61–70 of 93 posts
I really like the German system where employees get representation (usually union reps) on the board of the company - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany - I think it helps bring a lot more balance to business decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not showing up for work at all would definitely to considered "just cause" for most unions I've been involved in Not with some of the one I have had to deal with. There are tons of way to justify not coming to work and some unions representative (not all !) take a posture of « we will fight tooth and nail for every single employee that gets fired regardless of the reason ». This includes having handbooks of all the…
> There are tons of way to justify not coming to work and some unions representative (not all !) take a posture of « we will fight tooth and nail for every single employee that gets fired regardless of the reason ». This includes having handbooks of all the legal options at your disposal that are hard to counteract by management. As they should . This is the entire point of a union, to act as your collaborative defen…
But there are unions agreement that say: if you are fired for any reason, come and see us. Usually the question « how is this justified ? » is not really used as a way of asking « should we help you or not ? », but rather as « which page go the handbook should we leverage to justify that this is definitely an abuse from management ».
The starting point of the discussion is that any firing is necessarily an abuse. And by extension any decision by the company is done to hurt employees.
It’s interesting seeing unionization back on the table in the 2020s. I worked at a union retail job for three years and saw the pros and cons firsthand. We had a problem employee who was untouchable regardless if he was completing his job duties (assuming he showed up at all). Eventually this came to a head as he would spend 30min+ in the restroom. To address this they instituted a “log all bathroom breaks” policy _f…
The worst case scenario with a union is bad employees taking advantage of a company. Without unions, the worst case is a bad company taking advantage of its workers. If you are a capital owner, I can see why unions are bad. If you are a worker,(i.e. 99.9% of people), I have no idea why you wouldn't want unions.
In my friends union shop, the union prohibits working from home because >50% of union members have to do hands on work and are jealous of the computer workers. The majority had the votes so the union fought against WFH, and management caved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$15/hour in Glasgow in retail is good. That is £19k/year net. The minimum wage in the UK is ~£9.50, and a lot of people in retail will be on substantially less (because the rate varies by age). You may not know a lot about Glasgow either, it isn't like "any urban area". It is one of the poorest places in the UK, massive opioid problem, lowest life expectancy in the UK (in the poorest areas), derelict housing everywhe…
According to this site, the average salary in Glasgow is north of 17/hr: https://uk.talent.com/salary?job=glasgow Glasgow isn't like it used to be. Scotland in general is one of the wealthier of the UK outside of the SE. The poor areas are mostly in Wales and the North.
I live in Scotland near Glasgow, my family is from there, I have been there frequently over the span of decades. Parts of it are wealthy, but the vast majority is not. Almost everyone who can leave when they are young, does leave...that speaks for itself (I grew up in Scotland, I know maybe 40-50 people who grew up in Glasgow...I cannot recall one person who still lives there, it happens but not by choice). And if you look at any statistic, it is poor (and the heavily reliance on govt spending inc. jobs).
Scotland is not wealthy "in general" at all (again, before you reply: I have lived there for over two decades). Edinburgh is relatively wealthy, it is at the top of cities outside London. Aberdeen is wealthy because of oil. But the rest of the country is not.
And even then, these stats are misleading. Edinburgh has individuals who drag up the average (to a large extent, these people do not exist in Glasgow...there is no "upside" scenario) but if you look at the worst areas of Edinburgh, they are worse than anywhere in the UK. This kind of grinding poverty is unique to Scotland and hasn't changed. In fact, one of the lowest life expectancy neighbourhoods in Europe (iirc, it was under 60...and this was in 2005) was in Edinburgh. They redistricted the area (they actually knocked down almost all the housing in the worst area) so it dropped out of the stats, but those areas still exist.
It isn't like the North-East either. In the North-East you have high levels of deprivation but you see less harm than in Scotland. If you look at the worst places in the UK for life expectancy - https://www.statista.com/statistics/296698/local-areas-with-... - almost all of them are in Scotland. The only place that really compares in England is Blackpool and possibly Sunderland, both places are regarded as exceptional...and you see it in: Ayrshire, Lanarkshire, Glasgow, Dundee, etc. Blackpool is a tiny place, it is all over Scotland.
Btw, this is one of the common misconceptions from people online who have only ever been to Scotland on holiday. Cities like Edinburgh are more segregated than any other city in the UK. I know people who lived in Edinburgh for years (I went to university there), and you take them into the areas for locals (often down a side street near a tourist area) and they have never seen anything like it (the only place I have been that compares is public housing in Milan and rural Eastern Europe, I haven't seen anywhere in the UK like it).
I really like the German system where employees get representation (usually union reps) on the board of the company - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany - I think it helps bring a lot more balance to business decisions.
But then at the same time you have something like Volkswagen who just fired their CEO that was pushing hard into EVs. The inertia of the old ICE portion of the company (including the union people who may lose their jobs) just puts a hamper on their speed of execution which shouldn't be the case since incentives are generally aligned. If the company succeeds then the employees + union succeed as well. In this case it…
[1]: For more on Musk's SAE level 5 timeline predictions, see https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/05/tesla-autopilot-directo...
[2]: Tesla says full-self driving is "failure, not fraud" https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-12-08/tesla-laws...
[3]: Mercedes-Benz claims their driving pilot system is already SAE level 3: https://gizmodo.com/mercedes-benz-tesla-autonomous-driving-d...
[4]: Mercedes-Benz is so confident about this in fact that they're even willing to accept legal liability for accidents while their system is active: https://insideevs.com/news/575160/mercedes-accepts-legal-res...
[5]: Consumer Reports compares FSD systems: https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/cadillac-super-cr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are tons of way to justify not coming to work and some unions representative (not all !) take a posture of « we will fight tooth and nail for every single employee that gets fired regardless of the reason ». This includes having handbooks of all the legal options at your disposal that are hard to counteract by management. As they should . This is the entire point of a union, to act as your collaborative defen…
> I’m sorry, but there isn’t a union agreement in the world that lets you No Call/No Show repeatedly and be fine. But there are unions agreement that say: if you are fired for any reason, come and see us. Usually the question « how is this justified ? » is not really used as a way of asking « should we help you or not ? », but rather as « which page go the handbook should we leverage to justify that this is definitel…
It would be useful to include the rest of the context of my message instead of snipping out a single line to counter. As I said, of course they do; as they should. Just like it’s in the best interest of the company to assume all employees are scamming, scummy liars; it’s in the best interest of the Union to assume the employer is a money-hungry uncaring entity focused on maximizing its profit. Why should one side shoot themselves in the foot while the other maximizes their advantage? That doesn’t change the fact that if the employee actually wasn’t coming into work, was abusing privileges or was somehow abusive they are going to be fired; so what’s the problem?
Is this antagonistic? Sure. But we’re well past companies giving respect to employees and employees owing loyalty to employers. And, here’s the important bit: it wasn’t the employees that started nor perpetuated it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have no idea why you wouldn't want unions. A union can get a monopoly over a certain employer, such that all hires are required to join the union or they don't get the job. Union dues can be half the annual salary with no benefit to the union member unless they remain a member for 10-20 years. Though this practice is technically illegal, it goes on without any Labor Department intervention. Why would you want to…
> Union dues can be half the annual salary Come on, is that really the honest truth? What occupation or union has union dues at 50% of salary? In the US, UAW's dues max out around ~1.5% of salary (or an hourly approximate equivalent), the teachers union maxes out at 1.6% of salary (highest possible dues cap out at $55/month max), the nursing union dues cap out at $65/month, our local teamsters are approximately ~1.45…
Big companies are now so large that they can influence policy and politicians in a way that it is impossible for the individual to fight back. If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice us and must change. Fucking Union!
>If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice us and must change. Isn't that what the state is? It has all of that, plus a monopoly on violence, which a union doesn't have.
Looking forward to the headlines of Apple taunting the Glasgow staff by offering benefits to other stores but not them, with the defense that the new benefits aren't part of the Glasgow agreement.
"So...we unionized and got better job protections and benefits than before, and you're punishing us." Apple: "Yes." "...by offering better benefits to other stores employees?" Apple: "Yes. We're giving them nicer stuff than we gave you. This is why you shouldn't unionize." "Hmm. By unionizing just our one store, we improved benefits for us, but also for ALL the non-union employees in the company?!" Apple: "er....no"…
Looking forward to the headlines of Apple taunting the Glasgow staff by offering benefits to other stores but not them, with the defense that the new benefits aren't part of the Glasgow agreement.
(to be clear, I'm not applauding Apple's efforts here at all, just observing an interesting, awkward, but mostly hilarious response)