are labor unions based on socialism?
- Thread starter GregV814
- Start date
Doesn't fit the basic familiar definition where industry and companies are more or less run by the government ostensibly for the benefit of the people - versus, say, where capitalism - isn't.
Socialism - industry is publicly owned. Capitalism - privately owned.
Now, on a more colloquial definition - labor unions could be considered a public entity that more or less exists to control a company to provide equal benefits for its members. So yeah, kind of socialistic.
When jobs are plentiful and an economy flourishes, seems to me that unions are kind of pointless - they then only serve to protect those who cannot change jobs, and often - that's the kind of workers nobody wants. Not surprisingly, the largest unions are public sector, where there's almost zero competition for what the company provides.
Socialism - industry is publicly owned. Capitalism - privately owned.
Now, on a more colloquial definition - labor unions could be considered a public entity that more or less exists to control a company to provide equal benefits for its members. So yeah, kind of socialistic.
When jobs are plentiful and an economy flourishes, seems to me that unions are kind of pointless - they then only serve to protect those who cannot change jobs, and often - that's the kind of workers nobody wants. Not surprisingly, the largest unions are public sector, where there's almost zero competition for what the company provides.
glhs837
Power with Control
Funny, I came back in to say that just like any socialist organization, it turns into a mob racket pretty soon.
So, I think the question should be, do they desire a socialist system? Yes, IMO.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
Unions; One of the greatest grifting operations ever devised.
Unions; One of the greatest grifting operations ever devised.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
Have a friend that works on PAX and apparently is part of a union. He doesn't pay dues. He doesn't have (or attend) any union meetings. He has no say in decisions or can vote on anything. Apparently, all this union does for him is limit his ability to change jobs and earn more.
Sounds like your friend is within the "bargaining unit". If he is a government employee it is identified by HRO. Persons that are not dues paying members obviously don't get a say in the union's business, kind of like how unaffiliated persons can't partake in primary voting (unless it is an open primary) or have any say as to what the party does or doesn't do. As to the union limiting his ability to change jobs, that doesn't pass the smell test. The most the union can do is ensure that the filling of jobs is in accordance with the merit system established under law. If it is a non-public union what they can or can't do will be in the contract between management and those employees covered.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
As I am to understand, there was no option to "pay for a vote." They were hired on and they were in the union. No option to be a voting member or even be involved. They are just... a member with no say. Apparently, their job 'code' falls within the union and they cannot switch to a better pay structure. If they want to switch to the better pay structure, they would need to change jobs entirely (or change job codes).
glhs837
Power with Control
Just read the comments..... Dragging bosses out of beds with chains. Talk of getting violent again.....
Are we talking about a government employee or contractor? If a government employee I am sure that you were given inaccurate information.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
They are a GS government employee. Apparently, they wanted to change to STLR and were told that they cannot change due to union rules. Something to do with their "job code." In order to switch to STLR, they would need to change jobs (job codes) entirely and completely re-train in another job.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
Don't know. Apparently, it is a different pay structure that allows personnel to earn more and get bonused more based on performance. I guess the "union" will not allow them to switch to this 'better' pay system because their job code is "protected" under the union. In order to switch, they would need to change job codes and thus, change their job entirely.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
To clarify.. and according to my friend.
It is STRL that they want to transfer to. (NOT STLR) Also, apparently, there are over 20 job titles within the subset that are identical to GS grade. Only 2 of those can be transferred to STRL. The other 20+ are reserved for GS-only as per "the union." ???
Also, apparently, this is only applicable to east coast personnel. Out west, they can have their job code transferred to STRL. This is all because of the "union" for which they do not pay dues, can go to meetings, and have no vote
Interesting take on the matter as to whom to blame. If you read the Federal Register entry on this "demonstration project" it states - "The provisions of the STRL do not apply to any bargaining unit employees within NAWCAD or NAWCWD until a mutual agreement is reached between the STRL organization and the applicable exclusive representative." So it seems that NAWCWD actually negotiated with their exclusive reps and resolved their differences while NAWCAD apparently has not.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
Also interesting that members of this "union" have absolutely NO say or sway over whether this can be accomplished.