Would you prefer to work in a Unionized or Non Unionized work place?

[mariomike]

I notice (in average) senior employees take easy/interesting/light job tasks, and whereas the new employees/employees under probation have to do all the muscle work/most difficult/boring tasks in the work place regardless of the nature of the company, and I guess this is how it goes in  most places.

If you are in for the whole ride - that this is to be your first and last career - seniority improves your quality of life, and may help you make it to retirement.

It allows you to not just bid for your preferred vacation time, but also for the station, schedule, and assignment that suits you best.

 

[Tibbson]

I grew up with a bit of a skewed perspective on Unions.  The company my dad worked for, an independent auto parts plant, was non-unionized for most of his time there and the employees had a great relationship with the company.  Wages were competitive, the company seemed to go out of it's way to provide benefits to it's employees, over and above the standard medical and dental.  They would put on an employee christmas party for everyone and each kid got rather nice gifts from Santa at the party.  Each employee was given a turkey at Christmas we well.  They would also have a family fun day each summer with free entrance to a major amusement park in our area as well as a family day in the fall just after we went back to school.  The "shop association", chosen from among the employees, would be the ones to discuss issues with the company and everyone seemed to get along.  Everyone seemed to have the best interest of the company at heart because they knew that without the company there was nothing for anyone. 

As the years went on and workers were getting laid off from Ford and GM my dad's company carried on doing well.  So much so that they hired on many of the local Ford and GM workers who had been laid off when their plants closed.  Of course these guys came from Union shops and they fought to get a union into their new workplace.  Since that time it's gone from a cooperative workplace to one that is more adversarial.  A company that had never had a strike now seems to have one, or a good threat of one, every few years.  All of the employee and employee family benefits ceased.  Its now just another place to work and no longer a 3800 member "family".  I've got cousins working there now who remember what it used to be when they were kids of workers and its nothing at all like it was.  The workers get paid well but the union seems to keep pushing for more and the plant has been under the threat of closing for a few years now.  One of these days the larger parent company is going to determine it's no longer worth it to keep the plant going and everyone will be out of a job.

Does that mean unions are a negative?  No but these things have sure shaped my opinion and lead me to feel I don't want to work in a unionized workplace.  I understand unions have their place when it comes to protecting workers and workers rights but I just also get the impression that the unions are, in many cases, a business in and of themselves.

 

[jollyjacktar]

In my personal experience of being unionized before the CAF and with side line work that is unionized, I have no real "wow" factor for being a member.  The organization seemed to take, take, take our dues and give little back in return.  I cannot say in all honesty if I was better for being a member of a union or without it's being there.  Not that I had any say in the matter one way or another. 

I suppose if I had my option, I would opt out.  I don't see the value to me as a worker in all honestly.  But that is my  :2c:

 

[cupper]

one problem that I have seen is the political BS that takes place within the union environment.

My previous employer was unionized at one site where there were 3 separate plants and a maintenance group all part of the bargaining unit. Each plant and the maintenance group had reps that sat at the table with management along with the national union bargaining agents.

During several contract negotiations it inevitably came down to a final agreement being hammered our, and the reps going back to their separate groups and passing on recommendations to the members. in two instances we had situations where the agreement was reached, and the reps were going back to the membership to recommend approval. However somewhere between the office and the plants, two reps backed away and advised their members to vote against. The other two recommended acceptance. When the vote was taken, the agreement was rejected since the two plants rejecting combined made up over 50% of the membership, even though they were smaller than the one plant accepting along with the maintenance group.

In both cases because of the BS that went on, they ultimately ended up settling for less than was agreed on in the previously rejected agreement, and cause major rifts between the members of the various plants.

I was fortunate in that I was on the management side of the house, so didn't have to deal with the BS, but felt bad for the union guys that I dealt with in the plant and also maintenance guys that got screwed over because the other reps felt the could push for more, or decided to play games.

 

[larry Strong]

Is a 90 day probationary period typical for most new hires?

The reason I ask is our probationary period has always been twelve months, and may be extended to eighteen months based on performance.

Around where I work (central Alberta), in the black iron fabricating companies as well as other industries 90 days is the norm. New hires can be released without notice, 90 days is also the norm prior to benefits kicking in.


Merry Christmas
Larry

 

[daftandbarmy]

I've worked in both kinds of workplaces.

The ones I liked best?

The workplaces with the best leaders, of course.

 

[mariomike]

Around where I work (central Alberta), in the black iron fabricating companies as well as other industries 90 days is the norm. New hires can be released without notice, 90 days is also the norm prior to benefits kicking in.


Merry Christmas
Larry

Thanks, Larry. Our benefits and seniority took effect on the date of hire. ( Good thing too, because as I mentioned, probation lasted 12-18 months. )

 

[Navy_Pete]

I've worked in both as well; it all depended on the specific people in the union on how well it worked.  In one small shop, they prided themselves on working hard and producing quality work, so the local union steward drove the full time guys for that, and did the same for the temp workers that came in for short term production increases (that's what I was there for; they apparently would ramp up occasionally for a few days and needed a few extra hands for unskilled labour).

A steel mill I was at took the opposite approach, and protected all union members regardless of competence or work ethic.  Personally I think that's a bit myopic, as it ignores the fact that it dumps extra work on the rest of your members.  There was one guy that caused the same major accident twice in the melt shop that could have killed people and shut down production for weeks for repairs, which means millions in lost production.  Both times the union fought to get him his job back (the head guys, not the ones on the floor; they wanted him gone as no one likes tonnes of molten steel flying in their direction).  The first time he got retrained and was on a probationary period; after the second time they stuck him in a cubicle and gave him clerical work for a few years until he retired.  The same union was in at Stelco, and you can see how well that went.

I think if the union takes the approach that hiring their members is a guarantee of quality and self regulates their members, it gives them more credibility when they ask for benefit increases etc.  Otherwise I don't see any real value to having them, as too often they turn into small self contained fiefdoms that are more vocal then effective.

 

[Tibbson]

I think if the union takes the approach that hiring their members is a guarantee of quality and self regulates their members, it gives them more credibility when they ask for benefit increases etc.  Otherwise I don't see any real value to having them, as too often they turn into small self contained fiefdoms that are more vocal then effective.

I think that about nails it as far as I see it.  Those unions that see themselves as an extension of the businesses they work with are a great thing to have.  Those that see themselves as adversaries or a business unto themselves (how many unions just swallow up smaller work places to pad their numbers) are the ones I have no time for.

 

[cryco]

And those are the unions we hear the most about.
The times when a union truly wants the business to succeed, or when the union defends an employee that has been genuinely mistreated are not often spoken of.
I've only heard, through word of mouth, the stuff that sickens me. One of my colleagues was in a unionized environment while doing a summer stint during his studies, and the stories he told us were atrocious. I didn't hear any good things from him, maybe because he didn't see or was not privy to them.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In a small company definitely non-union. In a very large company, union for sure. Large organization can screw or crush people even without trying.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Trade unions and their rampant system abuse destroyed the British economy.  British Steel?  Gone.  British auto industry?  Gone.  British shipyards?  Gone.  British mining industry?  Gone.  Trade unions made more and more demands and eventually priced British labour out of the market.  My family left the UK in '68 because my dad saw no future there for us.  When we came to BC, he had to take a union job in the lumber industry, and spent as much time on strike or locked out as he did at work.  BC lumber pulp and paper?  Gone.  Canadian auto industry?  Gone.  And so it goes...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Read the history of Landrover and you realize that British Management was equally or more responsible for the demise of their industry. Landrover North America in the early 60's built a custom landrover with roll cage, bucket seats and a V8 and sent it to the UK pleading for them to build a version of it, management scoffed at the idea of a 4x4 having a V8. The entire management team of Lucas should have been burned at the stake.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Read the history of Landrover and you realize that British Management was equally or more responsible for the demise of their industry. Landrover North America in the early 60's built a custom landrover with roll cage, bucket seats and a V8 and sent it to the UK pleading for them to build a version of it, management scoffed at the idea of a 4x4 having a V8. The entire management team of Lucas should have been burned at the stake.

Oh, so that's what killed the whole industry in Britain, never mind then.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My point is that everyone blames the unions, but the management of British Industry never gets mentioned. They were stuck in the early 1900's and to an old boys network that excluded innovation and development. 

 

[Kat Stevens]

The unions in the UK had all the control and regularly ground industry in the country to a screeching halt. The world got tired of paying top dollar prices for our goods and shopped elsewhere.  No customers, no industry, no fat pay packets, welfare state.  QED, innit?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

At the end of WWII, unless you exported 70% of your product, you did not receive any steel. the first Rover car postwar was fabric body. The Landrover was a stopgap measure that saved the UK car industry as it was the only moneymaker having to pay for all the fiscal blackholes in Leyland. N money was earmaked for product development.

Everything I seen and read shows that while the Brits could be innovative, they struggled to bring products to production and to maintain a competitive edge through technology change. Watch some of the newsreels of British industry compared to US industry. The ironic bit is that British carmakers helped restart the Japanese car industry. Honda had a 20% stake in landrover, but left after getting screwed over in the BMW deal which was a disaster. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The unions in the UK had all the control and regularly ground industry in the country to a screeching halt. The world got tired of paying top dollar prices for our goods and shopped elsewhere.  No customers, no industry, no fat pay packets, welfare state.  QED, innit?

WRONG!  The Unions only have the power the Govt. and management can give them........

 

[ModlrMike]

WRONG!  The Unions only have the power the Govt. and management can give them........

True to an extent, but they do have the political clout via a huge voting block to influence governments heavily in their favour.

 

[Treemoss]

Unionized. 100% unionized. Simply based on my occupation and experience working for several private services. Out where I am now ambulance services are split between government-run/unionized and private-owned, and the differences are night and day in comparision.


On the union side: Patient-centered care management, better equipment, employee protection, $8 more/hr, 12-hour shifts with proper OH&S management of fatigue, differential pay for night shifts, full coverage benefits, paying into a pension.
Private side: Money focused management.. the more transfers the better, sub-standard/used/OOS equipment, employees can be fired for a simple disagreement, 24hour shifts lasting 2-7(not kidding) days at a time, no fatigue management, 70% coverage.. and no pension. Oh, and overly political.


To be clear I'm not against private-owned business, I'm against it being done wrong.