Are people who want to join a union the laziest people of all time?
I watched an Andrew Carnegie documentary the other day and it seems like the union/protestors really screwed him over and potentially played a role in him only selling his business for 480 million when JP Morgan would’ve given him 580 million had he asked for that.
Discuss.
Using a Guilded Age robber-Barron in your example for why you think unions are bad is probably not the best rhetorical choice. At least go with the Jimmy Hoffa angle.
"Profitability and nothing else", lol. Explain RTO then. WFH with BYOD would save this company billions and be a boon to profits and attracting talent away from competitors stuck in the past. There's a big gap between capitalism and what's happening here. Look no further than the billions this company has flushed on "equitable housing", carbon offsets, etc.
Bathroom breaks on the clock? Heh, not on my watch- think of the investors! That's money out of their pocket! Trust me they'll pack up and leave even though there are scores of unionized publicly traded companies! Ok yes they're outsourcing you and laying you off for a buck and allowing Charlie's constant buybacks to take precedence over their dividends, but trust me, they'll run!!1 And then where will you go? The 99% of other companies that aren't trying to make your life miserable with RTO so you'll quit?
Signed,
Definitely a fellow employee and not just some headcase right wing investor
"I would rather work 60 hours, which is not a big deal btw, than have a union rep telling me what I can or can’t do."
Slight correction: Stockholm Syndrome comorbid with Oppositional Defiant Disorder.
Do you think investors will accept less of an ROI? You’re in America. Those large funds will pack up and buy stock in other companies with greater returns.
Honestly, do you look at your 401k and go, oh I can only invest in company A with lower profits because they support unions vs company B with huge profits and no unions? I want more money. That’s it.
I only care about the bottom line of my investments, which is the case of most Americans. WF is publicly traded and the investors are priority #1 or they will pack up and leave. They give us jobs. Employees don’t own enough stock to make a difference, and we are at large investors’ mercy. This is not a charity, nor is it a democracy. Our jobs are influenced only on WF profitability and nothing else. We are here as long as the investors allow us to be here, otherwise they will sell and our stock price plummets further, which equals no jobs for anyone.
Some of you are very naive.
I would rather work 60 hours, which is not a big deal btw, than have a union rep telling me what I can or can’t do. I just don’t want to be paid equally to the people only punching in a time card for 40 hours, giving the bare minimum. We have different priorities in life. My choices deserve to be paid more since I’m willing to make the sacrifice, and you’re obviously not. I’ve been fairly compensated for my sacrifices (no complaints in 6+ years) and obviously you haven’t. So, I think that’s on you and not me.
Nobody's coming after your $100K, only your 60 hour work weeks (and your Stockholm Syndrome). And there's absolutely enough $ to go around, Wells spend $4 billion on stock buybacks this past quarter, let alone the executive and bloated mgmt pay, and money flushed down the drain on cr-ppy tech.
Ignore the bad faith trolls and their bizarre strawmen against unions, they're throwing everything at the wall out of desperation. And in general, do not take the word of someone who claims to work 60 hour weeks for Wells Fargo and spends his free time arguing against his coworkers getting paid more, that is not a sane perspective on the world.
AMEN!!!
“ The big issue is at the very top, how money is distributed.”
I’m guessing there’s a few individual contributors reading this who make over $100k, which requires 60+ hours and multiple degrees. We are unwilling to slow our bonuses and raises so others can make more. Sure executives could be paid less, but they will come after our income to help you. Executives pay alone won’t cover the increase in those additional wages.
No thanks.
"High performers excel in a non union environment"
What a joke. Everyone working here has watched high performing work be rewarded with "meets expectations" on the new performance evaluations in the past few years. Pay raises and changes to bonus comp have likewise been adjusted. But sure, keep ignoring what is right in front of your face.
I want to move to a beach town in the desert.
Unions have pros and cons. Employers do not have to pay more, provide better benefits, have input into what happens with jobs etc. Members would pay into the union fund who has an agent that supposedly represents workers. At contract time, union rep meets with company and then presents the offer to the workers for a vote. I worked for a company that made parts for john deere. There is mandatory shutdowns and and it is used to be in their contract based on business decisions could shut down up to 12 weeks above the mandatory time for business decisions. You have to use your vacation or file for unemployment. The other company I know that the workers are in a Union got rid of the night shift and shuffled everybody to 10 hour days based on business.
Given that unionization efforts are bubbling up in so many different non-manufacturing corporations, the core reason isn't that workers are lazy. It is far less lazy to coordinate, organize, create and join something than do nothing. There is something very real going on with lower wage/entry level/lower skilled jobs that those who aren't feeling the struggle can't see.
Unions can help executives wake up to the issues while at the same time motivating them into taking subversive action. Greed is a powerful thing and unions cannot protect jobs in masse.
The big issue is at the very top, how money is distributed. No one is saying middle or lower incomes should get a handout, but a corrective action is needed to help more stake a claim in participating in the American dream. It is possible for companies to be extremely profitable while providing more for the economic needs of a society. The compensation ratios of executives, low corporate tax rates and the fraternity of financial bros between the Fed, Goldman and other heavy hitters is simply serving the interests of the few.
Anyways, since economic needs aren't being met, workers are unsure what to do and are hopping on the union train. It won't solve their problems but pyschologically it feels good to participate in something that gives the perception of having control. Fighting back is better than not and who knows, maybe positive change can occur with only the mention of unionization.
Union s are for uneducated auto workers in Detroit. Today you can just go to another bank and get a raise. Of you need a union your not very good.
Lol I was being silly in the prior comment but that pro-WF troll is absolutely sitting there watching this tab and upvoting his own comment any time someone votes it down, just like he did in the other thread. Definitely the kind of person you want to take career advice from.
We should all be like that "high performer" who spends his work day upvoting his own comments and lashing out at the idea that his coworkers should get paid more.
Sometimes other people getting a living wage makes me so mad! According to myself, I’m a high performer!
Unions = good for lazy and low performers
The high performers excel in a non union establishment. They don't want to be lumped in with the rest of the bottom feeders begging for a raise for no reason.
The problem for the companies is that they would have to award all the low performers while taking it away from the high performers. Not a great way to run a business.
What if you aren’t a bottom feeder type employee though? Then you’d get screwed wouldn’t you?
Unions = good for employees
Unions = bad for employers (who have to pay higher wages, better benefits, less optionally to fire/offshore, etc).
You would be crazy not to want to part of one.
Unions are for the lazy and inept. They want to ride on the coattails of other’s hard work.
I can't tell if this is satire or the board right wingnut genuinely thinks unions somehow caused Carnegie's bad negotiation skills.