On Sep 26, 10:35*pm, Zombywoof wrote:


I've been an Exempt Employee all my adult life and have been at two
Companies while they went through the Unionization process. *

and i've worked for both unionized and non unionized companies.
unionized companies are healthier


In one Management was absolutely more then happy to see their workers
unionize because it allowed them to dump a ****-load of personnel
programs that weren't required by law, and costing them tons of money.\\

things like vacations...won by union workers? you ready to give up
weekends and vacations?


In the other management took what is more the normally perceived
action and attempted to dissuade the workers from organizing. *Of
course since they really can't prevent it they eventually develop

and since there's no penalty for firing workers engaged in unionizing,
that's what companies do. then they cry when things like the EFCA are
proposed

ed a
"How can we best turn this to our advantage approach". *In very, very
high level Executive Management discussions it was decided to wait and
see what the end-result of collective bargaining was going to be on
the bottom line, usually an increase in hourly wages, then balance the
ledger with numerous & massive cuts in the existing quality of life
programs. *Once again the employees perceived a win, yeah were making
more money, but took it in the ass on all sorts of benefits & perks.
--

chuckle what i've seen is that unionized companies are actually
healthier since unions act as a check on unlimited exec power. unions
win benefits for both exempt and non-exempt employees.

non unionized companies screw their workers like they're $2 whores.
and the right, with their deep, abiding disgust at the very existence
of the middle class, hates unions