Are unions a legalized protection racket ?

[poddster]

Vote and then express your thoughts on the matter.

Perhaps you might like to let everyone know how YOU think unions work.

[*crikey*mate*]

Employers are now prohibited from exercising their right to direct and allocate work in certain circumstances and their ability to adapt swiftly to the changing demands of production has been curtailed (Ronnmar, 2006).

[*crikey*mate*]

It has been shown that it is imperative that managers have the scope to determine how best to utilize precious resources such as labour in order to meet an organization’s objectives and that too much employer control by regulatory bodies impedes the efficient and effective use of these resources. At best, managerial prerogative is at a necessary stage of development to facilitate the economic growth of Australia for the benefit of all Australians in this global climate.

[poddster]

There is never a problem with fairness. The problems start and escalate when the situation is unbalanced or percieved to be unbalanced. From my expierienced it has been in the interest of a small number of individuals to cause unbalance to further their own agenda.

I have to wonder why it is made compulsory to join an action group

[katydidthat]

unions stifle managerial prerogative

Not at all.  Most management people LOVE unions.  They allow the company/agency/department to deal with just a few (or even one) representatives of staff.  They can streamline negotiations, end up with an organised range of payments, stabilise conditions, promote better health and safety regulations.  

If management didn't have unions to deal with (and wanted to have a happy, healthy workforce), they would have to negotiate with each staff member ... an incredible amount of time would be taken up by this process.  Unions make it short and simple.  

Unions make communication with management easier.  If a union member alerts their union to the presence of asbestos (for example), there are the protocols to deal with this matter already in place.  It's not so easy for a staff member to go through the process. 

[poddster]

Donna, by your own admission, you have never expierienced unionism, yet you are willing to say it is a good thing. Secondhand and thirdhand information is no sustitute for reality.

[debra9275]

unions stifle managerial prerogative

Not at all.  Most management people LOVE unions.  They allow the company/agency/department to deal with just a few (or even one) representatives of staff.  They can streamline negotiations, end up with an organised range of payments, stabilise conditions, promote better health and safety regulations.  

If management didn't have unions to deal with (and wanted to have a happy, healthy workforce), they would have to negotiate with each staff member ... an incredible amount of time would be taken up by this process.  Unions make it short and simple.  

Unions make communication with management easier.  If a union member alerts their union to the presence of asbestos (for example), there are the protocols to deal with this matter already in place.  It's not so easy for a staff member to go through the process. 

Spot on Katy! 🙂

[*crikey*mate*]

Sharma and Kaur (2008, p. 7) assert that whilst
this autocratic style of working is not yet redundant “efficiency, when not
accompanied by humane working conditions is no longer synonymous with success”.
Their views align with Pluralism which diverges from this unitaristic, liberal
viewpoint and insists on the need for regulatory external intervention due to
the inevitability of the conflict that will arise in a workplace because of the
differences in the distribution of income, status and power  (Loudon, McPhail, & Wilkinson,
2009).

YEP - it's all about "why should my neighbour have a BMW when I won't do what is necessary to aquire one for myself.

[cueperkins]

Sometimes it's just the majority demanding a 'FAIR GO'.  JMO

that's my recollection of it too Cue  :-x

.....yep..can't have us worker ants acting up can we eh? 

Everyone whinges until they get injured for instance and realise that they are entitled to a Union Lawyer for NO CHARGE.  Until they're employer exposes them to life threatening & indeed fatal risk - See Asbestos controversy..... & THEN the union comes to the fore under OH&S. 

Ask any injured worker if it's a picnic without a union behind you?  At least when you're a union member if an employer is negligent under OH&S, you don't need to seek the permission of the minister to have them fined.  Unions can lodge their own action on behalf of a member....that's how it works....  Devoid of that....You're on your own sport.....!!!

[donnashuggy]

Donna, by your own admission, you have never expierienced unionism, yet you are willing to say it is a good thing. Secondhand and thirdhand information is no sustitute for reality.

Fact of history, it is for the people the workers poddy, if it weren't for the unions life would be very different today for the average worker.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Donna, by your own admission, you have never expierienced unionism, yet you are willing to say it is a good thing. Secondhand and thirdhand information is no sustitute for reality.

I have never belonged to a Union either, but I did study 19th Century history in school. I know what conditions were like for workers in the big industrial cities of England before the rise of the Union Movement.