Let's talk unions

[Chosen]

Are they good, bad, or something that has just become a thorn in the side of big business. Regardless of our views of unions are they needed today. We all hear the stories of how they were needed in the land of our grandfathers, but are they needed today. It is this question I start to research a little.

I've heard union members say things like,"I remember the day I got this job I went out and got a bank loan to buy car, today the new hires come to work on skateboards.". Or a lady who states "This job helped me raise my family as a single mother and put two kids through collage, today it pays just above minimum wage"

Is this the what unions have created to secure the future of our children? Hardly seems worth it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGMDPgB6HtY

[Essendon]

Unions are for the most part good especially if you're in a low skilled occupation.

[Chosen]

Unions are for the most part good especially if you're in a low skilled occupation.


Really? How?

[Eddie]

I consider the right to form and join labour unions to be a vital part of liberal democracy (ie; western democracy). You cannot prevent people from pursuing their own interests in regards of unions without becomming a totalitarian state, just as little as you can preven people from pursuing their interests in regards of starting companies or form and join political parties or groups.

Personally I prefer larger labour unions as they tend to be more responsible in both the wage setting process and in regards to political issues. I also believe that the collective bargaining system provides both a fairer resource distribution as well as peace on the labour markets.

I prefer when representatives from labour unions and representatives from the employers control the labour markets rather than governmental interferance.

[Essendon]

Really? How?

It allows employees to collective bargain.

[rjamortega]

Unions are acceptable. But just like management (and everything else) they need to be balanced. I think the current Big 3 trouble is going to serve as a balancing tool for the UAW.

[Atticus]

I like my union. Yours sucks.

[gopman]

I consider the right to form and join labour unions to be a vital part of liberal democracy (ie; western democracy). You cannot prevent people from pursuing their own interests in regards of unions without becomming a totalitarian state, just as little as you can preven people from pursuing their interests in regards of starting companies or form and join political parties or groups.

Personally I prefer larger labour unions as they tend to be more responsible in both the wage setting process and in regards to political issues. I also believe that the collective bargaining system provides both a fairer resource distribution as well as peace on the labour markets.

I prefer when representatives from labour unions and representatives from the employers control the labour markets rather than governmental interferance.

Why can't sellers of things other than labor "unionize" to collectively bargain for pricing? Do they not have the same rights as everyone else in a democratic society?

[Atticus]

But seriously, unions tend to be most effective in industries that are entirely unionized--which means things like public employment and industries that are regulated by government. The problem with unions in non-regulated industries is that they often create comparative disadvantages for those businesses that have higher labor costs due to unioin compared to those those that do not. Many states (as those in the South) have attracted economic activity with right-to-work laws. Those states that have strong union protections (California, New York, New Jersey, the New England states) are able to do so because of other advantages those states enjoy (not the least of these is simple inertia--moving to another state involves lots of costs). My hometown, Pittsburgh, PA, probably has LESS economic activity because of strong union traditions--many people don't want to move their businesses (even non-union type businesses) there because of higher overall costs, partly due to unions.

[Atticus]

Why can't sellers of things other than labor "unionize" to collectively bargain for pricing? Do they not have the same rights as everyone else in a democratic society?Is it restraint of trade when there is only one buyer?

[Albert08]

The principle fallacy surrounding contemporary discussions about unions is that they are considered in the 3rd person. Not surprising considering that most Americans believe in our “democratic” form of government but dislike and distrust the government without any regard to irony. Unions are collections of people and as such will be as functional and as effective as the people belonging to it. Many of our parents and grandparents joined unions because they understood that collective action would yield collective dividends. In the early days unions lived or died on the dedication and courage of its membership. Over the years unions became more accepted, established and underappreciated. The big fights were won so leadership focused on problem solving and perhaps lost sight of the big picture. Now many union members look at unions as employment agencies and insurance policies; only important when something goes wrong, they are disconnected, apathetic and disloyal.

This has caused many unions to become weak and ineffective. Does this reality support proposition that unions are bad? Is anyone willing to propose and support, that the wages and benefits unions won over the past 60 years had no impact on wages and benefits provided non-union workers? Is anyone willing to propose and support that the decline in real wages and benefits experienced over the past 30 years was in no way related to the decline in union membership?

[gopman]

Is it restraint of trade when there is only one buyer?

But there are millions of buyers of labor. You'd have to become extremely specialized for that not to be the case and in that situation you have built up a significant bit of bargaining power for yourself.

[Atticus]

But there are millions of buyers of labor. You'd have to become extremely specialized for that not to be the case and in that situation you have built up a significant bit of bargaining power for yourself.But your implied conception of labor here is that it's undifferentiated by skill and that the market is completely unrestrained. That's not true. Moving to take a job in another place involves enough costs that many people simply won't or can't do it. Developing new skills or even just new routines also involves significant costs. Many workers are far more constrained than you admit here.

[Atticus]

The principle fallacy surrounding contemporary discussions about unions is that they are considered in the 3rd person. Not surprising considering that most Americans believe in our “democratic” form of government but dislike and distrust the government without any regard to irony. Unions are collections of people and as such will be as functional and as effective as the people belonging to it. This is only partly true. Unions are also businesses, and they sell representation and comparative advantage to workers. Unions spend lots of time and money convincing workers to take the actions union leaders (not necessarily among the workers) think is right. Unions, as businesses, even have incentives to create an antagonistic attitude in workers toward their employers. And unions sometimes do a rather poor job of representing the workers who employ them.

There was a time when unions = workers, but that's no longer true.

[gopman]

But your implied conception of labor here is that it's undifferentiated by skill and that the market is completely unrestrained. That's not true. Moving to take a job in another place involves enough costs that many people simply won't or can't do it. Developing new skills or even just new routines also involves significant costs. Many workers are far more constrained than you admit here.

Not really. If you're an accountant, there are a million places that will hire an accountant. Probably a lot where you live already. The main friction is the time and money it takes to find a new job and the cost of moving.

[Atticus]

Not really. If you're an accountant, there are a million places that will hire an accountant. Probably a lot where you live already. The main friction is the time and money it takes to find a new job and the cost of moving.But if you are a teacher, for example, that isn't true. And teaching is a profession where specific performance goals don't work, and there's good research to indicate that student performance goes up when faculty at a school are stable over time. Not all professions are the same, sorry.

BTW, is there a movement among accountants to unionize? Do accountants see the benefits from that possibility? If not, they probably aren't a good point of comparison.

[gopman]

But if you are a teacher, for example, that isn't true. And teaching is a profession where specific performance goals don't work, and there's good research to indicate that student performance goes up when faculty at a school are stable over time. Not all professions are the same, sorry.

BTW, is there a movement among accountants to unionize? Do accountants see the benefits from that possibility? If not, they probably aren't a good point of comparison.

There are thousands of localities that hire teachers. My mom and sister are teachers and I know that the adjacent localities compete with each other to varying degrees. And teachers can change professions as well. An economics professor can become a private researcher, I'm aware of cases where that's happened. I'm sure there are dozens of examples.

Accountants would benefit from unions as much as anyone else, but they receive no political support from the Democratic party as they tend to be higher income.

[AgentM]

There are thousands of localities that hire teachers. My mom and sister are teachers and I know that the adjacent localities compete with each other to varying degrees. And teachers can change professions as well. An economics professor can become a private researcher, I'm aware of cases where that's happened. I'm sure there are dozens of examples.

Accountants would benefit from unions as much as anyone else, but they receive no political support from the Democratic party as they tend to be higher income.

That's interesting about the teachers down there, cause in Canada teaching jobs are few and far between. You have to sit on the sublist for a long time before you'll be considered for a position if one comes up. I have relatives who have been/are teachers as well.

[gopman]

That's interesting about the teachers down there, cause in Canada teaching jobs are few and far between. You have to sit on the sublist for a long time before you'll be considered for a position if one comes up. I have relatives who have been/are teachers as well.

I think it's state by state. I have family that teaches in New York and Virginia, and in Virginia they're basically begging for teachers, but you need to get on a waiting list to teach in New York.

[JD3]

I think it's state by state. I have family that teaches in New York and Virginia, and in Virginia they're basically begging for teachers, but you need to get on a waiting list to teach in New York.

I was told when I was thinking about teaching to move south. That while the pay was actually better there, the conditions were not and there were plenty of openings. But they warned not to stay too long because you wouldn't be desired anywhere else after being there more than 5 years.

I went to Mississippi for two years, got experience, and lucked into a job in Iowa. I don't know if they're still telling students that today, but it did work out for me.

[gopman]

I was told when I was thinking about teaching to move south. That while the pay was actually better there, the conditions were not and there were plenty of openings. But they warned not to stay too long because you wouldn't be desired anywhere else after being there more than 5 years.

I went to Mississippi for two years, got experience, and lucked into a job in Iowa. I don't know if they're still telling students that today, but it did work out for me.

I can't really speak for the deep south but VA's public schools are pretty highly regarded as I understand. The demand for teachers was more an issue of population growth than inability to retain.

[Dangerrmouse]

I get the feeling that union means different things to different sides of the pond. Here's the UK government website description...

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/DG_10027544

" ... Some workers join a trade union because they believe that a union can:

negotiate better pay
negotiate better working conditions, such as more holidays or improved health and safety
provide training for new skills
give general advice and support
Union members have the right to be accompanied to a discipline or grievance hearing by a trade union representative (although trade unions are not compelled to provide this). All employees, regardless of whether they are union members or not, are entitled to be accompanied by a work colleague.

Learn about grievance procedures Find out about disciplinary procedures Recognised unions also have rights to consultation where redundancies or a transfer of business are proposed.

There is a regular subscription cost for union membership. Different rates may apply to trainees and part-timers. Unions will not normally help with problems which pre-date membership. ... "

[gopman]

It's the same thing in the US. Are you shocked that anyone would oppose them?

[JD3]

I can't really speak for the deep south but VA's public schools are pretty highly regarded as I understand. The demand for teachers was more an issue of population growth than inability to retain.

Perhaps. I couldn't say.

[gopman]

Perhaps. I couldn't say.

Well I went to Virginia public schools so I should hope so.

[JD3]

Well I went to Virginia public schools so I should hope so.

Well, I can't tell you what teachers felt about the schools I went to. There may be more than one factor. I'm merely saying I don't know.

[gopman]

That's all I'm saying as well.

[MikeD4o7]

Unions would be all well and good, but I think there need to be Right To Work laws everywhere. The idea of forced membership just makes my skin crawl. The freedom to join a union should come with the freedom from having to as well.

[gopman]

Unions would be all well and good, but I think there need to be Right To Work laws everywhere. The idea of forced membership just makes my skin crawl. The freedom to join a union should come with the freedom from having to as well.

The issue with Obama's plan is whether you're in the union or not, they can negotiate on your behalf, aka use you for leverage. This will make unions' bargaining power even more unreasonable than it already is.

[MikeD4o7]

The issue with Obama's plan is whether you're in the union or not, they can negotiate on your behalf, aka use you for leverage. This will make unions' bargaining power even more unreasonable than it already is.

My personal feeling on unions is that "The right to form unions" should be the extent of the law supporting/protecting them. IF we have a good set of federal labor safety laws and a reasonable minimum wage that adjusts with inflation...which I think we should, then I don't see the point of actually having laws to prop up unions.

If workers come together and form a union for the sake of bargaining with their employers, then good for them. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to make it a legal matter at that point for a company to turn and say "fine, we'll get other workers".

That may put me at odds with Obama.

All that being said, I've never worked in a unionized industry and I really don't know that much of the inner-working of unions as a whole. That's just my general feeling on them.

[gopman]

Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement. That policy would significantly weaken unions relative to their current position. I would have to think there are some circumstances where businesses have little power relative to unions and in those cases I would even like to see antitrust law apply.

[Blueangel]

I believe in unions.

I was a trade union rep for 8 years for a major national company and our aim was to create a working environment where there would be no need for unions because every employer would uphold employment law and legislation.
Any union rep who tells you otherwise should be regarded with caution.
Until that day, workers all too often need to backing and support of unions.


It's all well and good talking about the rights of the employer, but the employer is also legally obliged to operate within the law of the land in which they operate.
It really is that simple.

Regardless of our views of unions are they needed today. We all hear the stories of how they were needed in the land of our grandfathers, but are they needed today.
In my years on the union, I saw and dealt with almost every type of issue and complaint. It was a real eye opener. My biggest nightmare was grievence procedures because they can be so utterly subjective and largely based upon the sensibilities of individuals concerned. Very often, they decend into a no win situation yet everyone expects you to perform miracles.
The heartbreakers are vicitimisation, bullying and redundancy, but they keep on happening. In the last case the heartbreak is obvious, but in the first two the killer is that there is absolutely nothing a union rep can do until the victim lodges a complaint and that can take years before they've had enough.
The law may change. Employers may change. But people don't change.

It was always at the forefront of my mind that every confidence that was told to me and every decision I made had the potential to directly affect a colleagues ability to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head. It's not a role to be taken lightly or with a self serving attitude.

[Atticus]

The problem with saying that many different schools hire teachers is that it ignores both the customs of the profession and the ways one gets better schools. It's simply a fact that schools benefit from having teachers who serve for long periods of time in a single school. Also, it's difficult to measure in a dependable way the difference in job performance between one teacher and another, so there's nothing to stop schools from, say, firing teachers that have more experience (and therefore cost more) and hire new teachers directly out of school every so often. There's little incentive to hire a teacher from one school to another. The market for labor just doesn't work the same way as for accountants.

Yes, it's true that teachers can do other things, but not all of them, and not to the same degree. Math and science teachers mostly have degrees in their fields, and those fields are hired for lots of different kinds of work. It's no coincidence that math and science are the fields where finding secondary teachers is a particular hardship. At the university level, professors of accounting can make up to three times as much as a historian or chemist because they can sell their skills to government or industry as well. Historians and particularly people in, say, English--not so much.

I've been a teacher in Virginia, and I can tell you that school quality varies widely, depending on the community. In general, the richer the community, the better the school--same as anywhere else.

The problem with the "right to work" argument is that often those laws completely gut the ability of unions to do anything at all. As a teacher in Virginia, for example, we could organize, but the district never even responded to a single letter the union wrote to them--since that would de facto mean recognizing the union, which they were under no obligation to do. The disrespect and disregard with which teachers were treated was palpable, by the way. The district regularly changed its mind about how it would pay us, changing the rules for pay grades without consultation. District board members made statements in the press that showed their complete contempt for teachers. Pretty much the only negotiation a teacher could make was their pay and working conditions during their first year. After that, we were SOL.

I've been a K-12 school teacher where there was a union and where there wasn't. I've been a college professor where there was a union and where there wasn't. I have lots of problems with unions, even my own, but I'd never advise anyone to teach where they didn't have the protection of union representation.

[Dangerrmouse]

I had to smile.. Those Aussies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=184NTV2CE_c&feature=related

And an ad from the confrontational Thatcher era.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iewSJ6nTEv4

[AgentM]

I had to smile.. Those Aussies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=184NTV2CE_c&feature=related

And an ad from the confrontational Thatcher era.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iewSJ6nTEv4

:lol: Nice take on Monty Python!

Personally I'm neutral on unions. I feel there's lots of times when they can be good and useful, but there are also times where they cause more harm than good (UAW for instance).

I do believe that the right to form a union is a pretty essential aspect of democracy.

[bowerbird]

Why can't sellers of things other than labor "unionize" to collectively bargain for pricing? Do they not have the same rights as everyone else in a democratic society?

They could if they could get around the laws relating to oligarchies. But are there not consortiums?

[Missouri Mule]

I wonder if people are honest with themselves whether unions serve any useful purpose any longer; at least in the United States. Already we have something less than 10% or so people even represented and the ones remaining are heavily geared to public employee's unions.

The reason I say that is we have so many laws and regulations regarding hiring and firing practices that any employer worth his salt is going to be very careful of not stepping over the line for fear of being sued. One of the things that many companies and government agencies is to hire temps and try them out and see if they want to take them on as permanent employees. I've done that and it worked out well. Most employers want to retain their best people. But certainly there are those individuals who deserved to be fired and put on the street. When a union protects these kinds of people they only lose their respectability as honest brokers. Certainly people's rights should be recognized and "living" wages should be paid but ultimately the marketplace will determine whether a firm lives or dies. That is the capitalistic marketplace and it works well and ideally with minimum regulation. Lest anyone believe I am advocating predatory marketplace manipulation in the interest of capitalistic let it be said that one of the first acts as president, if I were Obama, would be to build a new wing at Levenworth to send the crooks of Wall Street who preyed and concocted these schemes to put the rest of us into the poor house. That is not capitalism. That is pure criminality.

[Chosen]

It allows employees to collective bargain.


But doesn't being non-union give you the freedom to bargin for yourself? What if you don't like what the masses tell you? Isn't one way more like America and the other more socialistic?:eek:

[AgentM]

But doesn't being non-union give you the freedom to bargin for yourself? What if you don't like what the masses tell you? Isn't one way more like America and the other more socialistic?:eek:

You're not going to have much clout just by yourself...that's kinda the idea.

[Blueangel]

But doesn't being non-union give you the freedom to bargin for yourself? What if you don't like what the masses tell you? Isn't one way more like America and the other more socialistic?:eek: How many average employees know the difference between top line and base line inflation and can negotiate a reasonable pay rise accordingly, taking into consideration economic and market place pressures currently being felt by the employer?
I was on a national wage negotion committee during the change over from national to regional bargaining. The effects were huge but it was a necessary move to ensure that the company could afford to retain their staff in higher priced areas such as Greater London, where the cost of living was about 5% above base line inflation.

I work for a non union company now and on many occassions, I've seen people thrilled with a pay rise that actually works out at less than 0.5% above inflation. 6 months down the line, they're wondering why they don't feel better off. Where I work it's actually a disciplinary offence to discuss your wage with your colleages because it's all performance based. Employees are penalised if they are late several times a month, or appear to take sick leave regularly on mondays and fridays. We all recognise that behaviour in our colleagues ;)

The bottom line with unions is that they are obliged to protect the individual within the might of the masses. That's a hard balance to strike, but why should a shy yet diligent employee be paid less than their more strident colleagues who may hardly ever be in work on a monday morning. Somebody has to stand up for them.

[Eddie]

Why can't sellers of things other than labor "unionize" to collectively bargain for pricing? Do they not have the same rights as everyone else in a democratic society?

They can. It`s called forming a company, joint venture or joint stock company. They are just not allowed to prevent others from entering the market. OF course, some economies practice more stringent anti-trust law than that, but they are not directed at individuals, but rather the rights of corporations.

[Chosen]

Where I work it's actually a disciplinary offence to discuss your wage with your colleages because it's all performance based. Employees are penalised if they are late several times a month, or appear to take sick leave regularly on mondays and fridays. We all recognise that behaviour in our colleagues ;)


You say this like it's a bad thing. Is really wrong for an employer to expect workers to show up for work and on time. OMG!! The heartless *%$#^@%..... :lol:

[Blueangel]

You say this like it's a bad thing. Is really wrong for an employer to expect workers to show up for work and on time. OMG!! The heartless *%$#^@%..... :lol: Nah! We all know people like that who are hardly ever in on a monday morning because they were still on the pop the night before. They also tend to be the same people who are very vocal about aquiring wage rises. Why should they get paid the same as the rest of us who do drag our sad carcasses in. ;)

I worked with someone like that recently for two years. She got drunk on a works do (what a surprise) and told me I was a sad muppet because I work all the hours god sends for £3k less than she gets paid.
After she was sacked for two counts of gross misconduct, I saw her drunk again whilst out with friends and her mouth was running away with her as usual. During the course of the conversation I realised that the reverse had been the case ;) but I didn't tell her.

[gopman]

They could if they could get around the laws relating to oligarchies. But are there not consortiums?

The antitrust laws in the US don't allow it. The closest thing I can think of here is an agricultural cooperative. Monopolies are not illegal per se, but competitive companies forming a cartel to control prices are.

[gopman]

They can. It`s called forming a company, joint venture or joint stock company. They are just not allowed to prevent others from entering the market. OF course, some economies practice more stringent anti-trust law than that, but they are not directed at individuals, but rather the rights of corporations.

Just forming a company isn't the same as forming a cartel. Companies are subject to the forces of the industry, some of which you point out. Banding together to overcome those forces like a union would be illegal for a company. Partnering with a company is not even in the same universe as that. And I don't think "joint stock company" has existed as a form of business for like 400 years. They're just called corporations now.

[gopman]

Correction: apparently "joint stock company" is still a term in England. It covers what in the US would be both C-Corps and S-Corps.

[Eddie]

Just forming a company isn't the same as forming a cartel. Companies are subject to the forces of the industry, some of which you point out. Banding together to overcome those forces like a union would be illegal for a company. Partnering with a company is not even in the same universe as that. And I don't think "joint stock company" has existed as a form of business for like 400 years. They're just called corporations now.

I`m glad you challanged me on that one. I wasn`t very satisfied with my answer.

Now, you are indeed correct when you point out that companies are not allowed to band together in order to negotiate a joint price on products or services (at least not in most modern economies). That doesn`t mean that they are not allowed to band together for other purposes like shaping public opinion, influencing politics or negotiating wages on the labour market. So the problem is not really joining or forming unions, but only the ability to collectively bargain for wages.

The problem with the comparison between unions negotiating wages and companies forming cartels to set the price is multi faceted

1) Labour is not just a commodity. It is humans of flesh and blood. Any comparison between a worker and just another commodity is by itself flawed for this siple fact. A commodity that is sold too cheap because the seller isn`t good at bargaining is not a problem. A single mom trying to take care of her kids on a salary that is lower than expected because of her inability to bargain is a tragedy. I know, this is a bit of an extreme example but my point is that humans and goods/services are different and we need to keep that mind when doing these comparisons.

2) The power relationship on he labour market is skewed from the begining. Had employers been individuals looking to employ one or tw other individuals, the need for labour unions would not exist to the same degree it does today. But the fact of the matter is that most employers wield monopsomy power when it comes to hiring. Employers are often relative large entities that not only enjoy the benefit of being able to inflence the wage by using their monopsomy power, it also has alot more resources to use in order to strongarm workers and employees into submission. By forming labour unions, workers can counteract this monopsomy power, sometimes even gaining monopoly power on labour themsevles. In this case, the employers need to step up to form strong employer associations that can take on the labour unions and the power balance is equalised.

While some argue higher minimum wages and other type of legislation to combat employer monopsomy power on the labour markets, I rather see a semi-market sollution where employers and employees bettle it out on even terms by forming strong labour- and trade unions and employers associations.

I have to leave now but I`ll be thinking up some other reasons as well. Cheers.

[Eddie]

Correction: apparently "joint stock company" is still a term in England. It covers what in the US would be both C-Corps and S-Corps.

To be honest, I had to use Wikipedia to translate the swedish word for it to english. Apparantly it didn`t work that well :)

[green lantern]

My personal feeling on unions is that "The right to form unions" should be the extent of the law supporting/protecting them. IF we have a good set of federal labor safety laws and a reasonable minimum wage that adjusts with inflation...which I think we should, then I don't see the point of actually having laws to prop up unions.

If workers come together and form a union for the sake of bargaining with their employers, then good for them. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to make it a legal matter at that point for a company to turn and say "fine, we'll get other workers".

That may put me at odds with Obama.

All that being said, I've never worked in a unionized industry and I really don't know that much of the inner-working of unions as a whole. That's just my general feeling on them.
imo, if anything, the laws protecting the right to organize need to be strengthened big time...basically, if a company decides to try and make 'examples' out of those trying to organize, all they get is a slap on the wrist, they pay a small fine, and have to post a notice from the nlrb (supposed to be posted in a visible place, most usually post them about 15 feet above the timeclock) stating that they were found to have violated a labor law. thats it....many consider it a small price to pay to keep unions out.

[patrickt]

I was fired from my first factory job for refusing to join a union. It was a closed shop. Later, when I was a police officer the union officers refused to cover me on calls because I wasn't in the union. Oh, wait, that's just business as usual and quite legal.

[green lantern]

I was fired from my first factory job for refusing to join a union. It was a closed shop. Later, when I was a police officer the union officers refused to cover me on calls because I wasn't in the union. Oh, wait, that's just business as usual and quite legal.i'm quite sure that it was explained to you what would happen if you refuesed to join the union. you made a choice that led to your termination.

[Atticus]

I'm not in favor of closed shops, but I'm not sure why a union should offer services (like dispute negotiation) that someone doesn't pay for. No one is required to join my union, but they are required to pay a certain portion of their income toward the elements that unions do for all employees--collective bargaining, dispute resolution, etc. That seems fair to me. Only union members pay for things like political action (which for my union is very important).

The reasons employees are different from companies is levels of power. Companies and other employers with capital simply have more power than individual employees, which is why they create unions. Those professions and occupations without unions usually have more power relative to their employers.

Please don't tell me that an individual worker has the same power as the multi-million dollar corporation that employs her.

[Missouri Mule]

Can someone explain to me why a person with a marketable skill needs a union? If this is just some device to protect unskilled workers just say so. I can't imagine why those in high demand positions would need a union. If the government wants to do something positive why not provide the education and guidance to steer young kids into fields having a future. Just turning out illiterates into the general market place to turn a screw on an assembly line doesn't seem to my way of thinking a wise use of our tax dollars. As we now see that didn't exactly work all that well in the U.S. domestic auto industry.

I don't have the numbers at hand but imagine that any number of sources could provide the numbers and projected demand for different occupations. If a company wants to hire a certain skill they will have to pay the going rate or they will be reduced to hiring out of the bottom of the barrel. And that is the true definition of a "bad business model."

OK, I'll just say it. I hate unions. There. I've revealed myself. And I absolutely believe they should be outlawed for government employees.

Unions get too big for their britches and start drinking their own Kool-aid. In 1948, the railroad unions had a walk-out but Truman fixed that problem. He said they would go back to work or be drafted into the military. They went back to work.

"In the spring of 1946, a national railway strike, unprecedented in the nation's history, brought virtually all passenger and freight lines to a standstill for over a month. When the railway workers turned down a proposed settlement, Truman seized control of the railways and threatened to draft striking workers into the armed forces. While delivering a speech before Congress requesting authority for this plan, Truman received word that the strike had been settled on his terms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

[Atticus]

Can someone explain to me why a person with a marketable skill needs a union? Because without union rules to determine work rules, many employers can simply demand more and more work for less and less pay. They can change the requirements (or the pay) at will. Even people with lots of skills don't want that, particularly in occupations, like mine, where significant skill and qualification is required. Don't say "you can just get a different job" because universities aren't bunched up together--they are spread out and a move requires that you sell a house, buy a new one, move your family and so forth. Who wants to do that?

Unions are useful when the employer holds all the cards. We've been living for some time in an economy where corporate profits rose rapidly but the wages of those whose labor fueled those profits was stagnant, for years.

[Missouri Mule]

Because without union rules to determine work rules, many employers can simply demand more and more work for less and less pay. They can change the requirements (or the pay) at will. Even people with lots of skills don't want that, particularly in occupations, like mine, where significant skill and qualification is required. Don't say "you can just get a different job" because universities aren't bunched up together--they are spread out and a move requires that you sell a house, buy a new one, move your family and so forth. Who wants to do that?

Unions are useful when the employer holds all the cards. We've been living for some time in an economy where corporate profits rose rapidly but the wages of those whose labor fueled those profits was stagnant, for years.

Your underlying assumption is that employers are stupid and uncaring. That may have been true during the days of the "Robber Barons." Do the emerging markets have unionized workers? I'll bet they don't.

In the end we are responsible for our own futures. To rely on the efforts of others or a collective effort to force things down employer's throats and make them unprofitable as we see in the auto industry makes no sense at all. To my knowledge none of the foreign nameplate auto factories are unionized and I don't think they are exactly starving to death at $48 an hour wages. And to top it off they don't have to pay union dues. That's an additional bonus.

Unions interfere with the market place. If the demand for services is not there and to force wage demands on unprofitable industries only leads to further unemployment what is the logic of that? 100% of nothing is still nothing.

[AgentM]

Your underlying assumption is that employers are stupid and uncaring. That may have been true during the days of the "Robber Barons." Do the emerging markets have unionized workers? I'll bet they don't.

In many of the emerging markets (such as China), many people also work in conditions similar to what was faced during the Industrial Revolution. So that's not a good example.

Unions interfere with the market place. If the demand for services is not there and to force wage demands on unprofitable industries only leads to further unemployment what is the logic of that? 100% of nothing is still nothing.

Some unions act this way, but not all. It's an over-generalization to say that they all do.

[patrickt]

Green Lantern: "i'm quite sure that it was explained to you what would happen if you refuesed to join the union. you made a choice that led to your termination."

I never suggested that wasn't the case. But, even then, I was aware that there were federal laws against firing someone for joining a union but no protection for someone who didn't want to join a union. The so-called Employee Free Choice Act is simply a way to get a union in by having thugs coerce people into signing the card. As an employee your recourse is....nothing.

[Atticus]

Your underlying assumption is that employers are stupid and uncaring. Actually, I'm assuming that most employers are corporations. Corporations are, by nature, uncaring. That doesn't mean the people who run them are uncaring, but profit is the ONLY criteria for corporate success. No matter how caring an individual may be, the system says that reducing costs is half the equation. That means seeing employees like any other cost.

Do you disagree?

[Missouri Mule]

In many of the emerging markets (such as China), many people also work in conditions similar to what was faced during the Industrial Revolution. So that's not a good example.

Some unions act this way, but not all. It's an over-generalization to say that they all do.

I'm not in any way responsible for what nations such as China does with their workers. We have to deal with the way things are in the United States in the year 2008; not in 1875.

I have no interest in work rules and all the kinds of arbitrariness and the the cover given bad workers who do not provide their effort in a good faith environment. When I had folks working under my supervision it was a two way contract. I trusted them and they trusted me. We treated each other with respect and in turn received respect. What I particularly resent is the attitude of the adversarial belief that the employer is out to screw his or her employees. In such an atmosphere I would submit that such an enterprise is unlikely to survive in the modern environment.

[Missouri Mule]

Actually, I'm assuming that most employers are corporations. Corporations are, by nature, uncaring. That doesn't mean the people who run them are uncaring, but profit is the ONLY criteria for corporate success. No matter how caring an individual may be, the system says that reducing costs is half the equation. That means seeing employees like any other cost.

Do you disagree?

Most emphatically. I submit that a modern, enlightened management team treats their people with the dignity and compensation commensurate with their contributions. I have, in my earlier years, been treated unfairly so I can speak to this with some personal knowledge having been fired three times in my life. So yes, it is possible. But I didn't make it my life's work to assume the worst in people but to assume the best until they proved me wrong. Trust is the currency of a thriving business model. It is a fact that the early labor movement came about because this model didn't exist at THAT time. I would submit that today's business model will not survive with that attitude on either side. That is why Detroit "North" is going down in flames while Detroit "South" is thriving and prosperous.

Given the two business models; which do you think is the better one?

[Dangerrmouse]

It's not about assuming the worst in management, having a union presence allows the employee to speak softly, while carrying a big stick.

[Missouri Mule]

It's not about assuming the worst in management, having a union presence allows the employee to speak softly, while carrying a big stick.

Since we speak the same language why should management communicate through a union representative? This is like going to my neighbor to communicate with my wife. If we can't speak frankly to each other we hardly have a constructive working relationship but a relationship built on distrust.

[Chosen]

It's not about assuming the worst in management, having a union presence allows the employee to speak softly, while carrying a big stick.

But this would be the point of the thread. The stick has become very small and really just more of a fly swatter. Unions no longer provide better pay, benefits, or retirement. So why the need? Why should our $$ support the corruption of union activity with no return benefits?:confused:

[Atticus]

Most emphatically. I submit that a modern, enlightened management team treats their people with the dignity and compensation commensurate with their contributions. I have, in my earlier years, been treated unfairly so I can speak to this with some personal knowledge having been fired three times in my life. So yes, it is possible. But I didn't make it my life's work to assume the worst in people but to assume the best until they proved me wrong. Trust is the currency of a thriving business model. It is a fact that the early labor movement came about because this model didn't exist at THAT time. I would submit that today's business model will not survive with that attitude on either side. That is why Detroit "North" is going down in flames while Detroit "South" is thriving and prosperous.

Given the two business models; which do you think is the better one?This has very little to do with enlightenment and much more to do with profits and cultural style. Part of the reason Asian car companies have assembly plants in the US at all is because they save so much money by fabricating near their customers over shipping long distances; Detroit gets no such advantage by fabricating in the US, so it's not clear that employees in Detroit would have the same advantages when negotiating with management. Asian businesses have places much higher value on loyal employees than does the American style--though I'm not sure it's "enlightened."

I agree that the failure of Detroit is partly the greediness of its unions--just as the steel industry failed in the US at least partly because of unions. That doesn't mean unions don't have a place; the middle class is disappearing and the style with which workers are hired is changing. More and more workers are operating on short contracts or on a temporary basis--it's becoming the norm, even more high skill workers. This will erode workers' ability to bargain as they become more and more desperate to take any job.

Capitalism has lots of advantages and a few disadvantages. It tends to grind people up in its pursuit of competitive advantage. What happens when we don't need all those people to feed the economy Unlike other kinds of capital, we can't just mothball the people until we need them again. (BTW, the fact that we have more people in prison [and we're willing to spend 3-4x has much $$ imprisoning people than educating them] than any other nation speaks to what happens. I guess we can just lock up more people and spend more money employing guards for them.)

Many workers need and deserve a means of achieving some power in relation to their employers. Those workers choose unions--others don't. Why not let the market decide?

[patrickt]

"Many workers need and deserve a means of achieving some power in relation to their employers. Those workers choose unions--others don't. Why not let the market decide?"

That's true. The corrupt, lazy, and incompetent need help from a union. I'm curious about the "let the market decide" comment. Does that mean you're opposed to the EFCA?

[Atticus]

"Many workers need and deserve a means of achieving some power in relation to their employers. Those workers choose unions--others don't. Why not let the market decide?"

That's true. The corrupt, lazy, and incompetent need help from a union.I guess I should thank you for the complement? If you think thoroughly competent and industrious workers are equal negotiating partners with employers in every case, you don't know much about how our economic system works. I'm curious about the "let the market decide" comment. Does that mean you're opposed to the EFCA?Yes, of course I'm opposed to it. Those thinking of forming a union should not have their decisions coerced by anyone.

[MikeD4o7]

Actually, I'm assuming that most employers are corporations. Corporations are, by nature, uncaring. That doesn't mean the people who run them are uncaring, but profit is the ONLY criteria for corporate success. No matter how caring an individual may be, the system says that reducing costs is half the equation. That means seeing employees like any other cost.

Do you disagree?

This is absolutely true. If you're the CFO or something along those lines of a company, even a relatively small one... your entire job is to cut costs and increase profits by any means possible. The way it works out is that everybody makes what the company believes they can pay the least amount for rather than what that person may be actually worth. I would imagine most people have seen this time and time again too, where a really good employee will ask for a raise (personally, it bothers me when somebody's who's being grossly underpaid even has to ask), and they get refused... but when they threaten to quit, or tell their employer they've found another job then all of the sudden that raise is offered.

Still though, I don't see where unions have the right to charge people that don't want to be a part of it. If my next door neighbor came over one day and washed my car without me asking him to, should I obligated to pay him for it?

[Riddley]

That's true. The corrupt, lazy, and incompetent need help from a union.
Thanks for calling me those things. Here was I thinking that I had joined a union to protect my working conditions so that I could do an honest days work for an honest days pay. When in fact I am basically just being a criminal.
People really should start working on their tunnel vision. There is a great deal of difference between my union and the Australian Painters and Dockers union.

[green lantern]

Green Lantern: "i'm quite sure that it was explained to you what would happen if you refuesed to join the union. you made a choice that led to your termination."

I never suggested that wasn't the case. But, even then, I was aware that there were federal laws against firing someone for joining a union but no protection for someone who didn't want to join a union. The so-called Employee Free Choice Act is simply a way to get a union in by having thugs coerce people into signing the card. As an employee your recourse is....nothing.
the efca is a way to eliminate company harrassment and intimidation of those who want a union. i've been through this...as soon as my former employer got wind that we trying to get a union in, we had 'captive audience' meetings, were shown anti-union videos, given a load of bs about how the company couldnt afford a union, how they would have to 'close shop', if a union was brought in. they had several months lead time before we would have been able to have an election to work on people, to terminate 'pro union' people like myself. as soon as it was known that i favored a union, i got to start having 'chats' with my supervisor, while never said straight out, it was hinted that 'things are a little tight, and may get tighter, may have to let some people go'..hint hint hint...got to have the division president take a sudden interest in my work. all kinds of fun stuff.

[Atticus]

Still though, I don't see where unions have the right to charge people that don't want to be a part of it. If my next door neighbor came over one day and washed my car without me asking him to, should I obligated to pay him for it?I think you have a point here. I've only worked one place where a "fair share" is charged, so it isn't universal. In situations where everyone pays some portion for a union, the union is (I believe) required to provide a full range of services to every employee (dispute representation as well as collective bargaining). I know mine does.

[Blueangel]

I think you have a point here. I've only worked one place where a "fair share" is charged, so it isn't universal. In situations where everyone pays some portion for a union, the union is (I believe) required to provide a full range of services to every employee (dispute representation as well as collective bargaining). I know mine does.
Firstly, I've never known or worked in a closed shop environment, therefore, union membership has always been totally optional.
Secondly, unions do provide excellent free advice to the best legal advice around. When I left the union in 2002, the premium was only £1.78 per week which is damned good for the services it provided.
I had one grievence where the employee disagreed with the legal advice we gave to her as she didn't believe it reflected particular laws relating to discrimination towards her on the basis of sexuality. She travelled 20miles and sought out the services of an employment lawyer who was an acknowledged specialist in this particular area and was charged £160 only to be given the exact same advice that she had already been given by the union.

It all depends upon what you want and expect from a union and whay your personal financila situation is, but I think we would all agree that's it's folly to not take out legal cover when you insure your car, so why not take out legal cover on your income!

[AgentM]

I'm not in any way responsible for what nations such as China does with their workers. We have to deal with the way things are in the United States in the year 2008; not in 1875.

You pointed to emerging markets, which I assume to mean that you were making the point that they are more competitive because they don't have unions. That is likely true. However, you have to take the bad with the good. Without unions, unless the gov't steps in (highly unlikely) the people in these emerging markets are screwed. In the West employers have more of a respect for workers, it's true. However, I believe that this respect has been because of lessons learned in the past through workers unionizing. Employers don't want the workers to unionize, so they treat them better than they would have in the past before history of unionizing and general strikes.

I have no interest in work rules and all the kinds of arbitrariness and the the cover given bad workers who do not provide their effort in a good faith environment. When I had folks working under my supervision it was a two way contract. I trusted them and they trusted me. We treated each other with respect and in turn received respect. What I particularly resent is the attitude of the adversarial belief that the employer is out to screw his or her employees. In such an atmosphere I would submit that such an enterprise is unlikely to survive in the modern environment.

That's all well and good. However, unions are about more than just covering bad workers, although that is a side effect of union mentality.

[AgentM]

Firstly, I've never known or worked in a closed shop environment, therefore, union membership has always been totally optional.

I haven't really heard of that before, optional union membership. Every place I've worked at before that was unionized was closed shop. Maybe that's just how it works in Canada.

[Atticus]

I haven't really heard of that before, optional union membership. Every place I've worked at before that was unionized was closed shop. Maybe that's just how it works in Canada.This link suggests its a matter of negotiation with the employer: Unions also negotiate with employers to determine the level of union security (the extent to which workers are required to join or fund the union once it is established). Types of union security arrangements include the closed-shop agreement, in which union membership is a condition of employment in a workplace, and the union-shop agreement, in which a person does not have to be a union member to be hired but must join the union after becoming employed. A third form is known as the Rand Formula, named after Canadian Supreme Court justice Ivan Rand, who created it when he arbitrated a strike against the Ford Motor Company in Windsor, Ontario, in 1945. The Rand Formula does not require all workers to join the union, but it requires them to pay union dues because they receive the benefit of the union’s collective bargaining. The formula also allows the employer to automatically deduct union dues from workers’ paychecks.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_461511050/labor_unions_in_canada.html

[Blueangel]

I haven't really heard of that before, optional union membership. Every place I've worked at before that was unionized was closed shop. Maybe that's just how it works in Canada. It's the norm in the U.K.

[Dangerrmouse]

This "covering bad workers" is a perennial urban myth in my experience. All a union can do in representing (NOT "defending") a member during a disciplinary hearing is to ensure that employment law and the disciplinary policies of the company are followed. Nobody, including the union's other members, benefits from a worker who performs poorly. They do benefit from everyone being treated fairly and equitably.

[patrickt]

Dangerrmouse: "This "covering bad workers" is a perennial urban myth in my experience."

Then your experience is very limited. I was a police officer in a department with a union and union attorneys encouraged perjury, union officers threatened witnesses, and police officers who ignored the threats faced retaliation.

[AgentM]

Dangerrmouse: "This "covering bad workers" is a perennial urban myth in my experience."

Then your experience is very limited. I was a police officer in a department with a union and union attorneys encouraged perjury, union officers threatened witnesses, and police officers who ignored the threats faced retaliation.

You're extrapolating your bad experience with one union to generalize for all unions. Hardly fair, or realistic I think.

[Dangerrmouse]

Dangerrmouse: "This "covering bad workers" is a perennial urban myth in my experience."

Then your experience is very limited. I was a police officer in a department with a union and union attorneys encouraged perjury, union officers threatened witnesses, and police officers who ignored the threats faced retaliation.


You sound like a regular Serpico.

My experience as a union rep extends over almost 30 years, including training staff and managers on employment relations, and joint working with other unions alongside my own. I have never encountered a situation similar to such as you describe.

[AgentM]

See, not all unions are irrational.
--
OTTAWA — Federal public servants moved to sidestep a politically charged showdown with the Conservative government yesterday, agreeing in principle to Ottawa's take-it-or-leave-it final wage offer.

The deal offers more than 100,000 employees represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada a 6.8-per-cent raise over four years. The union had been asking for more, but said Monday that times have changed.

The government threatened in last week's Throne Speech to legislate a deal if necessary, and called on all departments to find savings. Also last week, Treasury Board President Vic Toews upset PSAC by publicizing an offer to federal employees, describing it as final.

Union leaders and Treasury Board officials worked through the weekend and came to an agreement late Sunday night, PSAC president John Gordon said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081124.wPOLunion1124/BNStory/politics/home

[patrickt]

I've never thought unions were irrational. They're about money and power and since both can lead to an inflated sense of worth they frequently do irrational things but essentially they're a rational business.

[Atticus]

But this would be the point of the thread. The stick has become very small and really just more of a fly swatter. Unions no longer provide better pay, benefits, or retirement. So why the need? Why should our $$ support the corruption of union activity with no return benefits?:confused:On what basis do you say this? Really, can you find two businesses where union employees DON'T have advantages over those who have no union? Where would that be?

[patrickt]

If being in a union brings advantages, why are so few people joining unions? I never joined a union and had my reasons, and no benefits, but I'm curious why others think unions need to force people to join.

[Chosen]

On what basis do you say this? Really, can you find two businesses where union employees DON'T have advantages over those who have no union? Where would that be?

Retail......... Just off the top of my head. Without giving the name, my wife works for a sports lighting MFG. who is non-union and the benefits, pay, and company in general are better for it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Safeway (union)

Median Hourly Rate

$8.23

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Safeway_Inc/Hourly_Rate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Walmart (non-union)

Median Hourly Rate

$8.46

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc/Hourly_Rate


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Costco (non-union)

Median Hourly Rate

$11.92

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Costco_Wholesale_Corp./Hourly_Rate

[Riddley]

2007 pay rates for union vs non union workers (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t04.htm)
It is extremely worthwhile to be in the union in the physical labor (no 'u', shudder) areas.
They also state In 2007, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $863 while those who were not represented by unions had median weekly earnings of $663.
source (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm)

[Chosen]

2007 pay rates for union vs non union workers (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t04.htm)
It is extremely worthwhile to be in the union in the physical labor (no 'u', shudder) areas.
They also state
source (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm)


From your link:

3) Data not shown where base is less than 50,000.


This would mean anyone making less then $50,000 year was not counted in your survey link. Show of hands, how many retail cashiers make $50,000 a year. Union or non-union...............

[Riddley]

Are you sure it's 50,000 dollars they are talking about? Why did they miss out the dollar symbol?
They say on another page The survey is conducted monthly for the
Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census from a
scientifically selected national sample of about 50,000 households
source (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/union2_012599.txt) so I think that it is the size of city they are talking about.

[Chosen]

Are you sure it's 50,000 dollars they are talking about? Why did they miss out the dollar symbol?
They say on another page
source (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/union2_012599.txt) so I think that it is the size of city they are talking about.



Well maybe it's not $$$$ now that you bring it up, hummmm? A lot of numbers on that chart and most of them don't have $ signs. What do you think those numbers mean?

Regardless...... if you take the time to review the pay between union and non-union, in the field of retail, you'll see that they're close. Now this is your link so the numbers do favor your arguement, but what it leaves out is what union members pay in dues inorder to recieve the basic same pay and benefits as non-union.

[Riddley]

Sure, in some cases the union dues will make the difference smaller.
It's not my link it's from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. I just found it when looking at the question of whether it was worth being in a union. Obviously, for some people in some occupations, it is probably better to go it alone. I sincerely hope that it works for them.
Do union members get better healthcare , on an average, and maybe access to legal help (certainly that is the case, here). What I'm trying to say is that there might be things that unions can do that do not make it into bald statements of what people earn in a year.
It was an interesting point that you made back in the OP about the times of our grandfathers. has the overriding concern of businesses changed so much that unions are no longer necessary? Are the concerns of an enterprise now much more to do with the needs of the workforce as opposed to making a profit?