Ahh, unions. The democrats love 'em, the republicans hate 'em. Some of us belong to them, some of us don't. Actually, statistically, most of us don't. In yet another email exchange of ideas / ideals Bill and I sparked a conversation about the pros and cons of unionization.
Mostly cons. One of the only pro-union points that was made came from Bill, who brought up how unions can protect from unfair wages and employee treatment. He used Wal-Mart as an example of a company that would benefit from unionization. In my typical fashion I disagreed with him. What follows is my retort, read it at your own discretion. If you disagree with me, let me know. If you hate me for what I said... first amendment. Deal with it, fucker!
Having formerly been a reluctant union member for more than 12 years (I guess the 13th year doesn't count as I quit) I can say that unions are a terrible, terrible thing to happen to a company. You've already cited my reasons against unionization. I'd like to touch base on something you brought up though concerning Wal-Mart employees.
Its easy to think of Wally World employees as being underpaid, over-worked, even somewhat abused by the company. However, does this mean they should be unionized so as to improve their situation? I say, no. My reasoning is simple: go to Wal-Mart and soak in the overall demeanors of the employees there. Do you see rogue scholars or starving artists plugging away to make ends meet? No. Do you see potential Pulitzer caliber writers creating register tape poetry? No. What do you see?
The unemployable. The bottom of the barrel. The Fredo of the working class.
Societies all have their class systems, socialist's included. We here in America have ours: upper class, middle class, lower class. Of course there are degrees of each class. A lower-middle class American is typical. Class systems exist, and they are necessary.
In my eyes, the employment class system works in perfect congruency with the financial class system. Bill Gates is not likely going to be seen bagging groceries at the local foodatorium. Joe Smith from down the street, however, is very likely to be seen as such.
Basically you either get the jobs you're qualified for or the jobs you choose to accept. No one, and I do mean no one, wakes up in the morning and thinks "Wal-Mart is the place for me!" They choose to accept working there as a means of making whatever money they can. The employees there are not skilled labor, ergo they earn what their class deserves.
We single out Wal-Mart readily because of their bad press over labor relations. However, every retail/food services company follows the same practices. Unskilled labor = minimum wage. Skilled labor = negotiable pay. Easy as that.
Let's look at it a different way. At Shaw's, as a middle manager, I was pulling down rather good money. Did I deserve that money? One could argue either way on that matter. I worked very hard at my job, but again it wasn't the kind of work that you needed any particular skill set to perform. This is evident by the caliber of employees I so begrudingly called "peers".
Of course, then again, it took me a number of years to make the money I was making. So I suppose you could argue that I was being gifted with the rewards earned by longevity and dedication.
Also known as stupidity and complaceny.
Mostly cons. One of the only pro-union points that was made came from Bill, who brought up how unions can protect from unfair wages and employee treatment. He used Wal-Mart as an example of a company that would benefit from unionization. In my typical fashion I disagreed with him. What follows is my retort, read it at your own discretion. If you disagree with me, let me know. If you hate me for what I said... first amendment. Deal with it, fucker!
Having formerly been a reluctant union member for more than 12 years (I guess the 13th year doesn't count as I quit) I can say that unions are a terrible, terrible thing to happen to a company. You've already cited my reasons against unionization. I'd like to touch base on something you brought up though concerning Wal-Mart employees.
Its easy to think of Wally World employees as being underpaid, over-worked, even somewhat abused by the company. However, does this mean they should be unionized so as to improve their situation? I say, no. My reasoning is simple: go to Wal-Mart and soak in the overall demeanors of the employees there. Do you see rogue scholars or starving artists plugging away to make ends meet? No. Do you see potential Pulitzer caliber writers creating register tape poetry? No. What do you see?
The unemployable. The bottom of the barrel. The Fredo of the working class.
Societies all have their class systems, socialist's included. We here in America have ours: upper class, middle class, lower class. Of course there are degrees of each class. A lower-middle class American is typical. Class systems exist, and they are necessary.
In my eyes, the employment class system works in perfect congruency with the financial class system. Bill Gates is not likely going to be seen bagging groceries at the local foodatorium. Joe Smith from down the street, however, is very likely to be seen as such.
Basically you either get the jobs you're qualified for or the jobs you choose to accept. No one, and I do mean no one, wakes up in the morning and thinks "Wal-Mart is the place for me!" They choose to accept working there as a means of making whatever money they can. The employees there are not skilled labor, ergo they earn what their class deserves.
We single out Wal-Mart readily because of their bad press over labor relations. However, every retail/food services company follows the same practices. Unskilled labor = minimum wage. Skilled labor = negotiable pay. Easy as that.
Let's look at it a different way. At Shaw's, as a middle manager, I was pulling down rather good money. Did I deserve that money? One could argue either way on that matter. I worked very hard at my job, but again it wasn't the kind of work that you needed any particular skill set to perform. This is evident by the caliber of employees I so begrudingly called "peers".
Of course, then again, it took me a number of years to make the money I was making. So I suppose you could argue that I was being gifted with the rewards earned by longevity and dedication.
Also known as stupidity and complaceny.
No comments:
Post a Comment