Why Unions must be broken

Take the airline business models...what companies have filed for Chapter 11 in the US?

http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1087052004

http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040916/BUSINESS/209160328/-1/business

Compare these two with the success Southwest(non-union controlled) has had in its existence and you'll see why the Players' union must be crushed

Take the airline business models...what companies have filed for Chapter 11 in the US?

http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1087052004

http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040916/BUSINESS/209160328/-1/business

Compare these two with the success Southwest(non-union controlled) has had in its existence and you'll see why the Players' union must be crushed


:shakehead

I can't say anything to top this ignorant post. I wonder how much you would like unions though if you were working in a car plant at minimum wage

wow, what a rubbish post. I'd figure that someone with 5000 odd posts would come up with something better than that. :shakehead

what's so wrong with comparing UNIONS with UNIONS and corporations *like Southwest-non-UNION* make money, or don't make money for their companies/themselves...Union controlled airlines are filing Chapter 11's left right and center

Folks working in auto plants don't make minimum wage.

they make $30+ per hour, and have pensions out the rear end.

Wonder why manufacturing bolts out of the US? That's why.

Now you know why your car costs $35 k

7NA is right, as far as I'm concerned. There was a time when unions were VERY important in getting fair wages, and safe working environments. I think that time has passed us by.

I hope some of you brush up on your history and study how the conditions were for workers BEFORE unions came around.

Something has to protect the workers from the owners...either that takes the form of Unions or the government (which in our case is supposedly a UNION (for the people))

Unions though become too powerful and can choke a company out of competition (ie Airlines).

I don't know the answer, but both sides have pluses and minuses.

i think i like the idea of arbitration...

Unions weren't created because someone though it would be fun, and they weren't created in an age of prosperity either. Someone saying that they should be taken down is pretty inconsiderate. Some unions abuse and go too far, some just have the worker's interest in mind. For Air Canada for example, it was taking big paycuts or the airline going out of business, they took the paycuts because they knew management was serious.
However for those greedy unions, what do you say to them, "yes the owners/bosses abused the average worker for 5000 years, but you're an evil person for asking for a 10% payraise!"

The same can be said about the NHL, when the union talks first started, the owners of Detroit traded that player to a hockey wasteland in Chicago. (some with hockey history help me on this) Phil Esposito was working in a steel factory during the summers between seasons, Phil Esposito.
I don't really side with the players, because I'm sure they don't do it with their past brothers in mind who taken adantage of for the NHL's first 70 years, but you can't call them the devil after they've only done it for such a short period of time when compared to the owners.

There are good unions and there are bad unions. There are good buisness owners and there are bad buisness owners.

Its just a cross section of humanity, we need both unions and owners, just sometimes one or the other gets to much power.

I can't stand unions, and I've been in them twice and my wife's in one now.


Unions supress innovation and inspire laziness. Once, before OSHA, they were necessary. Now, they are made mainly to aid the top earners, as they are the only ones with the free time to work for the union. Unions don't care about the lowest-paid member. They are a drag on the average salary. You know, the amount paid to Bob Goodenow.

Every arguement from the players sounds emptier and emptier. Would I take a paycut to make sure my company would stay in business? You better believe it if it meant I still made over a million and worked 2/3rds of the year playing a game.

I hope some of you brush up on your history and study how the conditions were for workers BEFORE unions came around.

Unions have their place for protecting some workers, though very few modern workers actually need anything in the way of Union support (there's a reason unions are dying). But you cannot use history as a reason for keeping unions. A lot has changed in management philosophy in 100 years. Workers are viewed less and less as expendable commodities and more and more like valuable contributors (at least those that deserve to be). If unions truely were the way to go, the hundreds of great non-Union companies that litter "Best places to work" lists in business magazines everywhere would not exist.

With regards to the Airline industry. While unions certainly were a major factor in the demise of several major powers, the companies themselves were the ones who agreed to many of the laughable salary/status structures, etc. To that end, let the unions, whom workers tend to follow blindly like lambs to slaughter, and their corporate counterparts fall. Then, from the ashes, more companies like SouthWest (not necessarily the business model of low-cost, low-service differentiation, but of management philosophy of celebrating the employee) will spring up.

I have found that Unions tend to benefit the Union leaders and select undeserving individuals. By undeserving individual, I am speaking of the worker who doens't perform his job in a satisfactory manner yet keeps it due to Union power (If you have ever worked in a GM auto plant, you've met this guy). The deserving individual, who would likely garner more wages outside of a union system, is the one who pays. There are many instances of non-Union employees making considerably more than their Union-tied fellow employees while doing the same job for the same company :eek: .

But Unions do bring some workers together and pacify others and for that I applaud them. But common sense would tell you in this modern era of business, they are generally counterproductive.

Something has to protect the workers from the owners...either that takes the form of Unions or the government (which in our case is supposedly a UNION (for the people))

Unions though become too powerful and can choke a company out of competition (ie Airlines).

I don't know the answer, but both sides have pluses and minuses.

i think i like the idea of arbitration...

Unions are necessary to resolve temporary imbalances between management and labor, but they are only effective if the workers are in some way truly 'irreplacable.' In the case of factory workers (UAW members) spot-welders are not terribly hard to replace, for example. Even a highly-specialized group like Air-Traffic Controllers couldn't stand together when they were opened up to the market. Unions in the U.S. derive what power they have from their place as government-chartered entities. A union is needed for the sole purpose of making management stand up and respect the workers at a particular moment in time. The longer a labor struggle goes on the more 'replacable' the workers become.

Also, try to remember that it is ownership/management of a company that has undertaken the extreme risk of captial and time to put said company together. The workers ultimately assume very little risk in that regard. Their risk is only taken AFTER they've taken the job offered to them, not before.

Generally though, remember that the first rule of ANY organization is not to fufill the mandate for which it was created, it is to continue existing, and that's exactly what most protectionist rhetoric is about. Sometimes, in the case of a business, the organization's mandate is it's mechanism for survival, namely private enterprise, who survive only by providing a good/service that people are actually willing to buy.

Governments and, indirectly, their subsidiaries (Unions, Corporations, Public/Private Partnerships, Political Parties, etc.) gain their funding through the enforcement of laws and have no direct responsibility to their 'clients.'

7NA is absolutely correct in that the Union needs to be removed from this situation. And, frankly, if we don't have hockey for a year to get rid of the NHLPA (and I never have to hear Bob Goodenow speak ever again) then so be it. I have no idea if a salary cap will be good for the game or not. I know the union is not, though, because it is interested first and foremost in it's survival not the League's. I think it's safe to say that the League is interested in it's survival, though. As a fan which organization would you back?

I know my answer.

Ta,

Would I take a paycut to make sure my company would stay in business? You better believe it if it meant I still made over a million and worked 2/3rds of the year playing a game.

Years ago myself and the rest oft he staff took a pay cut at a small NON_UNION company that I'd put in 3 years with because we were going through a rough time, but I, and everyone else thought management had been good to us and we wanted to be good to them, and I certainly made a helluva lot less than 5% of the average salary of an NHL'er. We would have gone out of business if we hadn't. That company, btw, though I no longer work there, still exists and is one of the few to survive a nasty industry contraction, with most of that staff still there.

Frankly, this is about protecting the Union and the Doug Weights and Curtis Josephs.... not the Adam Mairs and the Ty Conklins.

ta,

Unions have their place for protecting some workers, though very few modern workers actually need anything in the way of Union support (there's a reason unions are dying). But you cannot use history as a reason for keeping unions. A lot has changed in management philosophy in 100 years. Workers are viewed less and less as expendable commodities and more and more like valuable contributors (at least those that deserve to be). If unions truely were the way to go, the hundreds of great non-Union companies that litter "Best places to work" lists in business magazines everywhere would not exist.

With regards to the Airline industry. While unions certainly were a major factor in the demise of several major powers, the companies themselves were the ones who agreed to many of the laughable salary/status structures, etc. To that end, let the unions, whom workers tend to follow blindly like lambs to slaughter, and their corporate counterparts fall. Then, from the ashes, more companies like SouthWest (not necessarily the business model of low-cost, low-service differentiation, but of management philosophy of celebrating the employee) will spring up.

I have found that Unions tend to benefit the Union leaders and select undeserving individuals. By undeserving individual, I am speaking of the worker who doens't perform his job in a satisfactory manner yet keeps it due to Union power (If you have ever worked in a GM auto plant, you've met this guy). The deserving individual, who would likely garner more wages outside of a union system, is the one who pays. There are many instances of non-Union employees making considerably more than their Union-tied fellow employees while doing the same job for the same company :eek: .

But Unions do bring some workers together and pacify others and for that I applaud them. But common sense would tell you in this modern era of business, they are generally counterproductive.

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.

"I wonder how much you would like unions though if you were working in a car plant at minimum wage"

The problem with unions isn't when you're working in a car plant, but rather when you're working in a white-collar world but still act like you have blue-collar problems.

I wonder why everyone here are treating the owners like some sad puppies. I don't think they're in as dire financial need as they say. The fight goes like this:

The players want to earn more money and have more control.
The owners want to earn more money, have more control and spend less.

I wonder why everyone here are treating the owners like some sad puppies. I don't think they're in as dire financial need as they say. The fight goes like this:

The players want to earn more money and have more control.
The owners want to earn more money, have more control and spend less.


the difference between them is its possible for the owners to lose money, whereas the players can't. They cannot actually lose money out of their pocket. The players determine their own salary by their actions, the owner has less direct control over their profit or loss, its all about what others do (players, fans), so security is, and I think should be, more important for owners than players speaking solely on the idea of cutting back salaries in the NHL.

I hope some of you brush up on your history and study how the conditions were for workers BEFORE unions came around.

Yeah, but alot of the unions now are all about bull ****; atleast where I live. Brush up on your present day history.

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

Regardless of what they say, I still think the owners are netting the most money in the NHL. And this extreme inflation is not the players fault, it's because a few owners (no names mentioned, but you all know who I mean) can seemingly throw infinite money at average players (*cough*Holik(*cough*)

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

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

Regardless of what they say, I still think the owners are netting the most money in the NHL. And this extreme inflation is not the players fault, it's because a few owners (no names mentioned, but you all know who I mean) can seemingly throw infinite money at average players (*cough*Holik(*cough*)

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

everyone wants to win, the balance between winning(now and in the future) and money is where the owners get screwed either way. If they go with money, they get viewed as despicable businessmen, such as the clippers owner. If you go after winning, and you lose money, you can't blame anyone else because you chose something concrete for something a little more intangible, which makes people less likely to sympathize with your plight.


The balance between the two seems to be incredibly hard just looking around sports teams. Not to mention the fact that hockey isn't pulling in the money that the other sports are.


I'm not a big fan of most owners, but some of the accusations against them seem unfair to me.

I'm not a big fan of most owners, but some of the accusations against them seem unfair to me.
Agreed, and that's what I'm getting at, everybody is getting down solely on the players, THEY ALWAYS DO when there's a lockout in any sport without much thought behind it. I guess it's because the players are in the limelight.

Both sides need to figure out that there is no winner here. With this lockout they already lost.

And again, before you give the players ALL the crap, remember that it's the owners that decided there would be a lockout.

Take the airline business models...what companies have filed for Chapter 11 in the US?

http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1087052004

http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040916/BUSINESS/209160328/-1/business

Compare these two with the success Southwest(non-union controlled) has had in its existence and you'll see why the Players' union must be crushed

This about as dumb as I've seen.

First of all, I can't really consider the millionaires of the NHL as part of a union, despite some similarities.

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.

Of course, after the next 9/11, these bozos will lecture us all about patriotism.

good seats to a Sens game 1996 - 75 bucks

same seat , 2003 - 120 bucks

almost a 50 per cent increase in a 7 year span

cuckoo

But you cannot use history as a reason for keeping unions

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.

good seats to a Sens game 1996 - 75 bucks

same seat , 2003 - 120 bucks

almost a 50 per cent increase in a 7 year span

cuckoo


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.

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'?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Probably because they fielded an AHL team last year.http://www.hfboards.com/images/smilies/shakeshead.gif I won't even get started.

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.

unions should be illegal. its collusion in reverse.

[QUOTE=H/H]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.

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.

Probably because they fielded an AHL team last year.
:joker:

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

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Exactly my pointWhat exactly was your point again? http://www.hfboards.com/images/smilies/dunno.gif

Oh wait, there was no point.

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.

If a worker finds his job is one in a union dominated field, his choices can be somewhat limited. It's not just as easy as saying 'just don't join the Union' because, in a lot of cases, non-Union workers are harrassed and hated by Union workers. If I was in the NHL, I'd probably be in the NHLPA for fear of what would happen to me if I wasn't. Hockey is violent enough. I wouldn't want a personal vendetta out on me everytime I hit the ice. People laugh when I say that, but there are many instances of violence instigated by Union members aimed towards non-Union member solely on the basis of their membership (or lackthereof). My grandfather, who has been a higher up in a few unions, most notable when he worked with AT&T, tells of how that was one of the bargaining ploys to those teetering on whether or not to become Union. It wasn't a direct comment, but it was implied that it was in your best interests to join the Union. That being said, there are non-Union companies that would love to have workers. But a good portion of the job market (in several major sectors) is realistically off limits to those who aren't pro-Union.

It is not in the best interests of the workers. It may become in your best interests to join a Union after that Union has been put in to place, but the Unions, in and of themselves, are not best for workers. Unions do fight for a bigger piece of the pie. Without them, individual workers, on their own merits, could go after a bigger piece on their own than they would get with the Union. They would also have the ability to jump from one company to the next based on pay/benefits/work environment. It's very, very difficult to do that in a Union dominated environment. Ask an Airline pilot who has been at Delta for 10 years if he would ever consider going over to American Airline. He'd never consider it. What if he absolutely hated his boss, his coworkers, his pay, and his environment? He'd still never leave. That is the Union.

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.

What about the expenses comparison.... :shakehead

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.

No dude. Unions help their membership.
It;'s quite obvious.
Look at average worker salaries (union and non-union). As unions became stronger, wages went up.
Look at the non-union auto factories.
Why do those guys make $20 an hour? Because the unions have set the market.

In my own case, I worked for a newspaper for $12 bucks an hour.
6 other newspapers in my chain were unionized. They did the exact same thing as me. In fact, they did less.
They had better benefits plus they made $17 an hour.

Take the airline business models...what companies have filed for Chapter 11 in the US?

http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1087052004

http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040916/BUSINESS/209160328/-1/business

Compare these two with the success Southwest(non-union controlled) has had in its existence and you'll see why the Players' union must be crushed

I suppose you are just targeting blue-collar unions.

If you ban all unions you must ban ALL unions: Chambers of Commerce, Lawyer associations, Doctors' associations, Engineer associations, University associations, Public unions, etcetera, etcetera. Then the "business interests" that run the ****ry can get busy legislating the end to labour laws and we and our children can get back to a more Dickensian existence.

I believe unions are outdated and no longer necessary.

- labour law suficiently protects workers (esp. in Canada)
- collective salary bargaining destroys the root of productivity: a meritocracy (reward for value provided)
- promotion based on seniority vs. merit further reduce productivity by placing the wrong people in the wrong roles
- union "rules" of who can do what further reduce productivity and options to increase productivity
- unions create a generally unhealthy "us vs. them" between managers and their staff; reducing the agility with which businesses can respond to fast-changing markets
- union leaders are now in fact the very same "fat cats" they historically profess to fight against, making massive salaries and often leading their unions into un-needed job actions simply to justify their high salaries and reason to exist

In a global economy, unions drive up the cost of goods and eventually force their employing companies to move the jobs elsewhere or allow for more competitive, non-unionized competitors to squeeze into their market.

I concur with the original poster's sentiments.

I believe unions are outdated and no longer necessary.

- labour law suficiently protects workers (esp. in Canada)
- collective salary bargaining destroys the root of productivity: a meritocracy (reward for value provided)
- promotion based on seniority vs. merit further reduce productivity by placing the wrong people in the wrong roles
- union "rules" of who can do what further reduce productivity and options to increase productivity
- unions create a generally unhealthy "us vs. them" between managers and their staff; reducing the agility with which businesses can respond to fast-changing markets
- union leaders are now in fact the very same "fat cats" they historically profess to fight against, making massive salaries and often leading their unions into un-needed job actions simply to justify their high salaries and reason to exist

In a global economy, unions drive up the cost of goods and eventually force their employing companies to move the jobs elsewhere or allow for more competitive, non-unionized competitors to squeeze into their market.

I concur with the original poster's sentiments.


And don't forget that in order to pay the higher wages that the unions get, employers have to cut jobs and automate processes as much as possible.

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.

Smokey, I think the original poster was saying that people have the right to organize (unionize). It's irrelevant that it may or may not be in their best interest. The choice should still be theirs.

I happen to agree with you that organization is rarely in the individual's interest, when the whole of their options are taken into consideration.

The american way used to be self-reliance and individual pursuit, but in reality today it is not even close to that. The government (be it state, local or Federal) gets involved in just about every transaction humans can engage in. And, IMO, most of the probelms between labor and management have only been aggravated by their intereference as opposed to alleviating them.

Ta,

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.


Um.. A little history here, there was a pretty strong 'middle class' ever during the renaissance, and there was a lot of peace and precious few empires. A lot of people got very wealthy and the standard of living rose markedly.

The truth is that the 'middle class' as we know it today came from America's strong sense of property and individual ownership, not from 'organized labor.' Once such 'institutions' were created, along with a few other disastrous things like inflationary currency, Keynesian Economics, the Welfare/Warfare state (Otherwise known as the Military/Industrial Complex melded with The New Deal) and the like, the capital built by the middle class could be successfully bled dry over to build the current image of a 'great America.' The lie was that it was good for us and everyone else.

Sorry, for the blatantly OT digression, but something needed to be said.

Ta,

Take the airline business models...what companies have filed for Chapter 11 in the US?

http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1087052004

http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040916/BUSINESS/209160328/-1/business

Compare these two with the success Southwest(non-union controlled) has had in its existence and you'll see why the Players' union must be crushed

I fly Soutwest about 50 flights a year minimum. There are reasons why they are succesful and while not having to deal with unions is one of them it is not the main reason.

The biggest reason is that they are easy to deal with. You need to change flights last second or whatever you dont get killed on fees. This is big in the long run for business travelllers like myself. It is a market they do huge business with.

Their flights are almost always on time and have great capacity %. They have a no frills atmosphere........can of coke and peanuts is what you get.

Finally, the most important reason they are so succesful (and this is the brilliant part) is that they only fly one size airline, the 737. Why is this important? Well one type of airplane, one type of engine fuel (allows to buy in more bulk), engine oil, etc....... mechanics and engineers can repair all planes which reduces delays...in other words there is no specialized people for certain planes. If you work on one, you work on all. In essence this is really what makes them so succesful. Sometimes they get a bad rap, but the service they provide is head and shoulders above the rest and that is why they get repeat business.

I believe unions are outdated and no longer necessary.

- labour law suficiently protects workers (esp. in Canada)
- collective salary bargaining destroys the root of productivity: a meritocracy (reward for value provided)
- promotion based on seniority vs. merit further reduce productivity by placing the wrong people in the wrong roles
- union "rules" of who can do what further reduce productivity and options to increase productivity
- unions create a generally unhealthy "us vs. them" between managers and their staff; reducing the agility with which businesses can respond to fast-changing markets
- union leaders are now in fact the very same "fat cats" they historically profess to fight against, making massive salaries and often leading their unions into un-needed job actions simply to justify their high salaries and reason to exist

In a global economy, unions drive up the cost of goods and eventually force their employing companies to move the jobs elsewhere or allow for more competitive, non-unionized competitors to squeeze into their market.

I concur with the original poster's sentiments.

In Canada, the BC Liberals introduced legislation that reduced the minimum wage, weakened union and WCB protection and also weakened laws governing child labour. Internationally, the IMF and World Bank routinely impose restructuring programs on countries that either deregulate or eliminate labour law protection for workers.

Unions increase productivity, according to most recent studies. The voice that union members have on the job—sharing in decision-making about promotions and work and production standards—increases productivity and improves management practices. Better training, lower turnover and longer tenure also make union workers more productive.

Source: Dale Belman, "Unions, the Quality of Labor Relations, and Firm Performance," in Unions and Economic Competitiveness, eds. Lawrence Mishel and Paula B. Voos (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.: 1992), pp. 41-107.

Corporations are the economic equivalent of fascism while unions are democratic. You want to eliminate unions then you must also eliminate the freedom to assemble and freedom of association.

And, again, by unions you probably only mean blue-collar unions while ignoring Chambers of Commerce, Lawyer associations, Doctors' associations, Engineer associations, University associations, Public unions, etcetera. Let's be fair and eliminate their right to associate freely, too.