Re: Unionizing?
Until BOTH companies can set up offshore, and close out the costly factories... or, at least outsource to sub-contractors who have lower costs to pass along.
That choice, of course, depends on whether the union has gotten a contract clause that forbids outsourcing.
Going off-shore happens whether you have a union or not.
But it sounds to me as though you're conceding that unions might have a benefit in keeping your job for you.
Of course, there are other factors, too, such as how much people value freedom, flexibility and responsibility
in their jobs.
In a good union, you can have more of all of these, because you have more of a say in your job. And good unions do exist; I've belonged to ones that were very responsive to their members.
> Also, there are necessarily a limited number
of positions at the unionized shop, so it's not like they can take ALL the potential workers. The ones they don't get will tend to be the innovative, self-starters.
Good conditions attract good people. If you're at the top of your field, why shouldn't you go to the unionized shop, where the pay and benefits are better and (if the union is a good one), you have more of say in your working conditions? It would be perverse to avoid these advantages simply because you're anti-union, and most people are neither strongly anti or pro union.
Also, how true is your observation for skilled trades, as opposed to assembly-line jobs at which you can become ultimately skilled in a week and a half?
I'm not an expert, so I can't answer. But the logic is clear: if one company offers union wages and benefits, other companies have to match them, or lose first pick of the workers.
But really, your argument is much like the argument of people who favor minimum wage laws. It looks good until you think a bit.
To an extent, what you say is true. But, according to anti-poverty groups, even when prices increase as a result of an increase in the minimum wage, those working for minimum wage are still better off than they were before.
Although your argument sounds logical at first, it neglects the fact that businesses still need to keep prices in line with what people will pay.
If what you were saying were completely true, then the Fifties and early Sixties should never have seen a broad expansion of the middle class due to the rise of unions - yet this is a basic fact of economic history in North America.
--
Bruce Byfield bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com 604.421.7177
http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield
"You need technique to make a good job of life."
- Joyce Carey, "The Horse's Mouth"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Check out SnagIt - The Screen Capture Standard!
Download a free 30-day trial from http://www.techsmith.com/rdr/txt/twr
Find out what all the other tech writers, including Dan, already know!
Order RoboHelp X3 in December and receive $100 mail in rebate, FREE WebHelp
Merge Module and the new RoboPDF - add powerful PDF output functionality
to RoboHelp X3. Order online today at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
Follow-Ups:
- Re: Unionizing?, Kevin McLauchlan
References:
RE: Unionizing?: From: KMcLauchlan
Previous by Author:
Re: Unionizing?
Next by Author:
Re: A "new understanding" about tech pubs
Previous by Thread:
RE: Unionizing?
Next by Thread:
Re: Unionizing?
Search our Technical Writing Archives & Magazine
Visit TechWhirl's Other Sites
Sponsored Ads