Labor Unions (Pro and Con)

[Saryctos]

Unions have failed our country, and will continue to do so until their power is curtailed.

[CaptainPanic]

Unions have failed our country, and will continue to do so until their power is curtailed.

 

How on earth do the unions get the blame here? Perhaps you can enlighten us a little? In general the unions make sure that the vast majority gets paid a little better, and the tiny rich minority a little less. They're the only bit of socialism that make sure workers have a pension and such.

 

It is absolutely true that companies would be more profitable if they could just dump you at the age of 65, in stead of paying you a pension. But... never mind. I'll never understand Americans. Blame your unions... tsk.

 

You know that companies would also be more profitable if they could use child labour? If they wouldn't have to pay any insurances for the ill? Or if safety wasn't of any concern? Why don't you throw all that also overboard? Hell, workers conditions were so much better in the 1800's.

 

Apologies for ranting some European (read: evil communist) thoughts.

[Phi for All]

Obviously, blanket statements about all unions are going to be wrong when applied to any single union. The concept of a union is a good one, but some of them become more about the union than the worker.

[doG]

The concept of a union is a good one....

 

I challenge you to support that!

[CaptainPanic]

I think that banks have undergone a great innovation. You can use internet to do banking, and money can go around the earth faster than anything else.

 

This has great potential.

 

As an analogy with cars, I would say that innovation can be overdone (imagine a battery powered car that would become so popular that you'd need an additional coal powered plant on every street corner - not exactly desirable), and it can also go the wrong way. That does not automatically mean that the innovation itself is wrong. In fact, most technology and most innovation will have to re-invent itself a number of times.

 

The concept of "bank" is not wrong. It's just wrong that we have no clue what the money represents anymore.

 

I challenge you to support that!

 

This is a great argument against unions. Can I translate your argument as: "I ignore previous argumentation, and I want to to give me a decent argument!"?

 

I think I just gave 4 points which are good about unions:

 

You don't have to fight for a good pension yourself anymore - unions do that, and with success.

you get healthcare (insurance) when you get an accident at work

you get better safety

you got not more child labour

 

Do you honestly think that each individual labourer can achieve all these things by themselves? You need to unite a little to get that. Unions do that... in theory. Apparently unions in the USA are total crap. ... so where I wrote unions before, I mean "European unions".

[doG]

You don't have to fight for a good pension yourself anymore - unions do that, and with success.

you get healthcare (insurance) when you get an accident at work

you get better safety

you got not more child labour

 

Unions aren't needed to achieve any of that in the U.S. Employers do not owe anyone a pension or healthcare. Strong arming them into doing so is not a good concept or practice. Worker's compensation insurance to cover worker accidents is required by U.S. law so there is zero reason to use union force against employers to get it. OSHA mandates the safety measures employers must have in place and employees have no right to demand more that the employer is required to provide. The U.S. also has sufficient labor laws to prevent child labor abuse.

[jackson33]

Unions Captain P, in the US are subject to individual State Law. Right to work, or not join a Union are very different and subject to certain business. Here we also have very different standards of living from one State to another. Cost of living in Oklahoma may be half of California or NY, but Union Contracts are for the total workforce of a particular company. That is, the worker in NY may require a certain wage, just to maintain living in NY where in Oklahoma that same wage is four, five times what would attract any number of workers. Unions lost their cost/efficiency ratings to business productivity years ago.

 

As for your ingenuity argument; GM and Ford, have been working on or with Government for at least 10 years. GM on electric cars and Ford with bio fuels. Ford at one time planned to build an infrastructure along Interstates to handle and both have been working with Oil Companies to install Electric/Battery services. As for producing products the public will purchase; Yes, they made an error in predicting just when Gas would reach 5.00 per gallon or that States would annually add tax to that product. In Europe, taxes make up the majority of fuel cost and have for some time. For instance, TODAY, the cost per gallon (liter ?) is 1.20 per from the refinery. Our average today for all States about 2.30 or so, and you can determine what you pay, that is actually petrol cost.

 

Another factor; In most places in the US, the average drive time to and from anyplace can be hundreds of miles and vacations, especially for families, thousands of miles. Comfort an issue and always safety is important driving along next to 40 ton trucks with your car. Markets for big cars, still exist and especially small trucks where business is often an issue, farming and the like. Ford/GM, are selling good in developing countries and its these big cars being bought, as well.

 

Phi for All; The average family bread winner, will change jobs seven (7) times in their working lifetime. Teamster members, plumbers, teachers and the many professions represented by some Union are no exception and their retirement packages are handled by the Unions. This to me shows no interest in the Company/Employee relationship which should be in the interest of the Union.

 

Japanese or German Auto makers in the US are not settling into Union States. They are here to avoid the same problems in their home country and the NEW cost of transportation with most all parts being shipped around and where the markets are.

Today, parts to produce component are shipped into an area, those components then shipped to manufacturers and the final products shipped again. Back with 10-20.00 per barrel crude and where the factories produced their own components, the final cost to get into the markets was simple more cost efficient.

 

I have added all this to clarify my opinion, the US two largest auto makers, can pull through this and IMO will. How then the question and have addressed. If the 'bailout' really only a 25B LOAN and probably only lasting 6-12 months before a result must be seen, the cost to the over all economy, would be money well spent, if they can be reorganized. I have no idea how much that 25B will mean for those 3 million families or for the communities they live in or the return to Federal, via taxes, but it would seem to me it should dwarf that 25B figure...

[Saryctos]

How on earth do the unions get the blame here? Perhaps you can enlighten us a little? In general the unions make sure that the vast majority gets paid a little better, and the tiny rich minority a little less. They're the only bit of socialism that make sure workers have a pension and such.

 

It is absolutely true that companies would be more profitable if they could just dump you at the age of 65, in stead of paying you a pension. But... never mind. I'll never understand Americans. Blame your unions... tsk.

 

You know that companies would also be more profitable if they could use child labour? If they wouldn't have to pay any insurances for the ill? Or if safety wasn't of any concern? Why don't you throw all that also overboard? Hell, workers conditions were so much better in the 1800's.

 

Apologies for ranting some European (read: evil communist) thoughts.

 

28$/hour(75$ when calculating benefits) was/is(they've been able to start hiring in @ 14$/hour these days) a pretty standard wage for an autoworker. For a job that can be performed with no high school diploma required is what I call absurd. Plus in more than a few plants there a strict robot to worker policies(one example is that for every robot working in the factory there must be 2 payed hourly employees). From what I've seen from working in a plant for a bit, the work force is pretty crappy(probably because they're all dumb as hell and it doesn't matter 'cause you can't fire them!). The unions are always claiming that they fight for the rights of the worker, while all they do is perpetuate a new form of elitism. Thousands apply for the autoworker jobs whenever they can, the requirements are non existent and if you get the job the general feeling is like winning the lottery. For every worker making 28$/hour, how many more workers could there be making a wage that seems inline with the work? The unions even taxes their members, 2 hours out of the first paycheck of the month. In many states if you work at a union shop, you must be a union member(or you don't get in). So that's a mandatory cost of working with the union.

 

The mentality in the union is very similar to the sense of entitlement throughout the country. It's not a job that you have to work to keep, it's a money factory and they should be glad to have you. Glad that you have no work ethic, are dumb as a brick, and cost the company even more than your salary due to the amount of errors you cause during all transitions of part production which you are rarely, if ever accountable for. I could rant all day about the UAW, but I think the more I talk the more anecdotal it becomes, even though there's a plethora of anecdotal corroborations due to the immense size of the union and the depth of its reach.

 

It feels less like a productive union fighting for workers rights and more like a welfare for the uneducated. Instead of being funded by the gov't it's just being funded by the inflated cost of the vehicles they produce.

[Pangloss]

I don't buy the "unions are inherently good and some of them are just flawed" argument either. I tolerate them as a necessary evil in a free society -- a special interest group that will always serve its own interests, not society's. I do think they have their advantages and they can protect workers and serve a useful role there, but I don't think they need to be protected or served by government.

 

(I've split this off into a separate thread.)

Edited November 18, 2008 by Pangloss

[John Cuthber]

I challenge you to support that!

 

If unions were not a good idea (from at least some point of view) nobody would have invented them.

[Pangloss]

Well they're certainly a good idea for somebody. That's not the same thing as suggesting that they're a good idea for everybody.

[Mr Skeptic]

While unions have done a lot of good in the past, when abusing workers was commonplace, now times have changed. The purpose of unions was to unite to demand to be treated fairly. But now many unions have become too powerful, and can then demand more and more rights and privilages for the workers. This can cripple the company, as they may be forced to pay more than they can afford, and frequently can't fire crappy workers. So you get rising costs and lower quality. But now that laws and traditions have changed, workers don't get abused much, so there is little need for unions.

 

This is why I think that the auto workers union should bail out their company; it is largely their fault that the companies cannot afford them. The car companies are wasting lots of money due to the unions, and if we bail them out (as the unions will no doubt demand), we allow this to continue. But if instead we tell them to tighten their belt, the union looses a lot of power but the company can lower their costs, eg by finally firing the crappy workers, and by lowering the absurd wages.

[john5746]

If unions were not a good idea (from at least some point of view) nobody would have invented them.

 

Ever hear of the pet rock or the Ford Pinto?

 

 

Unions, like most organizations were formed out of a need. Workers needed to stand together to keep from being treated like paid slaves. Many of the needs they were formed to meet have been resolved and now many unions have just become like greedy corporations, except they add no value to products.

[Sisyphus]

Unions are a natural and nowadays mostly unfortunate result of the free market. Originally they were greatly beneficial to the average worker's quality of life and to the economy as a whole (by helping build a middle class), but like any capitalist entity, they never have "enough," and a lot of them have gotten pretty ridiculous (like the autoworkers). That said, even today I don't think they're all bad. For example, I've seen several clear examples of teachers' unions genuinely improving quality of education. And while I don't think they need or deserve government protection, I'm not about to send in the riot cops.

[Phi for All]

I challenge you to support that!

Supporting the concept of a union is easy. Employers often cut corners that can affect workers adversely. And with the erosion of many federal regulations during the last eight years, having a team behind you to make sure the regs you want in the workplace are upheld despite what the feds do could be very important in some industries.

 

But I'll repeat myself and say that some unions have become more about the union itself and less about the workers they're supposed to protect. It may be that the age of the union is over, but if I were a current member of one (and I've never been a member of a union; the closest I got was the Screen Actor's Guild, which is unlike any union I've ever heard about), I'd want to make sure the federal regs protected me adequately.

[ParanoiA]

I support the concept of Unions faithfully, but not their practice. I'm all for leveraging full market value with organization, that's what business does and they usually have far more resources to work with. If the workers can organize and attempt to increase their compensation for their labor services, then they absolutely should. I don't agree with using that leverage to extort and encroach on the business objective of those who hold the capital in that business.

 

It's sensible for the union to negotiate wages and represent the workers on serious legal and safety issues - but it's completely weird for them to coerce business practice and create a hierarchy of command with stewards spending half their days away from their work area dealing with grievances; handing out notices of what color of freaking shirt they want you to wear the next day; forcing everyone through a tenure system for every possible category you can imagine (hell, I've yet to discover a single perk based on performance or merit).

 

It's stupid. They're undermining the demand for our services. Isn't that business and economy 101 - supply and demand? When we allow the union to take this kind of control and encourage them to treat our employers like this, then they - correction, we - are not wanted. That sucks and that's why they fight the unions so much.

 

I don't believe it's actually about the money, I think it's about what they get for what they pay for. I think if unions operated more as a skilled labor business, we would be much stronger.

[Saryctos]

hell, I've yet to discover a single perk based on performance or merit.

You won't find a single one. To the union it is unfair to grant anything based on something other than your seniority or commitment to the union.

[CaptainPanic]

Apparently unions in the USA are total crap. ... so where I wrote unions before, I mean "European unions".

 

In the company where I work, there are 3 unions that represent some of the people working here. The 3 unions and the board of directors are now negotiating money and other things. It all seems very civilized, and they act on behalf of all the workers here (and I am not a member of any of them).

 

There exist some pretty large unions here. They have contact with the government to discuss what is reasonable to ask for the coming year. They always have such meeting in the fall. So it was not long ago, and the financial crisis had already started. I don't remember details, but the unions agreed with the government to take it easy this year.

 

Just to show that unions don't have to be all bad. I really get the feeling that the system works here.

[jackson33]

In the company where I work, there are 3 unions that represent some of the people working here. The 3 unions and the board of directors are now negotiating money and other things. It all seems very civilized, and they act on behalf of all the workers here (and I am not a member of any of them).

 

There exist some pretty large unions here. They have contact with the government to discuss what is reasonable to ask for the coming year. They always have such meeting in the fall. So it was not long ago, and the financial crisis had already started. I don't remember details, but the unions agreed with the government to take it easy this year.

 

Just to show that unions don't have to be all bad. I really get the feeling that the system works here.

 

Not knowing exactly which Union or what Country, which do have related laws to Unions, its hard to address a specific issue. However productivity ratings by Country rate most EU Nations,... well lets say just not the best.

Some factors MAY be, mandated work week (hours), mandated vacation or medical time allowed per year and individual competence (firing poor workers) all of which should be at the discretion of the EMPLOYER, at least in my opinion. Its my understanding Governments in the EU have formed laws, opposed to Unions, which effects all business, while in the US, most Business still has control over these issues. I also am told that Unions in the EU are active Parties in the political process, which makes any perceived actions of Unions, then accepted as that of Government, not the Union.

[Mr Skeptic]

Does anyone know whether large unions can be considered monopolies? It would be really funny watching a large union get taken down by antitrust laws

[John Cuthber]

Ever hear of the pet rock or the Ford Pinto?

 

 

Unions, like most organizations were formed out of a need. Workers needed to stand together to keep from being treated like paid slaves. Many of the needs they were formed to meet have been resolved ...

 

In the very real sense that employers now treat all their staff with dignity and respect.

 

The fact that Unions were invented and are still supported (not just financially) by the workforce strongly sugests that most people still think the Unions are a good idea. If they didn't, they would vote with their wallets and ther feet.

 

(BTW, I should declare an interest- I'm a TU official)

[jackson33]

Does anyone know whether large unions can be considered monopolies? It would be really funny watching a large union get taken down by antitrust laws

 

Basically Unions are lobbyist groups, representing those that finance them to both the Company's and government. No different than paying dues to AARP, NRA or any lobbyist group.

[Saryctos]

These jobs shouldn't even exist in the first place. The unions are only delaying the inevitable. The large majority of these line positions should be automated as is. They perpetuate old world industrial ideals. Big evil company oppressing their workers which need the union. The big evil company no longer needs hoards of line workers. But if there were no workers then there's no one for the union to mooch off of. So they need to keep the jobs to keep the power. After writing all this out I think I've convinced myself that we're in a labor bubble(never thought of saying it in those terms until just now), and it won't be long until it bursts.

 

Why isn't there a programmers union? I'm sure there are plenty of programmers out there who's jobs are always in flux due to company downsizing, buyouts and such. Why haven't they unionized? Because they can earn based on merit. They are a skilled workforce whos years of experience can be used on a resume to increase job oppertunity or job pay.

Laborers, not so much. They spend multiple years of their lives doing a job that requires minimal training and no expertise. If you owned a company whos employees didn't ever advance their abilities you'd be left in the dust by other companies that innovate. Worse yet, think that you can't fire the old employees and you have to continually pay them more and more without gaining anything from them.

Say one day you get a new automated call center suite that can replace your receptionist(I know I know, automated call centers suck, but just go with it for the example). Now, before you can implement it all of your employees say that they'll stop working if you intend on replacing the receptionists with this new program. Some one made that program to replace the receptionist, they make their money from creating these things. Now because you can't implement it without losing your business you won't buy it. That means that a horde of unskilled laborers just used their power to make a service provided by skilled professionals worth less money. Worse yet is that each of those skilled laborers is probably paid better than the people who designed that program! How is that good for the economy? For the advancement of the US as a whole? Education is devalued by their continued efforts to keep the US in the 1900s.

 

The problem? Lots of undereducated people won't be able to feed their families or afford their house payments once these jobs disappear. I'd like to think that this is a problem that can solve it self over time if these giant parachute companies weren't supplying them with work, but I'm not so sure it can happen without intervention. If you don't have a job how can you afford to go back to school to get a new one? If you're working long hours at a low wage job how do you have time to go back to school?

 

What if there was a military of the mind? A compulsory schooling institution that trains unskilled people for free with a requirement of service in the gov't(similar to the terms of a military contract). I know it's pretty socialistic, and there's plenty of problems, but I think something with at least this kind of intention could be a good thing. There needs to be a good way to implement continuing education to the masses. The only entity that I know of with the kind of staying power to shoulder the initial investment loss is the gov't. Hell they wouldn't even have to do the training, it could be something like a vouchers program. Education is almost always a good investment, so it's more than just a loan. The goal of reducing the unskilled labor market is good for the country, it would bring millions of people out of the 'poor trap'(no time to learn, no money to stop working).

[John Cuthber]

Nice hypothesis.

I am a member of a Union that only represents technical and professional staff (mainly scientists) some of whom are programmers. Its main jobs are to provide a representative for pay negotiation with employers and to represent employees who are being mistreated by their employers.

Since we are not necessarilly talking about production lines or labourers but scientists and engineers, where does that leave your ideas?

[JohnB]

The fact that Unions were invented and are still supported (not just financially) by the workforce strongly sugests that most people still think the Unions are a good idea. If they didn't, they would vote with their wallets and ther feet.

I dispute the term "most". Union membership in Oz is down to under 17% in the private sector and is less than 50% in the public sector. Both of these rates have been falling for years, so people are indeed voting with their wallets and feet.