Millennials have accepted the "Team" as the way to work and get ahead in society, "Unions" are out.

[CK_John]

Teams are usually formed in groups of 5-7 people.

Unions are considered as being conformist and non-creative.
This is information for the the DNC and the new chairman and hope he understands this group.

[Adrahil]

1. My Dad worked for a union...

They took great care of him and my Mom when he passed away, but there is no doubt that structurally it was extremely inflexible.

That style of organization is not only inefficient, it's just not the way young people learn to work these days.... you're right... "teams" are a common way to organize work these days, and the teams tend to focus on accomplishing tasks together, without regard for "positions" or specific roles.

If organized labor wants to be relevant, it must adjust to mor modern concepts of work organizations. The rigid roles and job descriptions of past unions will no longer work. And further, i think unions have their greatest success when they reepresent themselves as labor in partnership with ownership inorder to advqnce the interests of workers and owners as part of an overall team.

[kentuck]

2. Young and naive.

"Teams" are a method that employers use to divide employees into groups. Divide and conquer.

[CK_John]

4. True, but they use the team system in university and the Millennials do not

like being the sole worker and responsible person.

They work as a group and demand it in the high end tech jobs, along with other items.

[a kennedy]

37. exactly....... eom

[MineralMan]

3. Teams are a construct of management, not employees.

They are designed to shift responsibility and discourage broader organization. They are not designed to benefit the members of the "team."

[Hortensis]

10. Exactly. True, true, and true.

[Adrahil]

23. Gonna disagree....

We're talking here about teams like "scrums" in software development.

It's really a more collective way to work. Team members are encouraged to collaborate, sometimes even "pair programming." We self-organize as much as possible (that is, the team is assigned a task, but the team itself decides best how to accomplish the task), and perform peer reviews and hold each other accountable.

It's actually a pretty great way to work. I personally love it.

[rock]

31. A "team" in the classic sense

of a group of people that work well together is certainly a nice thing to have but once again management is incapable of drawing fine distinctions and think that throwing a few people together and calling them a "team" will in fact make them one. As usual calling a tail a leg doesn't make the dog run any faster.

[redstatebluegirl]

35. True, and the entire team will be held accountable.

My experience is the young ones don't like responsibility and accountability.

[Blue_true]

42. Yes, to a considerable extent.

But company management that recognize the power of teams where each member is treated and compensated fairly can turn a failing company around or create a big, successful new company. Companies like Google were at their best when they had empowered teams with all members benefitting, then Google grew large and started conspiring with other Tech companies to keep workers from freely changing jobs. I think the worst thing that can happen to a company is the have it's stock listed and traded on stock exchanges, at that point for profit forces take over and slowly destroy creativity and innovation.

[MineralMan]

43. Perhaps the next trend will be for companies to have teams

who work together by collaborating online, eliminating the need for workspaces altogether. The publishing industry has gone that route almost completely now. I know that, because I've been freelancing as a writer and working at home since 1974. My wife, too. She's still working for what was once PC Magazine, which is little more now than an office in New York and a website. Everything is now part of the gig economy.

That seems to be the direction things are going. You work where you are and the company is more of an e-entity than a building full of people working. I think that's the future, really.

Everyone will be a contract worker, eventually, except in manufacturing, which seems to be disappearing here anyhow. Welcome home, to the new workplace. Some of us have been doing it for decades now.

[msanthrope]

5. Well, that's precious. Let us know how the "Team" gets you higher wages. nt

[Orrex]

6. What's your source for this?

Millennials certainly aren't alone in their apathy toward unions. Almost all of the 30- and 40-somethings that I know are either totally uninterested in them or else bitterly opposed to them.

That's what we get for decades of non-stop union-bashing by the Reichwing, catapulted by St. Reagan's union-busting campaign from the Whitehouse.


In other words, it would be a terrible mistake to blame this on millennials, because the problem preceded them by decades.

[CK_John]

7. But it is the way it is and we are not going to win any offices by pushing unions.

They have served there purpose and it is time to move on.

[Orrex]

9. Again, what's your source for the assertion in your OP?

[Demsrule86]

14. Wrong we need to push unions by educating people who after Trump may

be more willing to hear it.

[JCanete]

29. agreed! Nice to be on the same page. nt

[CK_John]

8. Nobody is blaming them, I'm just pointing out the way it is.

[Squinch]

41. But what you are saying is not "the way it is."

[Kimchijeon]

11. I agree with you

all the decades of union-bashing and union-busting are to blame... personally I see no need to abandon unions. If anything we should push further for them. The problem has been around since before millennials, you're right.

[CK_John]

12. Here is a good starting article.

Read More:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/micahsolomon/2016/01/26/everything-youve-heard-about-millennial-employees-is-baloney-heres-the-truth-and-how-to-use-it/

[Demsrule86]

16. This is one man's opinion and he is management so of course he says this shit.

Come on...one guy attempting to help out his rich friends...

[Orrex]

19. Right.

I'm pretty far removed from the millennial age group, but I work with quite a few of them, and they're every bit as competent and dedicated as any boomer or Gen-X'er on the payroll.

But don't tell them I said that, of course.

Every time I see an article or editorial lamenting the slackers of the younger generation, I can only think "said every generation ever."

[Adrahil]

25. I think unions need to recognize changes in the workplace.

Unions can no longer focus on rigid job structures. They need to recognize that the modern workplace is more dynamic than that. I am in a position that does not typically unionize, but I know that when I have to deal with union shops, it can sometimes be frustrating. For example, when we want to run an experiment, the engineers I deal with are not permitted to actually run the experiment without 2 technicians present, even if the techs don't actually DO anything. That strikes everyone as silly, and makes the union look ridiculous.

We have to fix stuff like that.

[JCanete]

28. just wanted to chime in on the same page, since we had a contentious thread elsewhere. With you on

this entirely. We've been sold for a long time on why unions are a problem and an inconvenience for the rest of us. Hell, they barely get better treatment on NPR.

[Orrex]

33. Right?!?

My town's FB page is full of people who retired decades ago and now spend their time complaining about lazy millennials for wanting handouts and entitlements.

This is a rustbelt town, so these retirees worked strong union jobs in manufacturing for excellent wages for most of their adult lives, and then they retired with secure pensions and (now) social security payments. They simply refuse to understand (or admit) that the post-Reagan world of today is not the world in which they paid for houses and and orthodonture and cars and college all on a single income.

They reap the benefits of a lifetime of union membership and now vote bright, solid Red every time because Trump is going to make America Great, etc.

Of course, my fellow Gen-X'ers are happy to jump on that bandwagon, having swallowed the lie that unions are causing employers to ship jobs overseas. When I point out that unions are responsible for every single thing that doesn't absolutely suck about their jobs, they say "yeah, but that was a long time ago. What have they done for me lately?"


Madness. These Trump-voting fools are eagerly helping to build the gallows where we'll all be hanged.

[a kennedy]

38. I still wonder how the union association has been turned into a despised concept????

I remember back to the Air Traffic Controllers, but they weren't, at least I don't think they were so hated for their union......did it just evolve over time this hatred for them?? I loved my union, got reasonable benefits, a place at the table during negotiations and have a pretty good pension. I sure can't complain about my union participation.

[Demsrule86]

13. And teams offer no worker protection...seriously foolish people.

[alarimer]

15. Good luck on them keeping a job in the future when you are expendable

Teams of 5-7 are not big enough for collective bargaining. There is more power in larger groups. These millennials will soon wonder why they have such paltry benefits, if they have any at all. They will blame older generations, instead of their rapacious employers.

[Demsrule86]

17. This guy writes books and works on management techniques to increase profits at any cost...

His priority is helping the wealthy and I see no reason to accept his biased opinion. I don't like to see union bashing on DU...the OP should delete this.

[Starry Messenger]

18. That is completely untrue

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/27/mixed-views-of-impact-of-long-term-decline-in-union-membership/

That age group has the highest approval rating of unions.

[JCanete]

30. That's pretty promising. nt

[LexVegas]

32. This. nt

[leftstreet]

34. +1

[taught_me_patience]

20. Older millenial - I have almost complete disdain for unions

It's the rampant nepotism that I simply cannot get over. These days, it seems like you need to "know somebody" in order to get into a union. I'm in a field where joining a union would be detrimental to my career (business analytics).

[forjusticethunders]

21. Why would be it detrimental?

Just wondering.

[JCanete]

26. that doesn't sound like its the union's fault that it would be detrimental to your career. It sounds

more like its a condition of the unions being too weak to offer the value they should be able to offer. Needing to know somebody in order to get into a union seems bizarre. I'm not sure why that would ever be a barrier, given that unions are only as strong as their membership.

Are unions sometimes corrupted? Yes. They are power bases. Power bases get corrupted. They have to be governed by the membership so that that is mitigated. But unions, when they have some power and are working for their membership(not compromised by corporations they are supposed to hold their ground against) keep wages in all industries higher. Even non-union labor benefits from strong unions because companies will sometimes pay higher wages for workers that aren't unionized to avoid all of the other protections that unions offer. When wages are higher, small local businesses get more revenue as well. Strong unions feed the middle class.

We just don't really have them any more, and the disdain doesn't help.

[JCanete]

22. Well unions are power, "teams" are powerless. All this says is that we've done a very terrible job

as a nation, promoting the benefits of workers rights and the value of unionized labor. The most terrible job money can buy.

what is he supposed to understand about this group? I think he needs to understand that ignorance, and that that ignorance needs to be combatted.

[Go Vols]

24. MY millennial kid loves the Union

[CountAllVotes]

27. Some people don't do well w/teams

They do divide and conquer for certain.

Mission Accomplished .... !!

UNION YES!!!

[SharonClark]

36. Comparing Teams and Unions is comparing apples and oranges

They are not alike and they don't serve the same purpose.
You do know Forbes is written for anti-union, anti-worker, corporate CEOs and their wannabes.

[brush]

39. How's that working out for them?

5-7 person teams can go against management more effectively for higher wages and workplace safety than the whole workforce?

Sounds like individuals in the small groups pitted one another and small groups pitted against other small groups.

Guess we'll see how that works.

Wonder whose idea dividing the workforce in the small work groups is?

Ya don't have to answer — management.

[Squinch]

40. What is your source for saying unions are considered conformist and non-creative?

I've heard a lot of crap spewed about unions, but "conformist and non-creative" have never been on the list.