Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Should union membership be optional?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 541418" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>takemoreboy;</p><p> </p><p>Given history, I'd say the most significant aspect of union representation is that eventually one is represented out of his/her job. I could point to the steel, maritime, and auto industries, etc....but don't think I need to go any further than the close-at-hand Teamsters union. Think for a second; in it's core industry - LTL NMF trucking - it has lost more than 90% (got that....90 percent!!!!) of it's members' jobs over the last couple/three decades (and saying nothing about the fact that - with YRCW's condition - it's on the verge of losing a lot of the remaining 10%). And this over a time when the industry itself was expanding exponentially.</p><p> </p><p>In that sense, unions don't protect "the losers"; the fact is, they don't seem to protect anybody anymore. Instead, the overwhelming evidence is that they simply cost workers job opportunities.</p><p> </p><p>"Yes", UPS has been the exception. But, in case no one noticed, UPS is no longer primarily a Teamster-organized (or union, for that matter) company anymore. Nor are it's growing profit centers; I.e. - UPS has hung tough in spite of the union by growing overseas, etc. The $64,000 question is just how long it can be successful in doing so....and the jury is still out on the answer.</p><p> </p><p>I saw a post on another forum the other day, saying how the auto workers in the "southern", non-organized plants would be much happier working in one of the "northern" UAW-organized facilities. No doubt there's some truth to that statement...with the BIG consideration of the word "working". The fact is that the union jobs have disappeared, with literally hundreds of thousands of UAW members - by virtue of BEING UAW members - having lost their means of making a living. The domestic non-union auto industry, however, has grown by leaps and bounds, along with the jobs the industry provides. So a more apt question might be one of "Would you rather be an unemployed union member, or a working, wage-earning non-union employee".</p><p> </p><p>Puts things in an entirely different perspective, to my mind.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 541418, member: 16651"] takemoreboy; Given history, I'd say the most significant aspect of union representation is that eventually one is represented out of his/her job. I could point to the steel, maritime, and auto industries, etc....but don't think I need to go any further than the close-at-hand Teamsters union. Think for a second; in it's core industry - LTL NMF trucking - it has lost more than 90% (got that....90 percent!!!!) of it's members' jobs over the last couple/three decades (and saying nothing about the fact that - with YRCW's condition - it's on the verge of losing a lot of the remaining 10%). And this over a time when the industry itself was expanding exponentially. In that sense, unions don't protect "the losers"; the fact is, they don't seem to protect anybody anymore. Instead, the overwhelming evidence is that they simply cost workers job opportunities. "Yes", UPS has been the exception. But, in case no one noticed, UPS is no longer primarily a Teamster-organized (or union, for that matter) company anymore. Nor are it's growing profit centers; I.e. - UPS has hung tough in spite of the union by growing overseas, etc. The $64,000 question is just how long it can be successful in doing so....and the jury is still out on the answer. I saw a post on another forum the other day, saying how the auto workers in the "southern", non-organized plants would be much happier working in one of the "northern" UAW-organized facilities. No doubt there's some truth to that statement...with the BIG consideration of the word "working". The fact is that the union jobs have disappeared, with literally hundreds of thousands of UAW members - by virtue of BEING UAW members - having lost their means of making a living. The domestic non-union auto industry, however, has grown by leaps and bounds, along with the jobs the industry provides. So a more apt question might be one of "Would you rather be an unemployed union member, or a working, wage-earning non-union employee". Puts things in an entirely different perspective, to my mind. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Should union membership be optional?
Top