without unions

[lemur]

If collective bargaining is actually undermined, what would the effects be for social-economics generally and the "middle class" lifestyle specifically? Would the same number of people find ways to individually gain access to the same standards of living? Or would some people negotiate highly favorable contracts, wages, and benefits while others lost out in theirs? Or would management simply drive down as many people's wages and benefits as possible and grow the gap between rich and poor to its maximum? If the middle class would be impoverished in this way, how would the standard of living for the rich change? Would more people become rich? What would really change if unions ceased to exist?

[jackson33]

If collective bargaining is actually undermined, what would the effects be for social-economics generally and the "middle class" lifestyle specifically? Would the same number of people find ways to individually gain access to the same standards of living? Or would some people negotiate highly favorable contracts, wages, and benefits while others lost out in theirs? Or would management simply drive down as many people's wages and benefits as possible and grow the gap between rich and poor to its maximum? If the middle class would be impoverished in this way, how would the standard of living for the rich change? Would more people become rich? What would really change if unions ceased to exist? [/Quote]

 

lemur; My guess is your talking about "Unions" (organized labor) right to bargain with State Governments over wages generally collected from and paid for, by the taxpayers. Since only 7-11% of the Private Workforce, those forced to earn their pay/benefits for themselves, then adding on the taxes required to pay Government paid employees, am I correct, your concerns for the "middle class" are in the private sector? I believe a very large percentage of those 89-91% in the private sector are in fact, middle class.

[lemur]

lemur; My guess is your talking about "Unions" (organized labor) right to bargain with State Governments over wages generally collected from and paid for, by the taxpayers. Since only 7-11% of the Private Workforce, those forced to earn their pay/benefits for themselves, then adding on the taxes required to pay Government paid employees, am I correct, your concerns for the "middle class" are in the private sector? I believe a very large percentage of those 89-91% in the private sector are in fact, middle class.

I don't understand your point. All I'm asking is whether organized labor (unionism) actually has marked effects on social-economics broadly. In other words, I think some people believe that without unions, wages would be driven down along with benefits and employees would be contractually abused. I'm not so sure if this is the case. Maybe nothing would change. Or maybe all that would change is that employees would negotiate their labor as individuals instead of having representatives to negotiate it for them and tell them that what they got was the best they could do for them. Your response seems to be providing some evidence but you're not really making any explicit argument to go along with it so it's hard to see what your point is.

 

edit: consider the following scenario: you want to buy a car and you are told that there is a consumer union that negotiates car prices for buyers collectively. They tell you what car you have to buy and the price they negotiated for you. Do you take it and thank them for making your choice for you and getting the best deal, or do you wonder why you couldn't choose your own car and negotiate your own price?

Edited March 11, 2011 by lemur

[jackson33]

without unions what becomes of "the middle class?" [/Quote]

 

lemur, I was asking a question, on which middle class your were referring to, those in the Union or the Private sector. I personally don't think any measurable difference would exist, if all unions simply went away, with the possible exception of business and people NOT having to move to other States to avoid their influence.

 

On your example (analogy), I'd simply go someplace else to buy my car. If it came to Government telling me those things, that's called Socialism and I would move to another Country. I would and have several times turned down jobs of all kinds, when I felt the offer was out of line to my work history, in most cases getting better offers and worked one year, one time where Union Membership was mandatory. This was in 1960 in a GM Plant on an assembly line. I changed a hanging light bulb and the UNION fined me three days off w/o pay, for not waiting on a electrician. I hold no respect or good memories for Unions.

 

without unions what becomes of "the middle class?" [/Quote]

 

lemur, I was asking a question, on which middle class your were referring to, those in the Union or the Private sector. I personally don't think any measurable difference would exist, if all unions simply went away, with the possible exception of business and people NOT having to move to other States to avoid their influence.

 

On your example (analogy), I'd simply go someplace else to buy my car. If it came to Government telling me those things, that's called Socialism and I would move to another Country. I would and have several times turned down jobs of all kinds, when I felt the offer was out of line to my work history, in most cases getting better offers and worked one year, one time where Union Membership was mandatory. This was in 1960 in a GM Plant on an assembly line. I changed a hanging light bulb and the UNION fined me three days off w/o pay, for not waiting on a electrician. I hold no respect or good memories for Unions.

[lemur]

lemur, I was asking a question, on which middle class your were referring to, those in the Union or the Private sector. I personally don't think any measurable difference would exist, if all unions simply went away, with the possible exception of business and people NOT having to move to other States to avoid their influence.

 

On your example (analogy), I'd simply go someplace else to buy my car. If it came to Government telling me those things, that's called Socialism and I would move to another Country. I would and have several times turned down jobs of all kinds, when I felt the offer was out of line to my work history, in most cases getting better offers and worked one year, one time where Union Membership was mandatory. This was in 1960 in a GM Plant on an assembly line. I changed a hanging light bulb and the UNION fined me three days off w/o pay, for not waiting on a electrician. I hold no respect or good memories for Unions.

Ok, you clearly don't see any benefit coming from unions. I hope some others respond that have a clear vision of what would happen to the middle class without collective bargaining, who think that there will be a difference. I am curious how bad supporters of collective bargaining think things could get in its absence. Basically, I'm curious what motivates them to struggle as hard as they do against losing the right to collective bargaining. Do they think management will mercilessly reduce them to slaves that are driven hard for a few years before death, like in 1930s work camps or some forms of colonial labor?

[John Cuthber]

First off I guess I should declare an interest. I'm a Union rep.

 

I don't think there's any difference between middle and lower class in terms of the effect of the removal of collective bargaining.

I think the effect would be a return to what happened before there were Unions or, equivalently, a change to the state of affairs that you find in totalitarian regimens where Unionism is banned.

In essence the people who had the wealth, and could therefore afford to invest in,factories and such, would pay as little as they could get away with. Those without would get a very poor deal.

 

As it happens the Union I'm in represents people who are almost all middle class professionals. A good fraction of them work in the civil service. Each year, when the pay bargaining is finished and the pay deals agreed, there are people who say that they feel that the deal wasn't very good. The reply is always the same; "You should have seen what Treasury originally offered".

 

I don't think the other employers are any more keen to give away money than the government.

 

Incidentally, I'm a Safety Representative, and I know that the research shows that Safety Reps improve the health and safety performance of employers.

So, Jackson33, do you really not think that a better chance of not getting killed at work counts as "I personally don't think any measurable difference would exist, if all unions simply went away"?

 

Just because your experience was of a bad Union is no reason to assume that all unions are always bad.

And I bet you didn't try to change the Union's policy did you?; you just grumble about it.

[jackson33]

So, Jackson33, do you really not think that a better chance of not getting killed at work counts as "I personally don't think any measurable difference would exist, if all unions simply went away"?[/Quote]

 

John; Why would legal obligations by law or regulations on Employers be ignored, if unions simple did NOT exist. I hate this phrase, but this IS 2011, not 1933 (great depression period) and no employer wishes bad publicity. Remember 89-91% of the private workforce does NOT have organized labor representation and don't seem to be being killed off.

 

Just because your experience was of a bad Union is no reason to assume that all unions are always bad.

 

And I bet you didn't try to change the Union's policy did you?; you just grumble about it. [/Quote]

 

The rest of the story and true; I did a little more than grumble, I joined GM Management, working in the Material Department and yes no one I'm aware of was ever punished by the Union for such simple violations. The important thing for my life however, was an offer to buy a Bowling Alley in Benson Arizona which I did. After 8 years or so that didn't pan out well and had to sell, but led me to much better things over the years...

 

As it happens the Union I'm in represents people who are almost all middle class professionals. A good fraction of them work in the civil service. Each year, when the pay bargaining is finished and the pay deals agreed, there are people who say that they feel that the deal wasn't very good. The reply is always the same; "You should have seen what Treasury originally offered".[/Quote]

 

Maybe you can answer this question for me; As I understand it member of the Federal Government are not bound to join a Union. If correct when your negotiate a pay/perk increase for your members, do those not in the Union also receive the same things? I know with GM and other of the larger manufacturers, management does the negotiating and their wages (management) are dependent on what's agreed to. Do you see the conflict between union/management or the individual/management in determining wages/perks?

 

lemur; I believe I've answered your question in replying to John, I'm not ignoring you...

[John Cuthber]

"John; Why would legal obligations by law or regulations on Employers be ignored, if unions simple did NOT exist."

The evidence* shows that, whatever the rules are (and however well they are followed) unionised workplaces with safety reps are statistically safer.

that's a real difference.

 

 

"If correct when your negotiate a pay/perk increase for your members, do those not in the Union also receive the same things? "

Yes, that's correct- pay is agreed nationally (and I think it's odd that you think being paid is a perk) and the same pay rules apply to everyone, whether they are in a Union or not.

 

" no employer wishes bad publicity. "

Roughly 3000 people were killed last year in the UK. as a result of their employers failure to assure their safety.

Their employers were clearly not that bothered by bad publicity.

 

"Do you see the conflict between union/management or the individual/management in determining wages/perks?"

As I see it the conflict is more between the shareholders and the workforce; the money can't pay both. (and I still wonder where this "perks" idea comes from)

 

An individual asking for more money is likely to get told to get lost. A Union asking for it on behalf of all the workforce is likely to be listened to.

 

 

*

"We need to find new ways of engaging workforces in all workplaces of all shapes

and sizes, using the knowledge we have gained from the past that properly involved

unionised safety representatives achieved better health and safety performance."

 

From

http://www.hse.gov.uk/strategy/strategy09.pdf

[jackson33]

The evidence* shows that, whatever the rules are (and however well they are followed) unionised workplaces with safety reps are statistically safer.

that's a real difference.[/Quote]

 

John; Workplace deaths in the UK are among the lowest in the world, 1.1/1000 and only Austria is lower with less than one per. By percentages those in Fishing. Timber, farming industries are the most likely at their workplace...Your link seems to credit this to legislation (The 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act) and no doubt someplace in the 18 pages it mentions union participation. What I'd like to see is where employers are responsible for more deaths.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_safety

 

The improvements in Great Britain’s health and safety performance over the last three decades are already a collective achievement we can all take pride in – and build on. The 1974 Health and Safety at Work etc Act and its underlying principles and philosophy provide us with a legislative framework that is adaptable and remains fit for purpose today.[/Quote]

 

Yes, that's correct- pay is agreed nationally (and I think it's odd that you think being paid is a perk) and the same pay rules apply to everyone, whether they are in a Union or not.[/Quote]

 

In the US, Unions negotiate perks (Holidays/Sick pay-leave/Vacation Days/Retirement Packages/Insurance and more) as well as pay and I'd bet they do in the UK.

 

To the point however and I understand the demographic differences; The workers in London and those in upper England must have different economical standards, no less than NYC and northern NY. To negotiate for all with differences in cost of living to social structures seems extremely unfair to me on the provider. (Government or Private Industry)

 

Here and most notably today in Wisconsin (you no doubt have heard about), those wages/perks for people living outside Madison are being held to the same standards as Madison receives, then being much smaller, sometimes with very little tax base, cannot afford those standards. The State, which has made up the differences can no longer support that system. Pension benefits, especially future obligations are a major financial problem in the US.

 

Their employers were clearly not that bothered by bad publicity.[/Quote]

 

You might ask management with British Petroleum about that....whom lost billions in Stock Value or any number of US Firms, who when being investigated for dirty toilets, lose some of their value, they care...

 

As I see it the conflict is more between the shareholders and the workforce; the money can't pay both. (and I still wonder where this "perks" idea comes from).[/Quote]

 

No Company anywhere free markets exist can survive without investors, which if without, no jobs would be available. Catch 22...most workers are tied to some form of retirement plan, here there called 401K's. Those 401's are invested in Corporations and many are dependent on the dividends that are paid. For instance I hold some PFF (NYSE) which pays 20$/100 Shares per month or about 7% annually, while the same amount in CD's would pay 1% per year, Bank Accounts now .1%.

 

perk purk

An incidental benefit awarded for certain types of employment (especially if it is regarded as a right)[/Quote]

 

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=perk

 

An individual asking for more money is likely to get told to get lost. A Union asking for it on behalf of all the workforce is likely to be listened to.[/Quote]

 

John, I don't know of any business in the US, that doesn't reward their employees in some manner, especially for those that produced. In my business days, I always used Christmas Bonus's or some kind of contest based on performance that gave a reward (money/free trip) and I've never been involved with unions, after GM. In fairness I was always a low end employer, a good share of minimum wage employee's or piece work (drivers by miles), but always increased wages with responsibilities.

[lemur]

Instead of trying to reply to each post specifically, please allow me to bargain with them as a single collective:) My issue with unions is the very idea of collectivism in collective bargaining and the fact that individual workers are told that they are powerless against management except by bonding together with other workers. Then, what bothers me more is that if an individual has an idea or a grievance or whatever, the union adds an additional layer of mediation to the individual expressing themselves to someone in a position to (help) change it. In other words, as an individualist, I look at all human communication as occurring through networks of individual-individual interactions. So when an individual approaches another and is told that they should go talk to their union rep, and then the union rep says that they'll bring it up at a meeting to see if they can get sufficient votes to put it on a ballot, etc. it boils down to essentially a method of structuralized suppression.

 

Another thing about collective bargaining is the fact that it can be used to push for something by force when the thing being pushed for may or may not be reasonable. This would, of course, not happen if union reps wouldn't become convinced that management is nothing but greedy liars saying whatever they have to to maximize profit and power. But because they often view things this way, they feel justified in pushing as hard as they can to get maximum benefit for the workers. That could theoretically be a logical method of determining the fairest deal in that whatever they can get management to ultimately accept must not be too badly out of their interest, but I can't understand it when the company is not allowed to fold because the worker/union demands are more than it wants to deal with. At some level, people have the right to withhold their capital the same as workers have the right to withhold their labor, right?

 

Finally, in practice I think the unions and the shareholders/managers actually work together to squeeze the maximum amount of money out of consumers/clients in order to make everyone as much money as possible. Both have an interest in preventing competition or other economic aspects that could benefit consumers at the expense of revenues, wages, dividends, etc. Theoretically this could be resolved by having consumer unions as well as government checking and balancing the powers of the corporations and unions, but what happens to individualism through all these acts of collective representation? Does everyone have to defer to a "larger" representative power in order to voice an opinion? Do individuals have to submit to the conditions given to them by these institutionalized powers? If so, why shouldn't individualists like me do everything we can to withdraw support from not only collective unionism, but also collective corporatism and any other form of collectivism that attempts to reduce individuality to a constituent element of "larger bodies?" Can you think of any other avenue individualism can take? Would you suggest we unionize in order to speak with a "louder collective voice?"

[jackson33]

My issue with unions is the very idea of collectivism in collective bargaining and the fact that individual workers are told that they are powerless against management except by bonding together with other workers. Then, what bothers me more is that if an individual has an idea or a grievance or whatever, the union adds an additional layer of mediation to the individual expressing themselves to someone in a position to (help) change it.[/Quote]

 

lemur; Essentially that's what John has suggested, that as an organized group speaking for all (whether or not they are) they have a better chance to achieve whatever and that would be a valid argument. What IMO this neglects, are some individuals naturally excel over others and would achieve anything wanted on their own, additionally those that could not, will be granted the same. In the US Federal Government everything is timed, not necessarily achieved. Aside from Grade Levels, 1-15, there are 10 step levels with in each Grade timed while in that grade...When it comes to actual staff reduction, job eliminations or whatever those effected have the least seniority period, even if they are seen as the most qualified in the entire department. No business could operate very long under this system, yet it's the people and owners of business that pay Government workers wages...

 

 

As an example of the overall calculation, a GS employee, Grade GS-12, Step 10 in Dallas would receive a base salary of $78,355 plus a locality pay adjustment of 20.67 percent (an additional $16,196) for a total salary of $94,551. By comparison, a similar employee in San Antonio (which is not one of the 31 designated areas for an increased adjustment) would receive only the standard "Rest of U.S." 14.16 percent increase ($11,095) over the same base salary, for a total salary of $89,450.

 

Permanent employees below step 10 in their grade normally earn step increases after serving a prescribed period of service in at least a satisfactory manner. The normal progression is 52 weeks (one year) between steps 1-2, 2-3, and 3-4, then 104 weeks (two years) between steps 4-5, 5-6, and 6-7, and finally 156 weeks (three years) between steps 7-8, 8-9, and 9-10.[2] However, an employee can be rewarded for outstanding work performance via a "quality step increase", which advances the employee one step within grade regardless of time at the previous step.[3][/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule

 

This would, of course, not happen if union reps wouldn't become convinced that management is nothing but greedy liars saying whatever they have to maximize profit and power. But because they often view things this way, they feel justified in pushing as hard as they can to get maximum benefit for the workers.That could theoretically be a logical method of determining the fairest deal in that whatever they can get management to ultimately accept must not be too badly out of their interest, but I can't understand it when the company is not allowed to fold because the worker/union demands are more than it wants to deal with. At some level, people have the right to withhold their capital the same as workers have the right to withhold their labor, right? [/Quote]

 

Yes your correct, but the thousands, sometimes millions of investors, including International Institutions and Individuals will start to worry when that bottom line (profit) seems to be in trouble, driving what's caledl "Company Capitalization" down. As this goes down, interest on borrowed fund goes up (all companies barrow, called preferred stocks covering loan agreements), because it's those value loans are based on, not property or equities your familiar with. Some very large Companies over the years have failed, file either Chapter 7 (liquidation) or Chapter 11, reorganization and on occasion made a comeback. The problem then is what causes the problem in the first place and Unions (labor cost) have always been a major cause.

 

Finally, in practice I think the unions and the shareholders/managers actually work together to squeeze the maximum amount of money out of consumers/clients in order to make everyone as much money as possible. [/Quote]

 

Government workers or those where taxpayer are expected to pay labor cost, yes and not only do State/Federal Governments periodically change Governments but they have unlimited powers to tax. Corporations have no power to raise funds other than raising prices or reducing cost, raise prices and sales normally go down, so they prefer lowering cost. Labor in most cases is a business highest cost. Where this is not true, Google/Microsoft/Amazon, pay scales are high and unions would be non-effective.

[John Cuthber]

"What I'd like to see is where employers are responsible for more deaths"

Under the '74 act (and the regulations made under it) the employer has a legal duty to take such action as is required to assess risks to health and safety and then to take actions to ensure that those risks are controlled "as far as is reasonably practicable".

While the injury to or death of an employee is sometimes due to external factors or to the employee's own negligence, it is often the legal responsibility of the employer.

Since the accident and death rates are lower in unionised work-places (even allowing for the differences in demographics, size of the workforce etc) and there is an obvious mechanism by which Unions improve safety (the Safety Reps) it is reasonable to conclude that the Union reduces the death rate.

 

 

"You might ask management with British Petroleum about that....whom lost billions in Stock Value or any number of US Firms, who when being investigated for dirty toilets, lose some of their value, they care..."

 

Why don't they do something about it?

Safety is usually an investment rather than a cost.

For what it's worth, even after paying out billions in compensation and fines BP isn't broke.

 

 

I don't see holidays, sick pay etc as perks, but I guess that's just a difference of point of view.

 

"To the point however and I understand the demographic differences; The workers in London and those in upper England must have different economical standards, no less than NYC and northern NY. To negotiate for all with differences in cost of living to social structures seems extremely unfair to me on the provider. (Government or Private Industry)"

 

The civil service has a "London weighting" included in the salary scheme. It's not enough to cover the real difference in cost. The employees in the South East are badly done by. At least the TU negotiated some sort of attempt to offset this issue. The management didn't suggest it and, though the price difference between London and elsewhere has increased, the management have resisted calls to increase the payment.

They clearly don't mind looking irrational on this point. (They accept there's an issue- so they pay more, but they don't accept that the issue has become more severe, which is inconsistent)

 

"I don't know of any business in the US, that doesn't reward their employees in some manner, especially for those that produced."

Nor do I, but I do know of plenty of employers who grossly mistreat their workforce. Most of them are not in the West and most of them ban Unions and persecute anyone who tries to set up any sort of collective bargaining.

 

 

 

"Another thing about collective bargaining is the fact that it can be used to push for something by force when the thing being pushed for may or may not be reasonable. This would, of course, not happen if union reps wouldn't become convinced that management is nothing but greedy liars saying whatever they have to to maximize profit and power. But because they often view things this way, they feel justified in pushing as hard as they can to get maximum benefit for the workers."

 

 

Unions are generally large enough and sophisticated enough to read and understand a company's financial records. They are often significant investors too. They understand the importance of getting a reasonable return on capital.

It's obviously not in the workers' interests to bankrupt the company and have all the staff lose their jobs.

There may be occasions where a Union has been dumb enough to do that but, as I said, like all things you will sometimes meet a bad Union; that's no basis to judge the entire movement.

If we assume a reasonably degree of competency for most Unions then the argument about Unions doing dumb things is a straw-man.

[lemur]

lemur; Essentially that's what John has suggested, that as an organized group speaking for all (whether or not they are) they have a better chance to achieve whatever and that would be a valid argument. What IMO this neglects, are some individuals naturally excel over others and would achieve anything wanted on their own, additionally those that could not, will be granted the same. In the US Federal Government everything is timed, not necessarily achieved. Aside from Grade Levels, 1-15, there are 10 step levels with in each Grade timed while in that grade...When it comes to actual staff reduction, job eliminations or whatever those effected have the least seniority period, even if they are seen as the most qualified in the entire department. No business could operate very long under this system, yet it's the people and owners of business that pay Government workers wages...

 

Imo, the whole idea of organizing and ranking people within a group according to seniority, ability level, or other forms of "merit" is an abstraction from the actuality of labor as directly productive in situations. What I mean by this is that if you were trying to get something done, e.g. put up a ceiling, I would attempt to get whoever was available at the moment to help and, if they weren't able, I would seek the next available person. Theoretically, if all economic activities were done this directly, individuals would just work on self-sustaining projects and would seek to enlist other available individuals when they need some kind of assistance. Factories could run the same way if people wouldn't attempt to lie about being able to do a job they couldn't do to get the money. I think the various systems and methods for exercising economic control have evolved beyond being just support for individuals trying to accomplish things to being a system designed to provide everything for everyone without them having to do anything really, other than fulfill whatever immediate abstract bureaucratic requirements are put to them. Then, when systems are failing, the bureaucratic requirements are designed to provide unchallengeable means of severing labor relations. Social structuring/control has become primary and labor productivity secondary and that destroys direct economic consciousness.

 

Yes your correct, but the thousands, sometimes millions of investors, including International Institutions and Individuals will start to worry when that bottom line (profit) seems to be in trouble, driving what's caledl "Company Capitalization" down. As this goes down, interest on borrowed fund goes up (all companies barrow, called preferred stocks covering loan agreements), because it's those value loans are based on, not property or equities your familiar with. Some very large Companies over the years have failed, file either Chapter 7 (liquidation) or Chapter 11, reorganization and on occasion made a comeback. The problem then is what causes the problem in the first place and Unions (labor cost) have always been a major cause.

It all sounds like symptoms of the same problem: abstraction of economic processes and negotiating them on the abstract level to the detriment of being able to work more directly.

 

 

 

[jackson33]

Since the accident and death rates are lower in unionized work-places (even allowing for the differences in demographics, size of the workforce etc) and there is an obvious mechanism by which Unions improve safety (the Safety Reps) it is reasonable to conclude that the Union reduces the death rate. [/Quote]

 

John, for me to somehow attack your job description, would be non productive and not my intention to begin with. In my non union world, accidents happen, 6 million auto accidents in the US alone (autos's are manufactured) and if those involved feel they have a grievance have legal recourse for damages done, which includes in the workplace.

 

Why don't they do something about it?

 

Safety is usually an investment rather than a cost.

 

For what it's worth, even after paying out billions in compensation and fines BP isn't broke. [/Quote]

 

I don't believe an actual cause has been determined, but there were hundreds of different firms working on the rig that exploded, most being sued by someone today. Since BP headed up the project, HAS THE CASH, most are directed at them. Regardless if the event was preventable, the consequences will be the same....

 

The stock nose dived from 75US$/sh to 25/Sh and is currently holding around 40-50$ today, about a 40B$ loss in market capitalization, during a period when Crude producers have done very well. The end results were hurting the investor/pensioners whom have received one special dividend since and lost about 4$/sh, not to mention the thousands of lost jobs. Since your in the business, you probably already know, but the US Government Safety Experts had given a green light days in advance of the accident and awarded BP for it's safety practices.

 

I don't see holidays, sick pay etc as perks, but I guess that's just a difference of point of view.[/Quote]

 

A very expensive different point of view. Do you know in the US many Unionized workers can retire after 30 years in their 50's, with the same benefits, up to 90% of their original pay and paid Medical Insurance for life, with spousal survival benefits. Many including some in my family were paid twice what they earned working, in retirement.

 

The civil service has a "London weighting" included in the salary scheme. It's not enough to cover the real difference in cost.[/Quote]

 

If you haven't read the above link on the US Federal differential scheme agreement, it might interest you. I've never been to England or do I understand (probably) the different economic standards, but in the US, I live in SE New Mexico for 1/5th the cost of NYC or Washington DC, yet the Government workers here make as much as they would if living in Albuquerque, about twice what the average income here is and there are few perks available to private workers here.

 

Unions are generally large enough and sophisticated enough to read and understand a company's financial records. They are often significant investors too. They understand the importance of getting a reasonable return on capital.[/Quote]

 

This would take hours to respond to, but briefly as I've tried to explain to lemur, what takes down a Publicly owned Company, starts from the investment side. Said another way, what BP has apparently survived, would have destroyed most any medium manufacturer or service company and it would have been a Chapter 7, liquidation.

 

 

 

Then, when systems are failing, the bureaucratic requirements are designed to provide unchallengeable means of severing labor relations. Social structuring/control has become primary and labor productivity secondary and that destroys direct economic consciousness.[/Quote]

 

lemur; Productivity is determined by cost, workers pay and end cost make other means more practical and robotics can replace most any menial position. Milton Friedman once said if you really want "shovel ready jobs, make them table spoon jobs", meaning of course it would put more people to work. IMO it's more connected to social demands and expectations, which subverts human natures desire to achieve.

 

Then, when systems are failing, the bureaucratic requirements are designed to provide unchallengeable means of severing labor relations. Social structuring/control has become primary and labor productivity secondary and that destroys direct economic consciousness.[/Quote]

 

If you place into the equation "International Free Market" economies, then probably yes. During a long period of US history, isolationism ruled economics and unions could survive. To correct this unions have been going international, but can't make headway in many places, especially Asia or China.

[lemur]

lemur; Productivity is determined by cost, workers pay and end cost make other means more practical and robotics can replace most any menial position. Milton Friedman once said if you really want "shovel ready jobs, make them table spoon jobs", meaning of course it would put more people to work. IMO it's more connected to social demands and expectations, which subverts human natures desire to achieve.

Job-creation politics are one of the worst side-effects of industrial modernization, imo. If you install a dishwasher to do dishes for you, you are happy to replace the job of dishwashing with a machine so you are free to do other things. Yet when a wage-labor job as dishwasher is replaced with a machine (or any other job), people complain about taking jobs away from humans. If all people basically lived from their own homesteads, they would welcome labor-saving technologies because they would have control over the productivity those technologies enable. However, because industrialism produced a class of workers whose only means of sustaining themselves economically involves trading their labor for money, a culture of job-seeking has evolved into a politics of job-creation. It is putting the cart before the horse, but how do you return people to the point where they can become self-determined economic agents instead of passive recipients/dependents of social-economic structuring?

 

 

[John Cuthber]

This is all very interesting, but I don't think it has been on topic for a while.

I don't think anyone has mentioned class since I said "I don't think there's any difference between middle and lower class in terms of the effect of the removal of collective bargaining."

[lemur]

This is all very interesting, but I don't think it has been on topic for a while.

I don't think anyone has mentioned class since I said "I don't think there's any difference between middle and lower class in terms of the effect of the removal of collective bargaining."

That comment confused me. Are you saying that both classes would be equally affected by losing collective bargaining? The point of the OP was whether middle-class standards of living would disappear without unions as capitalism would reduce them all to sweat-shop quasi-slaves. . . or, put less pessimistically, could cultural evolution in the direction of more sustainable, less materialistic standards of living be achieved more smoothly without collective bargaining fighting to keep wages and benefits as high as possible for as many people as possible?

 

 

 

[JohnB]

John, if you have smarter unions where you are it's because you shipped all the fools down here. It has not gone un-noticed that the worst union agitators have pommy accents. (They tend to call each other "Comrade" a lot too)

 

Personally I've been a union member once and that was because it was a closed shop. I have always been able to negotiate a better deal for myself than any union hack could. People who are good at what they do and know they are valuable don't need unions because companies bid for our services. Unions are for those who know they aren't valuable employees and can't negotiate on the merits of their work ability.

 

WH&S is a different kettle of fish. Yes, safety has improved in most industries a lot. However in the drive to avoid any accidents we have lost sight of the simple fact that there will always be accidents. Humans aren't perfect and will make mistakes. Also you reach a point where the WH&S officer is reduced to coming up with more and sillier regulations and rules simply to justify their own existence. (And I can give some great examples of this sort of rubbish.)

 

As to the OP, I think that there is one factor that is always ignored. The unemployment rate. When unemployment is high there are many applicants for any given job and the employer can pick and choose. People are so keen to get the job that they will accept worse working conditions than they normally would. However in times of low unemployment, under about 3%, then all the good people are already working and the pool contains mostly the deadheads. This reverses the situation and the employer must now offer more money and better conditions to attract employees. Note that this has a flow on effect because if you need to pay more to attract the people you need, then you will also have to raise the wages of the staff you already have to keep them.

 

While I dislike thinking of people as a commodity or resource (and I refuse to work for a company that has an HR Dept) in this respect there is a fair comparison. The fewer good people there are available in the work pool, the more a company will pay to get them. It's simple supply and demand. So the effect on the middle class of the existence or lack of unions depends totally on the economic situation of the nation.

 

BTW, most "smart" Unions know this too. Chronic lack of good people in the work pool will destroy the union movement. Who's going to join a union when the non union workplaces are paying higher wages with better conditions? Unions need high unemployment for their very existence.