gunfyter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Posts
- 3,785
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
An interesting tidbit about FOPA
- Thread starter Frac Rat
- Start date
- Watchers 10
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Voice Of Reason
Reading Is Fundamental !
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Posts
- 1,369
Voice Of Reason
Reading Is Fundamental !
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Posts
- 1,369
Sound Familiar? (re: "FOPA" invention, et al)
Union busting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Union busting is a practice, considered by some to be unethical, undertaken by an employer when employees are attempting to join a union. It is to process which some employers may use to try and prevent their employees from joining a labor union.
During a union busting operation, sometimes a highly paid Labor Relations consultant, or a "union buster" as they are informally called, is brought in during a union organizing drive to try and convince workers not to join the union.
Contents
Union busting tactics
The following tactics are sometimes used:
Supervisors and managers can deliver letters, speeches, and informal chats, sometimes prepared by a union-buster.
Employees may be asked to attend one-on-one discussions, group meetings, or lectures about the union, during which they will be paid. Employers must be careful not to intimidate their employees, because employees can appeal to the NLRB, usually resulting in an election being rerun, and in some cases resulting in the employer being automatically required to recognize the union as the bargaining unit representing employees. At these meetings, employers discuss the negative aspects of a union and try to convince employees not to join.
In some cases, supervisors and managers will walk the floors constantly and arrange impromptu chats and meetings to find out what their workers are up to. However, this can also be interpreted as intimidation and can get the employer in trouble.
The union-busters may prepare many letters to be signed by administrators, employees, and well-liked supervisors and managers. They may express appreciation for what the employees have done for the company, admit having made mistakes in the past, and express an intention to do a better job in the future. They can also paint a very ugly picture of the union or suggest that the union has a great deal to hide. Lying to employees, however, is strictly forbidden.
In order to convince employees that they don't need a union to obtain improvements, a company may provide unexpected increases in wages or benefits, although they cannot condition said benefits or wages on union participation or threaten wage cuts.
In extreme cases, the union-buster may direct management to play one group of employees against another to generate disunity (e.g. "disloyal" union supporters versus "loyal" union opponents, one department against another, etc.). This would likely result in harsh penalties for the company.
United States Labor law presents very strict guidelines for both employer and union actions in union organizing. Unions and employers can attempt to present their factual case against or for the union, but employers cannot threaten employees or even make them feel initimidated. The union buster's key strategy, when confronted with an election, is to organise a Counter-Organizing drive.
Counter Organizing Drives
The "counter organizing drive" is the employer's attempt to convince employees attempting to organize to vote against the union. Management and supervisors can attempt to convince workers that the they are insulting their leadership skills in pushing for union representation. The labor relations expert will often do extensive research into the background of the organizing union and the organizers' background in an attempt to find discrediting evidence against them.
In very extreme cases, labor relations exprets hired by the employer may spread incorrect rumors about union supporters and organizers. Martin Levitt, in his book "Confessions of a union buster" is quoted as saying, "To fell the sturdiest union supporters...I frequently launched rumours that the targeted worker was gay or was cheating on his wife. It was a very effective technique, particularly in blue-collar towns." Occassionally, a misguided employer may even attempt to fire employees for their union sympathies. These terminations of employment are illegal under the National Labor Relations Act. Section 8(a)(3) clearly outlaws discharging employees because they urged other employees to join a union. If an employer attempted such actions today, they would almost certainly be forced to recognize the union as sole representative of the workers, without an election, as a penalty for their actions.
See also
External links
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting"
Categories: Trade unions | Labour relations
Union busting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Union busting is a practice, considered by some to be unethical, undertaken by an employer when employees are attempting to join a union. It is to process which some employers may use to try and prevent their employees from joining a labor union.
During a union busting operation, sometimes a highly paid Labor Relations consultant, or a "union buster" as they are informally called, is brought in during a union organizing drive to try and convince workers not to join the union.
Contents
Union busting tactics
The following tactics are sometimes used:
Supervisors and managers can deliver letters, speeches, and informal chats, sometimes prepared by a union-buster.
Employees may be asked to attend one-on-one discussions, group meetings, or lectures about the union, during which they will be paid. Employers must be careful not to intimidate their employees, because employees can appeal to the NLRB, usually resulting in an election being rerun, and in some cases resulting in the employer being automatically required to recognize the union as the bargaining unit representing employees. At these meetings, employers discuss the negative aspects of a union and try to convince employees not to join.
In some cases, supervisors and managers will walk the floors constantly and arrange impromptu chats and meetings to find out what their workers are up to. However, this can also be interpreted as intimidation and can get the employer in trouble.
The union-busters may prepare many letters to be signed by administrators, employees, and well-liked supervisors and managers. They may express appreciation for what the employees have done for the company, admit having made mistakes in the past, and express an intention to do a better job in the future. They can also paint a very ugly picture of the union or suggest that the union has a great deal to hide. Lying to employees, however, is strictly forbidden.
In order to convince employees that they don't need a union to obtain improvements, a company may provide unexpected increases in wages or benefits, although they cannot condition said benefits or wages on union participation or threaten wage cuts.
In extreme cases, the union-buster may direct management to play one group of employees against another to generate disunity (e.g. "disloyal" union supporters versus "loyal" union opponents, one department against another, etc.). This would likely result in harsh penalties for the company.
United States Labor law presents very strict guidelines for both employer and union actions in union organizing. Unions and employers can attempt to present their factual case against or for the union, but employers cannot threaten employees or even make them feel initimidated. The union buster's key strategy, when confronted with an election, is to organise a Counter-Organizing drive.
Counter Organizing Drives
The "counter organizing drive" is the employer's attempt to convince employees attempting to organize to vote against the union. Management and supervisors can attempt to convince workers that the they are insulting their leadership skills in pushing for union representation. The labor relations expert will often do extensive research into the background of the organizing union and the organizers' background in an attempt to find discrediting evidence against them.
In very extreme cases, labor relations exprets hired by the employer may spread incorrect rumors about union supporters and organizers. Martin Levitt, in his book "Confessions of a union buster" is quoted as saying, "To fell the sturdiest union supporters...I frequently launched rumours that the targeted worker was gay or was cheating on his wife. It was a very effective technique, particularly in blue-collar towns." Occassionally, a misguided employer may even attempt to fire employees for their union sympathies. These terminations of employment are illegal under the National Labor Relations Act. Section 8(a)(3) clearly outlaws discharging employees because they urged other employees to join a union. If an employer attempted such actions today, they would almost certainly be forced to recognize the union as sole representative of the workers, without an election, as a penalty for their actions.
See also
External links
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting"
Categories: Trade unions | Labour relations
Last edited:
Voice Of Reason
Reading Is Fundamental !
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Posts
- 1,369
Why else would Flops fight this except NOT wanting to pay proper wages?
Labour Unions and the Workers of the Future
From: Page 36, Scientific American - August 1998 (News and Analysis - Economics)
Look for the Union Label
Paul Wallich
New analysis of economic data shows that unionization could maximize productivity.
After nearly a century of union-management warfare in the U.S., a series of nationwide surveys showing that union shops dominate the ranks of the country's most productive workplaces may come as a surprise. In fact, according to Lisa M. Lynch of Tufts University and Sandra E. Black of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, economic Darwinism - the survival of the fittest championed by generations of hard-nosed tycoons - may be doing what legions of organizers could not: putting an end to autocratic bosses and regimented workplaces.
American industry has been trying to reinvent itself for more than 20 years. Management gurus have proclaimed Theories X, Y and Z, not to mention Quality Circles, Total Quality Management (TQM) and High Output Management. Only in the past few years, however, have any solid data become available on which techniques work and which don't. Businesses do not always respond to surveys, and previous attempts to collect data ran into response rates of as low as 6 percent, making their results unrepresentative. Enter the U.S. Census's Educational Quality of the Workforce National Employer Survey, first conducted in 1994, which collected data on business practices from a nationally representative sample of more than 1,500 workplaces.
Lynch and Black correlated the survey data with other statistics that detailed the productivity of each business in the sample. They took as their "typical" establishment a non-union company with limited profit sharing and without TQM or other formal quality-enhancing methods. (Unionized firms constituted about 20 percent of the sample, consistent with the waning reach of organized labor in the U.S.)
The average unionized establishment recorded productivity levels 16 percent higher than the baseline firm, whereas average non-union ones scored 11 percent lower. One reason: most of the union shops had adopted so-called formal quality programs, in which up to half the workers meet regularly to discuss workplace issues. Moreover, production workers at these establishments shared in the firms profits, and more than a quarter did their lobs in self-managed teams. Productivity in such union shops was 20 percent above baseline. That small minority of unionized workplaces still following the adversarial line recorded productivity 15 percent lower than the baseline, even worse than the non-union average.
Are these productivity gains the result of high-performance management techniques rather than unionization? No, Lynch and Black say. Adoption of the same methods in non-union establishments yielded only a 10 percent improvement in productivity over the baseline. The doubled gains in well-run union shops, Lynch contends, may result from the greater stake unionized workers have in their place of employment: they can accept or even propose large changes in job practice without worrying that they are cutting their own throats in doing so. (Lynch tells the opposing story of a high-tech company that paid its janitors a small bonus for suggesting a simple measure to speed nightly office cleaning and then laid-off a third of them.)
Even if a union cannot guarantee job security, she says, it enables workers to negotiate on a more or less equal footing. Especially in manufacturing, Lynch notes, unionized workplaces tend to have lower turnover. Consequently, they also reap more benefit from company specific on-the-job training.
These documented productivity gains cast a different light on the declining percentage of unionized workers throughout the U.S. Are employers acting against their own interests when they work to block unionization? Lynch believes that a follow-up survey, with initial analyses due out this winter, may help answer that question and others. Economists will he able to see how many of the previously sampled firms that have traditional management-labor relations managed to stay in business and to what extent the "corporate reengineering" mania of the past few years has paid off. Most serious reengineering efforts - the ones that aren't just downsizing by another name - lead to increased worker involvement, Lynch argues, if only because they require finding out how people actually do their jobs. Armed with that knowledge, and with the willing cooperation of their employees, firms may yet be able to break out of the productivity doldrums.
Labour Unions and the Workers of the Future
From: Page 36, Scientific American - August 1998 (News and Analysis - Economics)
Look for the Union Label
Paul Wallich
New analysis of economic data shows that unionization could maximize productivity.
After nearly a century of union-management warfare in the U.S., a series of nationwide surveys showing that union shops dominate the ranks of the country's most productive workplaces may come as a surprise. In fact, according to Lisa M. Lynch of Tufts University and Sandra E. Black of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, economic Darwinism - the survival of the fittest championed by generations of hard-nosed tycoons - may be doing what legions of organizers could not: putting an end to autocratic bosses and regimented workplaces.
American industry has been trying to reinvent itself for more than 20 years. Management gurus have proclaimed Theories X, Y and Z, not to mention Quality Circles, Total Quality Management (TQM) and High Output Management. Only in the past few years, however, have any solid data become available on which techniques work and which don't. Businesses do not always respond to surveys, and previous attempts to collect data ran into response rates of as low as 6 percent, making their results unrepresentative. Enter the U.S. Census's Educational Quality of the Workforce National Employer Survey, first conducted in 1994, which collected data on business practices from a nationally representative sample of more than 1,500 workplaces.
Lynch and Black correlated the survey data with other statistics that detailed the productivity of each business in the sample. They took as their "typical" establishment a non-union company with limited profit sharing and without TQM or other formal quality-enhancing methods. (Unionized firms constituted about 20 percent of the sample, consistent with the waning reach of organized labor in the U.S.)
The average unionized establishment recorded productivity levels 16 percent higher than the baseline firm, whereas average non-union ones scored 11 percent lower. One reason: most of the union shops had adopted so-called formal quality programs, in which up to half the workers meet regularly to discuss workplace issues. Moreover, production workers at these establishments shared in the firms profits, and more than a quarter did their lobs in self-managed teams. Productivity in such union shops was 20 percent above baseline. That small minority of unionized workplaces still following the adversarial line recorded productivity 15 percent lower than the baseline, even worse than the non-union average.
Are these productivity gains the result of high-performance management techniques rather than unionization? No, Lynch and Black say. Adoption of the same methods in non-union establishments yielded only a 10 percent improvement in productivity over the baseline. The doubled gains in well-run union shops, Lynch contends, may result from the greater stake unionized workers have in their place of employment: they can accept or even propose large changes in job practice without worrying that they are cutting their own throats in doing so. (Lynch tells the opposing story of a high-tech company that paid its janitors a small bonus for suggesting a simple measure to speed nightly office cleaning and then laid-off a third of them.)
Even if a union cannot guarantee job security, she says, it enables workers to negotiate on a more or less equal footing. Especially in manufacturing, Lynch notes, unionized workplaces tend to have lower turnover. Consequently, they also reap more benefit from company specific on-the-job training.
These documented productivity gains cast a different light on the declining percentage of unionized workers throughout the U.S. Are employers acting against their own interests when they work to block unionization? Lynch believes that a follow-up survey, with initial analyses due out this winter, may help answer that question and others. Economists will he able to see how many of the previously sampled firms that have traditional management-labor relations managed to stay in business and to what extent the "corporate reengineering" mania of the past few years has paid off. Most serious reengineering efforts - the ones that aren't just downsizing by another name - lead to increased worker involvement, Lynch argues, if only because they require finding out how people actually do their jobs. Armed with that knowledge, and with the willing cooperation of their employees, firms may yet be able to break out of the productivity doldrums.
Voice Of Reason
Reading Is Fundamental !
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Posts
- 1,369
Lies within lies within lies
This FOPA group has revealed itself to be pure scum. I do not believe for a minute that current management didn't finance this, allow them to operate on company time, authorize the use of company communication facilites. We will probably find out they received overtime pay for working on this
Good catch guys. Click "file" Click "properties" read "title" and under that "subject" which doesn't quite match what is printed above for public consumption.
FOPA said:
This FOPA group has revealed itself to be pure scum. I do not believe for a minute that current management didn't finance this, allow them to operate on company time, authorize the use of company communication facilites. We will probably find out they received overtime pay for working on this
Good catch guys. Click "file" Click "properties" read "title" and under that "subject" which doesn't quite match what is printed above for public consumption.
Kind of reminds me of the few anti-union management stooges that hammered NJA pilots during the negotiations on this board. They kind of disappeared after the TA. Notice how those in favor of this stealth in-house union all have just a few posts? I see Schmeddley just joined this forum this January. Wake Turb has 9 posts and been registered for over a year. So Wake's been snooping for management for a while, and Schmeddley just recently. To our collegues at FLOPS, don't buy it. If you don't like 1108, you can vote them out just like NJA did 284. You have nothing to lose with 1108. My grievance settlements this year have already paid for my dues for the entire year.
Last edited:
Voice Of Reason
Reading Is Fundamental !
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Posts
- 1,369
luvu said:
Oh, they absolutely financed this...its sickening...all the money they spent on Ford Harrison, this, and other, yet the pilot group has never seen anything but REDUCTIONS in pay under a NUMBER of people in management...but no matter who is in upper mgt, it all comes back to *ONE* big company that has ALWAYS made the decision that they will force pilots to be paid as little as possible. Mgt's chances to dangle carrots has worn out its effectiveness. Same story, different year. Now that doesn't work they want to create a fiction that there are "all these pilots out there" uniting to create their own union.
They've seen what 1108 did for NetJets and see a potential limit to their corporate greed.
choppengruven
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Posts
- 108
Voice Of Reason
Reading Is Fundamental !
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Posts
- 1,369
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
