L.A. Times: Ikea's U.S. factory churns out unhappy workers (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ikea-union-20110410,0,5341610.story)
QuoteA union-organizing battle hangs over the Ikea plant in Virginia. Workers complain of eliminated raises, a frenzied pace, mandatory overtime and racial discrimination.
Reporting from Danville, Va.—
When home furnishing giant Ikea selected this fraying blue-collar city to build its first U.S. factory, residents couldn't believe their good fortune.
Beloved by consumers worldwide for its stylish and affordable furniture, the Swedish firm had also constructed a reputation as a good employer and solid corporate citizen. State and local officials offered $12 million in incentives. Residents thrilled at the prospect of a respected foreign company bringing jobs to this former textile region after watching so many flee overseas.
But three years after the massive facility opened here, excitement has waned. Ikea is the target of racial discrimination complaints, a heated union-organizing battle and turnover from disgruntled employees.
Workers complain of eliminated raises, a frenzied pace and mandatory overtime. Several said it's common to find out on Friday evening that they'll have to pull a weekend shift, with disciplinary action for those who can't or don't show up.
Kylette Duncan, among the plant's first hires, quit after six months to take a lower-paying retail job. "I need money as bad as anybody, but I also need a life," said Duncan, 52. She recalled having to cancel medical appointments for her ailing husband because she had to work overtime at the last minute.
Some of the Virginia plant's 335 workers are trying to form a union. The International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers said a majority of eligible employees had signed cards expressing interest.
In response, the factory — part of Ikea's manufacturing subsidiary, Swedwood — hired the law firm Jackson Lewis, which has made its reputation keeping unions out of companies. Workers said Swedwood officials required employees to attend meetings at which management discouraged union membership.
Plant officials didn't return calls and declined to meet with a Times reporter who visited the Virginia facility. Swedwood spokeswoman Ingrid Steen in Sweden called the situation in Danville "sad" but said she could not discuss the complaints of specific employees. She said she had heard "rumors" about anti-union meetings at the plant but added that "this wouldn't be anything that would be approved by the group management in Sweden."
The dust-up has garnered little attention in the U.S. But it's front-page news in Sweden, where much of the labor force is unionized and Ikea is a cherished institution. Per-Olaf Sjoo, the head of the Swedish union in Swedwood factories, said he was baffled by the friction in Danville. Ikea's code of conduct, known as IWAY, guarantees workers the right to organize and stipulates that all overtime be voluntary.
"Ikea is a very strong brand and they lean on some kind of good Swedishness in their business profile. That becomes a complication when they act like they do in the United States," said Sjoo. "For us, it's a huge problem."
Laborers in Swedwood plants in Sweden produce bookcases and tables similar to those manufactured in Danville. The big difference is that the Europeans enjoy a minimum wage of about $19 an hour and a government-mandated five weeks of paid vacation. Full-time employees in Danville start at $8 an hour with 12 vacation days — eight of them on dates determined by the company.
What's more, as many as one-third of the workers at the Danville plant have been drawn from local temporary-staffing agencies. These workers receive even lower wages and no benefits, employees said.
Swedwood's Steen said the company is reducing the number of temps, but she acknowledged the pay gap between factories in Europe and the U.S. "That is related to the standard of living and general conditions in the different countries," Steen said.
Bill Street, who has tried to organize the Danville workers for the machinists union, said Ikea was taking advantage of the weaker protections afforded to U.S. workers.
"It's ironic that Ikea looks on the U.S. and Danville the way that most people in the U.S. look at Mexico," Street said.
The Swedwood factory is situated on the outskirts of Danville, in the midst of rolling tobacco country, just north of the North Carolina border.
For most of the last century the town of 45,000 relied on textiles and tobacco for jobs. Today the riverfront is lined with empty red brick warehouses and crumbling mills. With the unemployment rate high — currently at 10.1% — the city has put muscle behind attracting new companies, including Ikea.
"They've definitely given jobs to people that desperately needed them here," city manager Joe King said.
Swedwood says it chose Danville to cut shipping costs to its U.S. stores. The plant has been run mostly by American managers, along with some from Sweden.
The facility looks like a series of interlocking, windowless white boxes — as neat as an Ikea store — with a blue-and-yellow Swedish flag flying out front. Employees inside produce Expedit bookshelves, which start at $69.99 in Ikea stores, and Lack coffee tables, which retail for as little as $19.99.
Low prices have helped Ikea weather the economic downturn. The company made 2.7 billion euros in profit last year, up 6.1% from 2009, according to its most recent financial statements.
Still, last fall, Swedwood eliminated regularly scheduled raises and made cuts to some pay packages in Danville. Starting pay in the packing department, for example, was reduced to $8 an hour from $9.75. Steen said the changes were made to free up more money to pay incentive bonuses to top performers.
The median hourly wage in the Danville area is $15.48, according to the Virginia Employment Commission.
Current and former plant employees said they resented the unpredictable work hours and high-pressure atmosphere. The plant assesses penalty points for violations of work rules; workers who accumulate nine of them can be fired.
"It's the most strict place I have ever worked," said Janis Wilborne, 63, who worked at the plant for two years and quit last year.
Six African American employees have filed discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming that black workers at Swedwood's U.S. factory are assigned to the lowest-paying departments and to the least desirable third shift, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
"If we put in for a better job, we wouldn't get it — it would always go to a white person," said Jackie Maubin, who worked the night shift in the packing department until last year, when she was fired on her birthday.
Swedwood has been trying to settle four of the discrimination complaints through mediation. The company initially offered Maubin $1,000. She settled for $2,000. She said she needed the money to keep her car from being repossessed.
Global competition has motivated all manner of companies to seek out low-cost sources of production, said Ellen Ruppel Shell, the author of the book "Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture." Ikea is no exception. What's different, she said, is that the company has done such a good job of burnishing its own corporate image.
"There's a mythology around the company," Shell said. "That's why these kinds of revelations surprise a lot of folks."
Americans want daddy government to take care of them since they cannot make it in the marketplace. Film at 11.
QuoteLaborers in Swedwood plants in Sweden produce bookcases and tables similar to those manufactured in Danville. The big difference is that the Europeans enjoy a minimum wage of about $19 an hour and a government-mandated five weeks of paid vacation. Full-time employees in Danville start at $8 an hour with 12 vacation days — eight of them on dates determined by the company.
Wage slavery in America, film at 11.
"It's the unions fault!" in 3 ... 2 ... 1 .... :lol:
Why is it the union's fault?
Haven't you heard? Everyone is always better off without unions.
Sounds like the problem is more about Sweden. :unsure:
That we pay our workers too much? I suppose some could consider that a problem.
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 12:13:34 PM
That we pay our workers too much? I suppose some could consider that a problem.
:yes:
If you don't like your pay then quit. That's what I did.
If you don't get job opportunities where you are then move to the jobs. That's what I did.
If you are American whine like a little baby. That's not what I did.
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2011, 12:15:51 PM
If you don't like your pay then quit. That's what I did.
If you don't get job opportunities where you are then move to the jobs. That's what I did.
If you are American whine like a little baby. That's not what I did.
:hug:
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2011, 12:14:27 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 12:13:34 PM
That we pay our workers too much? I suppose some could consider that a problem.
:yes:
At least you're honest, I can appreciate that.
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2011, 11:44:48 AM
Americans want daddy government to take care of them since they cannot make it in the marketplace. Film at 11.
No kidding. You can have free market capitalism or socialdemocrat state with worker protections and high taxes - but not have it both ways.
I'd like to make 19$/h. Maybe I should move to Sweden.
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2011, 12:15:51 PM
If you don't like your pay then quit. That's what I did.
If you don't get job opportunities where you are then move to the jobs. That's what I did.
If you are American whine like a little baby. That's not what I did.
Being an American is a choice. They chose badly.
what an amusing article. teach you to try and make our people productive :D
Quote from: LaCroix on April 19, 2011, 12:25:56 PM
what an amusing article. teach you to try and make our people productive :D
I wouldn't be very productive either working under such conditions. Why should I be? The company doesn't give a shit about me so as long as I get my money why should I give a shit about the company?
BUT CLEARLY THIS IS THE BEST SYSTEM LOL.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 19, 2011, 12:25:56 PM
what an amusing article. teach you to try and make our people productive :D
:lol:
At first I thought it was an Onion piece.
"Damn you for providing us with jobs!"
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 12:22:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2011, 12:14:27 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 12:13:34 PM
That we pay our workers too much? I suppose some could consider that a problem.
:yes:
At least you're honest, I can appreciate that.
Assuming it wasn't just a straight conversion to dollars, that wage seems ridiculous. Besides, why should the company really spend a lot of effort making its employees happy if they are going to stick around anyway?
Seems kind of obvious that if IKEA wanted to continue paying unskilled labor $19/hour and giving them 5 weeks vacation they would have just built the plant in Sweden.
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2011, 12:39:13 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 12:22:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2011, 12:14:27 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 12:13:34 PM
That we pay our workers too much? I suppose some could consider that a problem.
:yes:
At least you're honest, I can appreciate that.
Assuming it wasn't just a straight conversion to dollars, that wage seems ridiculous. Besides, why should the company really spend a lot of effort making its employees happy if they are going to stick around anyway?
The question is rather why one would choose a system where the majority of people has to work under the conditions you describe.
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2011, 12:39:13 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 12:22:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2011, 12:14:27 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 12:13:34 PM
That we pay our workers too much? I suppose some could consider that a problem.
:yes:
At least you're honest, I can appreciate that.
Assuming it wasn't just a straight conversion to dollars, that wage seems ridiculous. Besides, why should the company really spend a lot of effort making its employees happy if they are going to stick around anyway?
$19/h is on the low end of a normal industry worker's salary in Sweden.
One might suspect there's something of a culture clash in effect here, however, which might explain some of the friction. See, in Sweden you're actually expected to work and there's no 3 hour siesta/lunch break or basket ball breaks or whatever you muds like to do when you're not busy pretending to look like you're working. :P
Quote from: Slargos on April 19, 2011, 12:45:14 PM
$19/h is on the low end of a normal industry worker's salary in Sweden.
It's what I earn in my more-or-less unskilled job that I have besides my studies if I work normal working hours (which I almost never do, because that's when I have school). Weekends and evenings (which is almost always when I work) I earn $25/hour, or more than four times the starting wage at the IKEA plant in this article. I work answering the phone at a taxi company.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 19, 2011, 12:24:14 PM
I'd like to make 19$/h. Maybe I should move to Sweden.
and pay 50% in taxes...
I got my job in August last year. On 28873 sek (~4600 usd) income I paid 2081 sek (~333 usd) in taxes (because I earned so little).
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 01:08:41 PM
I got my job in August last year. On 28873 sek (~4600 usd) income I paid 2081 sek (~333 usd) in taxes (because I earned so little).
No, you paid far more. You're just too ignorant to know it. :hmm:
Admittedly this was because you pay no taxes at all up to a certain sum, so not all of that income is taxed. The rate I pay on my taxed income is 29,58% (plus 0,69% that I pay in church taxes as a member of the Church of Sweden :huh: guess I should do something about that).
I by-pass VAT by getting my stuff from dealextreme.com and my clothes from en.vancl.com :yeah:
gGuess slargos means stuff like VAT, property tax and other various taxes. isn't Sweden's VAT really high?
Only 6% on books ;)
Quote from: HVC on April 19, 2011, 01:14:16 PM
gGuess slargos means stuff like VAT, property tax and other various taxes. isn't Sweden's VAT really high?
No, just a barely noticeable 25%.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on April 19, 2011, 01:02:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 19, 2011, 12:24:14 PM
I'd like to make 19$/h. Maybe I should move to Sweden.
and pay 50% in taxes...
How much do you think I pay?
Remember when there were still trace amounts of pioneer spirit in Americans? Me neither.
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2011, 01:40:38 PM
Remember when there were still trace amounts of pioneer spirit in Americans? Me neither.
I'm willing to wager grumbler does. :hmm:
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2011, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 19, 2011, 01:14:16 PM
gGuess slargos means stuff like VAT, property tax and other various taxes. isn't Sweden's VAT really high?
No, just a barely noticeable 25%.
VAT is problematic since it is often regressive and not progressive taxation. But we do have lower rates for a lot of stuff (such as culture, 6%, food is another example, 12% iirc). Most of what I spend is spent on rent, food and books so I don't think I do pay a whole lot in VAT, really.
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2011, 01:40:38 PM
Remember when there were still trace amounts of pioneer spirit in Americans? Me neither.
:(
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2011, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 19, 2011, 01:14:16 PM
gGuess slargos means stuff like VAT, property tax and other various taxes. isn't Sweden's VAT really high?
No, just a barely noticeable 25%.
VAT is problematic since it is often regressive and not progressive taxation. But we do have lower rates for a lot of stuff (such as culture, 6%, food is another example, 12% iirc). Most of what I spend is spent on rent, food and books so I don't think I do pay a whole lot in VAT, really.
I don't eat food.
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 12:41:55 PM
The question is rather why one would choose a system where the majority of people has to work under the conditions you describe.
Presumably I'd have to spend more for products if such were the case. Not really a fan of that.
Advantageous to the highly mobile like you but disadvantageous to the majority.
edit: seems you changed your post - I can understand you like the system if you're one of the comparatively few winners.
Quote from: Slargos on April 19, 2011, 12:45:14 PM
One might suspect there's something of a culture clash in effect here, however, which might explain some of the friction. See, in Sweden you're actually expected to work and there's no 3 hour siesta/lunch break or basket ball breaks or whatever you muds like to do when you're not busy pretending to look like you're working. :P
I doubt that is it. After all, I'd prefer a system where I was only at work while I was doing work. Unfortunately, that's now allowed. :(
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 01:56:14 PM
Advantageous to the highly mobile like you but disadvantageous to the majority.
Changed my post as I realize it didn't address the issue.
People who hate unions hate the free market and freedom of association. You know who else hated the free market and freedom of association? The Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 19, 2011, 02:59:24 PM
People who hate unions hate the free market and freedom of association. You know who else hated the free market and freedom of association? The Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
OK
Quote from: Ideologue on April 19, 2011, 02:59:24 PM
People who hate unions hate the free market and freedom of association. You know who else hated the free market and freedom of association? The Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
2/10
Please show some effort in your trolls.
He's right though.
Why not?
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 12:41:55 PM
The question is rather why one would choose a system where the majority of people has to work under the conditions you describe.
Only 20% of our workers work in manufacturing and not all manufacturing jobs are identical to working for IKEA. And compared to most manufacturing jobs in the world we have it pretty good :huh:
Not sure how a fraction of 20% constitutes the majority of the people.
Besides I am not exactly sure how our system is all that much compared to yours :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2011, 12:23:33 PM
No kidding. You can have free market capitalism or socialdemocrat state with worker protections and high taxes - but not have it both ways.
So there is no private property in social democratic countries? No capital markets? The United States has no worker protection laws?
This is fascinating information.
Quote from: Valmy on April 19, 2011, 05:07:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2011, 12:23:33 PM
No kidding. You can have free market capitalism or socialdemocrat state with worker protections and high taxes - but not have it both ways.
So there is no private property in social democratic countries? No capital markets? The United States has no worker protection laws?
This is fascinating information.
Yeah I mean you could say a social democratic system is all about having it both ways - letting the state do what it does good and the market do what it does good.
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2011, 04:53:22 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 04:45:49 PM
He's right though.
Not really.
Am too X infinity (plus one).
Unions are a valuable method of redressing the negotiating-power imbalance. What's so sacred about a sophisticated, centralized employer's negotiating advantage over his atomized employees?
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 04:54:55 PM
Why not?
Because a free market relies on having a large number of buyers and a large number of sellers bidding against each other. Unions replace the large number of sellers with just one. That's a monopsony, a price setter not a price taker.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2011, 08:17:03 PM
Because a free market relies on having a large number of buyers and a large number of sellers bidding against each other. Unions replace the large number of sellers with just one. That's a monopsony, a price setter not a price taker.
It is the same reason why Corporatism is bad.
I find it funny that in the sane thread some one is argueing for a system while at the same time bragging about getting around having to pay his contribution to the system :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on April 19, 2011, 05:07:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2011, 12:23:33 PM
No kidding. You can have free market capitalism or socialdemocrat state with worker protections and high taxes - but not have it both ways.
So there is no private property in social democratic countries? No capital markets? The United States has no worker protection laws?
This is fascinating information.
No shit.
Quotethe Europeans enjoy a minimum wage of about $19 an hour and a government-mandated five weeks of paid vacation.
...
The company made 2.7 billion euros in profit last year, up 6.1% from 2009, according to its most recent financial statements.
Wow. Competitive, decent wages and benefits? AND turning a profit? At the same time? Amazing!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2011, 08:30:18 PM
Wow. Competitive, decent wages and benefits? AND turning a profit? At the same time? Amazing!
Unpossible. All jobs must be outsourced and corporate taxes need to zero just for them to survive.
Quote from: Valmy on April 19, 2011, 08:37:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2011, 08:30:18 PM
Wow. Competitive, decent wages and benefits? AND turning a profit? At the same time? Amazing!
Unpossible. All jobs must be outsourced and corporate taxes need to zero just for them to survive.
Well, there's turning a profit, and then there's turning a profit [starsspangled]American-style![/starspangled]
Quote from: HVC on April 19, 2011, 08:29:19 PM
I find it funny that in the sane thread some one is argueing for a system while at the same time bragging about getting around having to pay his contribution to the system :lol:
In my early days in the immigrant ghetto, I lived with a guy like that.
A rabid socialist who turned up at our door step one day and DEMANDED lodging. The collective voted to take pity on his mentally challenged self and he was allowed to move in.
We had plenty of heated arguments about The System until one day I learned that he routinely "jumped the turn stiles" so to speak. There are no turn stiles in Oslo, of course, so it's figuratively speaking. He simply didn't feel it was necessary to pay his part in the commute because it was convenient to him not to.
In my experience, most die hards are this way. As long as the state forces them to contribute they are fine with it (they claim), and they're perfectly happy to let others contribute, but if they can get away with not contributing themselves they're smugly happy about it.
Disgusting people.
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2011, 12:15:51 PM
If you don't like your pay then quit. That's what I did.
If you don't get job opportunities where you are then move to the jobs. That's what I did.
If you are American whine like a little baby. That's not what I did.
And yet, here you are, whining like a baby in this post! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2011, 08:23:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2011, 12:15:51 PM
If you don't like your pay then quit. That's what I did.
If you don't get job opportunities where you are then move to the jobs. That's what I did.
If you are American whine like a little baby. That's not what I did.
And yet, here you are, whining like a baby in this post! :lol:
:huh:
Does not follow. Troll.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 19, 2011, 05:15:57 PM
Unions are a valuable method of redressing the negotiating-power imbalance. What's so sacred about a sophisticated, centralized employer's negotiating advantage over his atomized employees?
You posited that unions are linked with freedom of association. Considering that many unions require you to pay dues even if you opt out of the union, where's the freedom?
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2011, 08:23:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2011, 12:15:51 PM
If you don't like your pay then quit. That's what I did.
If you don't get job opportunities where you are then move to the jobs. That's what I did.
If you are American whine like a little baby. That's not what I did.
And yet, here you are, whining like a baby in this post! :lol:
I don't follow. :huh:
How does that work?
How can an organisation you are not a member of charge you membership dues? How is it enforced?
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2011, 09:32:06 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 19, 2011, 05:15:57 PM
Unions are a valuable method of redressing the negotiating-power imbalance. What's so sacred about a sophisticated, centralized employer's negotiating advantage over his atomized employees?
You posited that unions are linked with freedom of association. Considering that many unions require you to pay dues even if you opt out of the union, where's the freedom?
I dunno, we live in the Land of the Free and we still have to pay taxes.
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2011, 09:45:06 AM
How does that work?
How can an organisation you are not a member of charge you membership dues? How is it enforced?
In Canada it is all summed up as the "Rand formula".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula
It is enforced as an employer's deduction from pay.
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2011, 09:45:06 AM
How does that work?
How can an organisation you are not a member of charge you membership dues? How is it enforced?
North America is Socialist in the extreme. :secret:
Quote from: The Brain on April 20, 2011, 09:50:32 AM
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2011, 09:45:06 AM
How does that work?
How can an organisation you are not a member of charge you membership dues? How is it enforced?
North America is Socialist in the extreme. :secret:
We do have many States with "right to work" laws or something similar. Among other things, I believe it means that a person working a union job can choose to join the union or not; isn't required to join and pay dues.
Quote from: KRonn on April 20, 2011, 10:08:28 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 20, 2011, 09:50:32 AM
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2011, 09:45:06 AM
How does that work?
How can an organisation you are not a member of charge you membership dues? How is it enforced?
North America is Socialist in the extreme. :secret:
We do have many States with "right to work" laws or something similar. Among other things, I believe it means that a person working a union job can choose to join the union or not; isn't required to join and pay dues.
Per wiki 22. :(
Quote from: HVC on April 19, 2011, 08:29:19 PM
I find it funny that in the sane thread some one is argueing for a system while at the same time bragging about getting around having to pay his contribution to the system :lol:
LOL, yeah you got me on that one. :facepalm:
Let me explain. First of all, when I buy stuff from China (going straight to the source by-passing salesmen and other worthless middle-men) the customs mostly don't bother adding VAT, rarely they do but mostly not (they've done it in maybe 1 of 10 shipments). So I by-pass VAT, but so what, you want me to call 'em up and volunteer to pay? This is not a religion and there is no need for fanaticism and supererogation. Anyway I even said I thought VAT was problematic, so you're
really stretching it in your shitty troll.
So instead of buying from the people paradise of Sweden where people make fair wages you're buying direct from 15 cents and hour china? thn you complain americans make bad wages? :lol:
*wasn't trolling with the first post, was with the second, to be clear :p
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2011, 09:48:18 AM
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2011, 09:45:06 AM
How does that work?
How can an organisation you are not a member of charge you membership dues? How is it enforced?
In Canada it is all summed up as the "Rand formula".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula
It is enforced as an employer's deduction from pay.
Wow, that's fucked up. And I think unions are a good thing by-and-large. At least when they aren't monomplies in an essential monopoly service like London's tube.
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2011, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2011, 09:48:18 AM
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2011, 09:45:06 AM
How does that work?
How can an organisation you are not a member of charge you membership dues? How is it enforced?
In Canada it is all summed up as the "Rand formula".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula
It is enforced as an employer's deduction from pay.
Wow, that's fucked up. And I think unions are a good thing by-and-large. At least when they aren't monomplies in an essential monopoly service like London's tube.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but how can a union survive if it is not coercive? If I have the option of NOT paying a thousand dollars or more in union dues every year, why would I ever choose to pay it voluntarily?
(and yes - in my last job I was a staunch non-member of my union, even though I still had to pay dues)
If I bought that stuff in Sweden, guess where it would have been manufactured? Not in Sweden. :p
Anyway this is a stupid argument that comes up every time and it's equally stupid each time. I'm not claiming I'm a fucking saint or anything, I've done shitloads of bad stuff and I can be pretty damn selfish sometimes. People are selfish. That's the whole fucking point. Don't try to change people - change the system. You're the idealistic ones thinking people will be nice with no incentives to be nice and all incentives towards being not nice (or you just don't care).
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2011, 10:48:22 AM
Maybe I'm just cynical, but how can a union survive if it is not coercive? If I have the option of NOT paying a thousand dollars or more in union dues every year, why would I ever choose to pay it voluntarily?
(and yes - in my last job I was a staunch non-member of my union, even though I still had to pay dues)
They survive here without being coercive. If a union can't persuade workers to jon maybe it shouldn't survive? Here they offer things like free legal advice etc.
Not coercive in Sweden either. And it's in our law you get the collective bargaining agreement as a minimum on the work-pace even if you're not a member. In a feud, however, you'll want the help of the union with legal advice etc (the same way it seems to be in the UK).
Someone said something about a thousand dollars in membership fees. That's just crazy. I looked at Jusek membership fees, the union for lawyers and economists, and you pay different amounts based on how much you earn but the most you pay per year is about 50 usd.
Well in comparison, now working with the Alberta government we have an "association" (not a union because they do not collectively bargain) and its dues are $100 for the year, which I will most likely pay.
But I'm not kidding that dues to my old union (which was a union, because theoretically they do collectively bargain - when the government doesn't just legislate our wages) was on the order of $1000.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2011, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2011, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2011, 09:48:18 AM
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2011, 09:45:06 AM
How does that work?
How can an organisation you are not a member of charge you membership dues? How is it enforced?
In Canada it is all summed up as the "Rand formula".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula
It is enforced as an employer's deduction from pay.
Wow, that's fucked up. And I think unions are a good thing by-and-large. At least when they aren't monomplies in an essential monopoly service like London's tube.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but how can a union survive if it is not coercive? If I have the option of NOT paying a thousand dollars or more in union dues every year, why would I ever choose to pay it voluntarily?
By providing services you desire? Remember, there's one born every minute.
That's why contracts negotiated by the union should only be binding on union members. Let the opt-outers negotiate their own salary and benefits.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2011, 08:17:03 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2011, 04:54:55 PM
Why not?
Because a free market relies on having a large number of buyers and a large number of sellers bidding against each other. Unions replace the large number of sellers with just one. That's a monopsony, a price setter not a price taker.
That's the reason I'm for an open shop. But as MIM sez, naturally crypto-scabs shouldn't be third-party beneficiaries of something they don't contribute to (or, perhaps, should be made to make restitution if they opt to take advantage of a union-negotiated contract).