupt then all those American jobs are lost for good. I don't agree with bailing out the banks, but bailing out your car manufacturers was a decent decision.

Example...

MG, an all British car company that designed and built cars in England since the 1920's went bankrupt a few years ago, the company was then bought up by a Chinese car company, moved all the tooling to China and now produces them there to sell back to the UK market. You're happy to let that happen?

 

[guerilla]

LOL Australia is socialist? Fucking American's and their communist rhetoric. The proof is in the pudding.. America is up shit creek.

Of course Australia is socialist. All governments are socialist.

 

[jbubs1975]

My Question:

How can a business owner keep a situation like this from happening where they are somehow forced into paying people for doing nothing?

Companies that have unions deserve to have unions. - Meaning the company tried fucking the employees over somehow, so they got together and formed a union. The best way for a business owner to keep a situation like this from happening - treat your employees fairly and show some respect. My day job is in a union factory and they rarely send anyone home if they run out of supplies or a machine breaks down. They find something else for them to do, there's always shit that could be cleaned or needs a fresh coat of paint. It wouldn't be against the labor agreement, they just don't do it too often.

Yuckystuff- I'm sure the managers would love to give raises to those blowing them in the broom closet or just kissing their ass too but the union won't let them. And at least where I work, if a union employee can't handle the job, or if they aren't producing enough they get demoted. Also, there are ways to reward good employees, there are certain union positions that the company creates where seniority has no bearing and candidates have to apply and interview for them.

 

[guerilla]

MG, an all British car company that designed and built cars in England since the 1920's went bankrupt a few years ago, the company was then bought up by a Chinese car company, moved all the tooling to China and now produces them there to sell back to the UK market. You're happy to let that happen?

Why not? Why do you oppose free trade?

The Chinese took something the British couldn't do efficiently, and managed to do it efficiently. The people buying the cars are better off for having them than not having them.

The argument you and others are making is that we need more expensive goods (hence less of them) in order to have a healthier economy.

But in reality, we need cheaper goods, so more people can afford them, and they can have as much as they need.

500 years ago, poor people literally lived in and slept on dirt. In modern Western civilization, we call people poor when they don't own their own home and car.

The poor have come a long way thanks to cheaper goods and more material abundance. Don't hate the poor bro.