Unions are a breeding ground for inefficiencies and stifling innovation. If you knew how union workplaces rules work, you'd know that the CEOs have no control over labor.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Send in the union
- Thread starter octoad
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3 Tesla Inc.
HEE HEE HEE! (or UAW?
)As stated before, I'm definitely not anti-union. . . not even anti UAW!
That being confirmed, with Tesla's 21st century organization, production, and product, I don't see a union upside in this case for Tesla employees. I would hate to see the magic sucked out of this incredible endeavor before it hits it's stride. In education we often use a "Not that!, This!!" approach. In lieu of union meddling, I would imagine employees could chose to continue and/or expand safeguards already in place.
Keeping in mind CEO Elon's mission of sustainable transport, (verses profit for the sake of profit) I believe he and the Tesla Board have their wage earner employees interests better at heart than the UAW, which in this instance (in my estimation) seems to be after "A PIECE OF THE ACTION."
Wait! I'm just supposed to be lurking here!
If you quote something from 1936, that almost proves the point that there's no problem currently.
I'm originally from Finland, and here's my opinion about the unions (mostly applies to Finland unions, but to US unions too to some extent:
-~1920....1980: Unions were needed. At the time factory industry was still new, labor laws were not in place so the people needed support with/from each other to gain humane working conditions
-1980... present day: Most unions do is to make work more expensive, while not providing anything useful. Laws already protect employees fairly well, and most companies treat their people well
-Most strikes are done to make the unions look strong, not to help the members
And especially in Finland the unions keep demanding that everyone with same title, must have same pay. That really pisses me off. There's no incentive to work hard if the pay is the same. It kills productivity.
One company I worked for in Finland, most people were on one union. I wasn't in union (for above reasons), but I was sort of different department anyway so if I were to join union it would have been different one than most of the people at the company. So one day the union decided they have to start threatening with a strike (made demands that is). The union contact guy (no clue what's the title in English) came to me and told that if they go on strike, I must go on strike too. Pretty much told him no, but he kept insisting. I asked if the union would pay me the daily allowance like it pays it's members. He said no, so I said I'm not going on strike. He kept telling me it's the law that if most people go on strike, I must too. I said I don't care. He said I should be member of the union. Told him it wouldn't make a difference since my union wouldn't be on strike anyway. He was such an a-hole trying to force me to go on strike just because his union was planning to go on strike. Didn't improve my view about unions.
There's crazy high correlation with ice cream consumption and people drowning. They should ban ice cream so less people would drown!!
(nice weather has nothing to do with that. It doesn't make people eat more ice cream or go out boating more)
Yeah, I know unions. I am a member of one. Have been for 8 years and work at a company that was not union but is now. I am aware of all the anti union talking points
Yeah, I know unions. I am a member of one. Have been for 8 years and work at a company that was not union but is now. I am aware of all the anti union talking points
They're not talking points. They're reality. I practice before the National Labor Relations Board. I regularly see the reality of what unions do to innovative companies. This is unfortunately typical for the UAW.
Talking points you said? Pure propaganda. There are a host of labor laws, and governmental agencies, that protect workers. You don't need a union to protect against the "giant corporate law firm with deep pockets". See, for example, the EEOC. Unions are a relic of the past and are perilously close to organized crime. They'd destroy Tesla.
Completely false. I have direct experience with contractual disputes between the company and individual contract holders where the company just buried them in legal motions while the individual racked up thousands in legal fees.
Fired for "off duty behavior". Sounds legit that they got their jobs back.
Chrysler Workers Drinking: Fired Employees Reinstated At Jefferson North Plant In Detroit | HuffPost
The arbitrator agreed.
You mean a works council, no? Very different than an American-type union.
Last edited:
Barklikeadog
Active Member
If unions really did provide top notch efficient work, companies would gladly pay that premium. Maybe they relocate to right to work states for the weather.
If Tesla does that on it's own, workers wont need a union... and workers wont have to pay Dues... im generally Pro- union but look what happened to american auto companies..
Canuck
Well-Known Member
What I would like to know is do the rules for unionization in California require a simple majority? And is the voting by secret ballet? If so, I can't see how the plant won't eventually go union, especially if they can take repeated runs at it.
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
The EEOC only administers and enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination. The NLRB is the only entity that handle violations of the NLRA.
Tam
Well-Known Member
Yes. Simple majority of those who voted. If the plant has 3,000 eligible workers but only 3 showed up and voted.
And 2 voted yes while 1 voted no, then the whole plant of 3,000 workers is unionized just by 2 yes votes.
Yes.
Yes, only if the workers are motivated to be unionized.
Lots of time, workers complain to a union as a leverage but not because they want to be organized.
A company would then tell workers that management has the solution, not union: Work injuries? We'll have ergonomic specialists right away. Too much overtime? We'll open up a third shift right way. Underpay? We'll get you more compensation right away!
Workers then would vote against unionization because everything seems to be fine now!
As soon as the threat of union is gone, the old ways of management would creep back again.
Then, the cycle got restarted again with complaints to union...
Strange though. Seams like "off duty behavior" of drinking and smoking pot may have a negative effect in work when they return to work after that break. It wasn't end of day, but mid shift.
I was never allowed at work under the influence of drugs/alcohol for safety reasons.
No, they most likely would not. They will almost always pay the least possible.
I work for a company that consisted of mostly anti union workers. We had two union drives that failed. The company was told during the third drive that all they needed to do was bump up pay to industry average and make a few tweaks and they would easily defeat the third. They wouldn't budge so they succeeded in unionionizing a mostly non union work force. The vote was overwelming. Companies almost always must be forced to do the right thing. Even when it would actually benefit them.
Last edited:
