That percentage of employees stands at a low percentage because there are limited unions throughout occupations. Surely they aren’t going to negotiate negatively for the other 90% as it has a bearing on that 10%’s outcome also.
No, not really. When you have millions invested in machines, they have to be working.
Tell him to try the Pilipinos again! Great employees.
Some of the insurance work I’ve had to do for alterations from workplace accidents fly completely in the face of what you’re saying. You can choose to advocate for employers all you want but there are shit ones out there just as there are shit employees. Difference is initiatives are being scrapped in employees favours and no mention of policing bad employers.
Were they hopeless, or he had to put too much of his own time in showing what’s expected? Like the guys asking for a bit more might not have needed that overseeing? You’re talking about an industry that has big investment from the employer, I can tell you that there are trades where what I mentioned is normal practice. If someone won’t do something required, it’s known in no uncertain terms that someone will if you won’t.
Not only limited unions but limited membership. I posted about this many moons ago and can't be buggered looking it back up.
Can only speak on the aspect of unions that I know. My wife being in the medical world is very much encouraged to be in a nurses union and pays a fee to do so. Any of her issues in the workplace has showed the union to be very effective and has certainly changed some outcomes for her, that before they were involved were showing to be going nowhere. Would say nurses, teachers and wharfies are about the only functioning unions today?
Yes there are shit employers - but we have ways of keeping bad employers honest - impact on public image, H&S legislation (and fines), standards, auditing (fire, food, building WOF), industry membership bodies, regulatory bodies, etc.
I think big single industry employers where the employees are highly skilled and can’t easily go to another employer is the place for unions. Because the employer is like a monopoly and can act like it.
Makes me think of about the worst situation I’ve come across around protecting an employer. Can recall a tree pruning business that had issues with their branch mulcher for years upon years and never fixed. All the guys had mentioned to the employer about the issue to which nothing ever was done and it held the employees up. All of the guys had to do what this particular guy did at some stage to keep things moving but for this particular guy it turned bad. He got into the mulcher to squash some debris that was caught and it started up. Half of his body was munched, to which he survived. Because it was all the employees word against the employer, nothing was ever reached to show his involvement in the whole situation. Terrible job to be apart of, where ramps and bathroom alterations were made for the guy but you could see the wife was never going to look at her husband the same way again. He was stupid to do what he did and an extreme case but had things have been sorted when the employer was alerted, none of it would have happened. Similar circumstances in the pike river mine.
Back in the day, during school holidays and part-time, I worked installing irrigation systems into Greenhouses which produced cut flowers for the export. One day, a union rep showed up to talk to the pickers and graders about joining a horticultural union. When she explained the agreements the union had negotiated elsewhere she was asked to leave. Why? Because the staff were earning more than the agreement and had better conditions. While joining wouldn't have reduced what they were already receiving, eventually the union agreement would catch up but, in the meantime, they would be paying union fees. And the employer would not be obligated to increase their pay until that agreement caught up.
A representative of both sides is the best outcome I think. The employer generally represents themselves as they hold the power as to whether they employ the person or not but an employee has to be able to talk themselves up in order to get the desired wage, which some people aren’t good at. A cv can only tell so much of the story in regards to a persons worth monetarily but someone to advocate for a person in knowing them better could work better in both the employee and employers favour.
To expect all employers to do the right thing by employees is the stuff of in a perfect world.
Couldn't do what they said they could. If you hire someone to be able to read plans, set out etc and they say they can do these things, then you quickly realise they can't, they are not needed. Training on the job is not provided, not necessary. When you hire a tradesman you expect them to be able and capable.
Conspiracy theories are politically agnostic. It simply shows a lack of critical thinking.
How would it work if an employers offers pay at what they consider market value and the employee accepts it or leaves for a different employer? Everyone happy?
People want the tradesmen but only willing to pay a rate for a bit of experience.
If the employer is happy with the employees work and wants to keep them, they should pay what’s required. Sometimes there’s more to it, like conditions. Like the tigers offering SJ a two year deal with more money. SJ has the option to leave for the extra money and extra year but might decide he’d rather stay in NZ and happy to take a bit less to do so if Warriors aren’t prepared to match or better what tigers are offering.
Some employers (and managers) aren't that clever either. One of my wives former GM's was a local hire.... they usually bring in overseas people for that role as the NZ market isn't that large so if they stuff it up, it doesn't really matter to a Fortune 100 company.
Sounds like an episode of all in the family I watched last night. Archie bunker thought he was clever too.
