I suppose I was tempting fate, discussing unions here. That musing got a flood of comments. It deserves a look: some call unions corrupt, and others call them godsends. Name calling began, partisan politics entered the equation, and I watched over in shock. Even when I posted a follow-up comment, 'I am not so naive to think that unions can't abuse their power. And I am not so jaded to think unions are only power-hungry committees who want to control the world' the fur continued flying unabatedly.
This shows me two things: our FC Now readers have opinions and have no qualms letting it be known (which is a good thing). And that there needs to be a real discussion about unions in business ethics. Some comments applauded Wal-Mart for saving money and passing those savings on to their customers. Others lambasted the retailer for abusing their employees. Clearly, this is an unresolved issue.
Everyone agrees that transparency is a good thing, or running a green business, but the ethics of unions and employee rights is mired with confusion and rhetoric. How can we approach this issue and start a real dialogue? Any suggestions?
Related Stories: | Topics:Work/Life, ethics, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 5 Total
March 29, 2005 at 6:18pm by Glenn
Your absolutely right about Unions needing to be addressed in Business Ethics. I just had Bus Ethics last semester and we only focused on the one aspect of them as they relate to (drum roll) Wal-Mart. In all it was pretty enlightening, but We never discussed if they exploited their power at all, just focused on the Wal-Mart's Tyranny over unions. At our ethics workshop a Business Camp I volunteer for, I will definitly raise this issue.
March 30, 2005 at 12:15am by patrick
My 35 years experience with working on both sides of a unionized company have lead me to believe that unions are merely a business with their primary focus being collecting dues.
In my industry, there is little difference in employee pay/benefits between the unionized companies and those that are not unionized.
The difference that is evident is that the non-union companies develop more of a partnership with their employees...it's us and not them against us.
March 30, 2005 at 11:48am by Wayne
The thing about unions is this, they were needed to help set up America's employee rights.The Unions helped get minimum wage and equal employment rights. they helped get a 40 hour work week established. The unions were the Only voice the employees of America had. Times have changed! I was a union officer for 8 years in a large corporate mill. The union fought for every body's rights. Everybody. Even the ones who did not work, who slept and hid all day. The same people who the union made the company pay the same rate as hardworking people. That is not fair. The company is faced with a delima now, they have to stay lean and mean to compete in the world economy, but the union will not let the company get rid of "dead wieght". This is not fair to the company or the ecnonmy of America. Unions need to be dissolved in America. This coming from a "union" man, who has enough sense to see the uslessness of unions in today's workplace.
March 31, 2005 at 12:03am by Chris Rosebrough
Kevin.. in your first blog entry on unions you wanted to hold Wal-Mart accountable for not unionizing. In this entry you say that "transparency is a good thing, or running a green business but the ethics of unions and employee rights is mired with confusion and rhetoric.
If you want to have a real discussion on this topic then I would recommend losing the 'left leaning' politically charged socialist rhetoric. When you began this discussion by strongly defending the Unions it was clear that you already had taken a position. When you do that you are begging for people to prove you wrong.
If you want to have a real discussion on the Union issue then you're going to need to approach it from an objective position. If you're a “real” journalist you're supposed to be unbiased.
Therefore, you may want to solicit feedback and discussion on unions by attacking the issue from several perspectives. For instance...
"Union Cultures...Do they foster or stifle business innovation?"
"Have Unions Outlived Their Usefulness?"
"Is it Ethical for Unions to Require Companies to Pay a Low-Skilled Worker a Wage That is Higher Than the Going Free-Market Rate?"
"What is Better for Society, Low-Prices or a Unionized Workforce?"
“Wal-Mart Offers Their Employees Ownership and Stock Options, Should They Allow Them to Unionize Instead?”
Each of these sample discussion topics allow people to weigh in on the issue without creating the appearance that Fast Company has become another socialist rag like the New York Times.
By the way, you might want to consider who reads Fast Company. I can guarantee that a strong majority of your readership are NOT socialists. This is a publication that historically has been read by innovative capitalists, entrepreneurs and forward thinking business executives. If you alienate your readership through some kind of pro-union socialist agenda then the magazine will fail and you’ll be looking for a new gig.
April 1, 2005 at 2:21pm by Kevin Ohannessian
As I said in the story, I know unions are a mixed blessing. Likewise, I am not trying to push a socialist agenda. That said, there is nothing wrong with being ethical while you do business.
I believe Chris Rosebrough's suggestion of addressing specifics about unions is a good start. It would put the dialogue above who's right and who's wrong.