Union right or wrong?

Question

St. Mary's paper in Northern Ontario has been ordered to close due to the fact that it has not been able to restructure its finances. The last option put forward is for the employees to take a 20% pay cut. The union voted and rejected this offer and now the mill will close and the largest source of high paying wages in the area will be no more.
The union vote was 92% in favour of rejecting the offer.
Why would people vote so stongly in favour of loosing one of the biggest employers in the region? They now face the alternative of a depressed economy for thier region and good paying jobs being scarce.

Answer 1

So you have two opinions and neither has mentioned the fact that the union turned down a 20% pay cut and that the members of the union will now have a 100% pay cut. Unions have out-lived their usefulness and you would think their members would wonder what good they did when they have no income.

Answer 2

I don't know all the facts, but I did a quick search and found one fact that may have made a difference.

The workers had already given the company a "20 percent wage reduction and other concessions" a year before the company demanded another 20% pay cut.

The voters who rejected the second 20% pay cut were the actual workers. Belonging to a union gave them the power to make that decision. They decided. I don't know if it was a good or bad decision. I do know that if I had my pay cut 20% and was then told I would have to take another 20% pay cut to keep my job, I would have to seriously consider seeking a different employer.

If the the plant is really offering good paying jobs I would think it could hire replacement workers and reopen, possibly after being sold to new management.

Answer 3

In the beginning, unions had a good and noble purpose; to maintain the safety and well being of the worker, to fight child labor abuse, and to promote fair pay for the employees. Organizing takes money, so unions charged their members for their protection (charging for protection? Hmmm) Anyway corrupt members saw a cash cow that couldn't be ignored, the more money they could get the members, the more members, the more money for themselves.... Unfortunately, that money has to come from somewhere. The company coffers. In order to maintain a profit, the company now had to raise its prices, hurting the public. In many cases, like yours, the company could not afford the union demands and the cost of normal inflation and were run out of business. While there are still some uses for a united representation of employees to the company, the power of the union is often abused ultimately hurting and destroying the lives of those it supposedly represents. Another part of the problem is that negotiations are done in private. The results as reported to the union rank and file are often not accurate in order to coerce the members into an action that fits the agenda of the union leaders. As far as I am concerned, I believe unions have outlived their usefulness and should be dismantled. An intermediary, professional negotiator should be used with no ties to either party.

Answer 4

The closing of the plant, may very well depress, the local economy. However, asking the employees of the plant, to take, substantial pay cut, in order to save the local economy, is asking them to subsidize the local economy, at great personal expense, to themselves and their families. They would put their families in an economic depression, that also, would impact the local economy. It would be interesting to know, what percentage of residents, in this local economy, would be willing to subsidize the plant, in order to keep it open.

Furthermore, I suspect, the employees, don't trust the management, they probably think, they are trying just trying to gain a contractual concession. Management, acts on behalf of the stock holders, unions act, on behalf of non-managerial employees. The relationship, between the two entities, is adversarial.

Answer 5

so, I hope they all have good jobs lined up.