Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
Union members contend a union gives them some control over their lives. Conservatives declare that unions are extortionists. Who is right? Are both right? The common connection between labor and owners/management is that we are all people and in most cases we look out for our own best interests.
The worst situation exists when owners look at their employees as expendable rats on a treadmill, that are easily replaced. The best situation exists when owners acknowledge that we are all people, we all have value, and the common energy expended towards making a successful business requires that everyone involved must benefit. How much benefit is usually the basis for disagreement. Conservatives always claim that "business" always knows what is best, but business can be incredibly self centered and greedy. But I acknowledge unions can get out of control and run a company down. So the key is moderation and realism on both sides of the equation. Bottom line we are people with many faults.
I was watching the History Channel today and if you want the perfect example of why unions exist, look at the Quebec Asbestos Strike of 1949. The companies effected were either American or English/Canadian owned.The Canadian asbestos industry workers (who had a union) asked the company to improve working conditions, namely to remove the pervasive swirls of asbestos dust that not only covered the work place, the workers, their lungs, and all the neighboring houses that surrounded the mine.
The mine owners thought it was too expensive so while they insisted asbestos had no health consequences, instead they offered the workers a pay raise and more holidays off. At the time in the Canadian government was anti-union, and the strike that resulted was considered an illegal strike. The strike lasted 4 months, and it took arbitration for work conditions to be corrected. It's possible that without a strike, as evidence surmounted regarding asbestos, eventually work conditions would have been corrected, but how many people would have died in the mean time? The strike expedited the process, IMO for good reasons.
Isolated circumstance? Hardly. There have been a multitude of cases regarding companies who "just can't afford" to do right by their employees, Erin Brockovich or Norma Rae are two easy examples. And Walmart is so anti-union, they would rather shut down a store instead of allowing a union. (Conservative applause line.
)
The worst situation exists when owners look at their employees as expendable rats on a treadmill, that are easily replaced. The best situation exists when owners acknowledge that we are all people, we all have value, and the common energy expended towards making a successful business requires that everyone involved must benefit. How much benefit is usually the basis for disagreement. Conservatives always claim that "business" always knows what is best, but business can be incredibly self centered and greedy. But I acknowledge unions can get out of control and run a company down. So the key is moderation and realism on both sides of the equation. Bottom line we are people with many faults.
I was watching the History Channel today and if you want the perfect example of why unions exist, look at the Quebec Asbestos Strike of 1949. The companies effected were either American or English/Canadian owned.The Canadian asbestos industry workers (who had a union) asked the company to improve working conditions, namely to remove the pervasive swirls of asbestos dust that not only covered the work place, the workers, their lungs, and all the neighboring houses that surrounded the mine.
The mine owners thought it was too expensive so while they insisted asbestos had no health consequences, instead they offered the workers a pay raise and more holidays off. At the time in the Canadian government was anti-union, and the strike that resulted was considered an illegal strike. The strike lasted 4 months, and it took arbitration for work conditions to be corrected. It's possible that without a strike, as evidence surmounted regarding asbestos, eventually work conditions would have been corrected, but how many people would have died in the mean time? The strike expedited the process, IMO for good reasons.
Isolated circumstance? Hardly. There have been a multitude of cases regarding companies who "just can't afford" to do right by their employees, Erin Brockovich or Norma Rae are two easy examples. And Walmart is so anti-union, they would rather shut down a store instead of allowing a union. (Conservative applause line.
)
Last edited by a moderator:
