Organized Labour
| Published on 13 Jan 2004 at 12:00 pm.
No Comments.
Filed under Uncategorized. |
A little rant I got into in my US History class.
While labour unions have changed over the years, some of the issues haven’t changed and while I think unions strike just to hear themselves strike sometimes, there is justification in a lot of the issues. I often wonder what both sides are thinking when it comes to a strike.
The grocery strike happening in SoCal and threatening to move nationwide is one example (I have seen strikers near at least one Safeway in San Jose). The issues are complex but after hearing more about it on NPR tonight, I really wondered what management was thinking.
As best I can remember, management will pay current employees the same wage and are asking for a contribution for health care benefits that are currently included in their wage package. However, in order to compete with chains like Target and Wal-Mart (who already underpays its employees and offers no benefits, not to mention hires illegal immigrants through an agency that claims to have vetted all its employees), the grocery industry management wants to cut wages for all new employees and ask for a contribution for benefits.
Asking for a contribution to defray the cost of health benefits is fully understandable and not something I see as a deal-breaker. I’ve only once in my entire working history had a job that paid for all my benefits. That lasted 6 months and then I was asked to contribute to help defray costs. Insurance is expensive and getting out of control more and more (try getting a private policy someday and see what that does to your checkbook). Benefits that are completely paid for by the employer are a rarity these days, and there is no law that says an employer *has* to offer benefits, paid or otherwise.
What I don’t understand is this, how on Earth does management think they can get away with hiring people for lower pay and not cause major heartburn? Do they really think the people they hire aren’t going to find out they’re being paid less and not start demanding pay equal to their co-workers? And that they’re not going to go on strike at some point in time demanding equal pay?
This has been going on for 4 months. The grocery chains are losing billions of dollars in revenue and the striking employees are losing paychecks and have no benefits at all.
I’ve never been in a union and I’m certain that I don’t know all the details about this particular strike but it seems to me that in this economy, it’s not a smart thing to purposely do something that guarantees no income over an indefinite period of time. If you have a job, do what you can to hang onto it. If the dealbreaker is having to pay for benefits, take a look around and realize that until this point in time, you’ve been one of the very lucky ones.
I’ve been out of work for nearly 3 years and am nearly destitute. If I had a job, I damned sure wouldn’t be doing anything to purposely jeopardize, union or no.
I think a union’s usefulness depends upon the industry and the situation. In the late 19th century, they were absolutely essential for getting better working conditions and wages for all workers. I firmly believe that if it hadn’t been for the unions, we wouldn’t have any child-labour laws. However, sometimes unions come off nearly as badly as management. Sometimes I just don’t know what to think, especially when the striker’s hourly wage is 3 times the minimum wage.