Isn't the term 'union' and 'collective bargaining' one in the same?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ChkitOut, Mar 11, 2011.

  1. Isn't the whole point of a union to collectively bargain with your employer?

    If the state says, you can't collectively bargain anymore then why don't they just go on strike like they do when they don't get their way on specific contract issues like wages or health care costs?

    The whole union thing just seems silly to me.
     
  2. Not "silly", but rather an issue of power and the ability to "extort"... totally inappropriate and immoral of Public Employees.

    ALL corporate unions will die because of extorting themselves out of business. All Public Unions SHOULD die because they are immoral but supported by some lying, self-serving politicians.
     
  3. Ricter

    Ricter

  4. Thats exactly my point. The whole idea of a union is an organized collective voice in employment matters. So why would any legislation matter?

    I suppose they can strike and in turn get fired but whats to stop the same thing from happening in any other union. Obviously any previous contracts would have to be honored until they expire.
     
  5. Ricter

    Ricter

    You've raised an excellent point. Years ago I wondered why anyone needs permission. But obviously if you don't have permission then you're going to have to unionize very secretly--some employers can and do get violent with workers who try it, legal or not.

    Here's a question for you I've been toying with:

    Why is "work to rule" considered a strike action, but pay to rule is "normal"? : )
     
  6. not sure what pay to rule is
     
  7. Ricter

    Ricter

    By "pay to rule" here I mean what the employer has agreed to pay you for doing a job. In many workplaces doing the bare minimum to earn that money is frowned upon by management while doing more than you're asked is encouraged. But if a group of employees, typically a union, decides to do just that bare minimum, called "the rule" as indicated in the contract, it's considered a strike action. So why is it not the norm to be paid more than the contract amount when you are working in excess of the rule?
     
  8. Working in excess of what you're required is something that manifests itself because of the competitive nature of advancing to bigger, better and higher paying positions. As an employee you can do whatever you want, work the minimum, not work at all, whatever you desire BUT your fellow colleagues will probably be getting those better positions and you will be left in the dust. Theoretically, you'll be rewarded for that "extra" work by advancing within the company.