In Reply to: No need for unions posted by Anonymous on December 23, 1996 at 01:16:08:
> Unions, like McDonald's are a profit making business. Without
> members unions fail to make profits. What sort of benefits do
> you think a union would bring compared to what you are
> presently receiving? Will they get you paid breaks?
> No, because you already get them!> Will they get you activities on a regular basis?
> No, because you also get that already.> How about food discounts or free uniforms?
> Once again all of these are provided to you.> I suggest you openly speak with your boss to communicate
> your concerns (whatever they are) and give him or her the
> opportunity to fix them.> Are you prepared to pay someone else to do this for you?
> Is it really necessary? are you prepared to give up promotions
> based on performance to promotions based on seniority?> Unions protect workers who need to be protected because they
> fail to ensure their own protection by doing a good job.Your assertion that "Unions like McDonald's are a profit making
business," is correct. All organisations (so-called non-profit
included) under capitalism must make profits in order to survive.
However does this mean that you place an organisation such as
Amnesty International alongside Pepsico? Greenpeace alongside
Shell? Body Shop alongside Nestle?You point out that McDonald's workers already get "activities on
a regular basis" (whatever they consist of), and "food discounts
and free uniforms" (as if one should be expected to pay for the
company uniform - most workers I'm sure would rather wear their
own attire). Conspicuously absent is any mention of protection
against wrongful dismissal, maintenance of a decent wage rate,
the right to withdraw one's labour, overtime pay, reasonable
minimum and maximum shift durations, protection against
discrimination etc. Individually, workers are not able to
achieve and maintain conditions such as these. Usually then,
it is necessary to pay unions to help in this regard.As for your suggestion to "openly speak with your boss to
communicate your concerns (WHATEVER THEY ARE)," I hardly need
comment on the harsh realities of the bargaining position of
workers vis-a-vis bosses (My emphasis).Your final comment, "Unions protect workers who need to be
protected because they fail to ensure their own protection by
doing a good job, " invokes definition of the meaning of "doing
a good job." Workers who unquestionably submit themselves to
authority; work noticeably harder than their comrades; come
in at a minutes notice; look, act and talk the right way;
accept that once they succumb to the inevitablilities of age
and consequently outlive their use-by-date, they will receive
less shifts and be gradually eased out of the organisation;
and in short recognise that as George Bush once said of
America's role in world affairs, "what we say goes", surely
are "doing a good job" and will be richly rewarded for their
sacrifices (a management position at best).
None.