News Revisiting the Role of Unions: A Debate on Necessity and Power

[Alfi]

Are "unions" still necessary?

My wife and I started a discussion and it rapidly became a heated debate.( read as 'fight' :) )
We have opposing views. To say the least.

So I ask the members here. What do you think?

Are labour unions still necessary to protect the labour force?

My position is that there are enough laws and reporting methoods of 'bad or unsafe' conditions, or unfair practices, to make the original purpose of the forming of unions superfluous. They succeeded. Now they can be reduced to an intermediary in the role of worker/Management relations.

I agreed that a 'collective bargaining agreement' saves individuals from asking for a raise but the laws that the unions forced to be enacted ( child labour laws etc. ) have made the power of the unions to strike for 'other' desired benefits is no longer a reason to support the unions as they have evolved into.

In short. I think the unions have too much power in the say of how companies are run.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with your position and argument.

 

[Evo]

Unions can be done away with altogether.

 

[turbo]

When I was the lead paper machine operator on the world's newest high-speed free-sheet paper machine, I was a shop steward, and helped to negotiate our contract. Some other people in the area said things like "you guys can make $14/hour - that's way too much!"

They didn't know that
- 3 absences for any reason in 3 months= warning
- 3 more absences in the next 9 months = termination (with forced time off without pay in two different stages)
- the company could force any employee to work unscheduled overtime, up to and including 24-hour shifts (and I had to do that)
- the company could force you to come in and work extended shifts on your days off in the event of an unexpected shutdown of the paper machine
- the company could (and did) neglect its contractual commitment to train employees to "move up" along the line and cover vacancies of more highly-trained crew members.
- the company could (and did) require workers in the higher echelons of the crews to work extended shifts (our standard was 3-on, 3-off rotating 12 hour shifts) whenever there was a shortage of trained and qualified workers to move up the line of progression and fill such vacancies. As a result, during the summer, when people wanted to take a little vacation time, I worked a minimum of 12 hours every shift, and my only days off (apart from my own vacation days) were perhaps a day a week when I was required to switch from 6:00am - 6:00pm to 6:00pm-6:00am.

The contract that resulted in these conditions was regarded as one of the more progressive in the paper industry in Maine of the 1980's-1990's. If you think that unions are no longer necessary, I invite you to consider what your life would be like (personal and home life) under such work conditions. Factor in that the pulp and paper industry is one of the most dangerous and physically demanding, and that exhaustion and lack of time for rest and recuperation contribute to higher accident rates.

I put in my 10 years, absorbed as much specialized knowledge, etc, as possible, and as soon as I was vested in the retirement program, I resigned. I worked for quite a number of years as a private consultant to that industry. I have co-workers from those years that I see from time to time. They look old and broken. I have a neighbor who still works there. He is 48. I am 56. My other neighbors can't believe that I'm older than him.

Edit: In the first couple of points, I should have pointed out that "absences" included unexplained lateness for shift change. If you had an understanding replacement who would cover for you and accept your extra coverage to offset the lateness, you were all set. If you punched in 15 minutes late, that was a black mark against you, unless you had a real understanding boss or could prove that you were late through no fault of your own (log-truck across the road), downed power-lines, etc. Obviously, a shift-long absence with no phone call would result in an immediate trip to the office and an immediate warning.

 

[Alfi]

Unions can be done away with altogether.

As My wife said to that : Too simplistic.
She argues, All that would do is let the companies run us back to the 'slave labour' days.
Take it or leave . There's lots of cheap foreign/immigrant labour to be had.

I find that a difficult argument to counter.

 

[Danger]

I've never had any use for unions, although I can see why they might have been necessary in the beginning to fight the 'sweat-shop' and 'company store' situations.
It seems to me that when I was living back east the UAW in Detroit would go on strike, sign a 3-year contract, then go on strike again 2 years later. I think that any pay increase that they got went directly to higher union dues for the next period.

 

[Evo]

As My wife said to that : Too simplistic.
She argues, All that would do is let the companies run us back to the 'slave labour' days.
Take it or leave . There's lots of cheap foreign/immigrant labour to be had.

I find that a difficult argument to counter.

Most successful companies are non-union. In a lot of companies that have unions, the non-union workers are sometimes paid better, have better benefits and are much more productiive than the union workers, which is why the companies are willing to pay non-union workers better. That can't be done in all companies that have unions, but it's true for some.

I know for a fact, having been management over union employees, that union employees, for the most part, did as little work as they could get by with. When I would walk into a union section, people would be gathered in groups chatting, watching tv, reading magazines, on personal calls, painting their fingernails, you name it. I couldn't say a word. They cost the company a fortune in lost productivity.

 

[turbo]

Most successful companies are non-union. In a lot of companies that have unions, the non-union workers are sometimes paid better, have better benefits and are much more productiive than the union workers, which is why the companies are willing to pay non-union workers better. That can't be done in all companies that have unions, but it's true for some.

I know for a fact, having been management over union employees, that union employees, for the most part, did as little work as they could get by with. When I would walk into a union section, people would be gathered in groups chatting, watching tv, reading magazines, on personal calls, painting their fingernails, you name it. I couldn't say a word. They cost the company a fortune in lost productivity.

In the Scott Paper Co where I worked as a chemist, I was disgusted by the behavior of my non-union co-workers, especially when most of the female clerical staff took full advantage of their ability to claim a day's "sick-leave" every single month in addition to sick leave that was actually necessary. One nominal "chemist" complained to my boss because I had been promoted to a process chemist position in support of an important engineering project. Her reasons? She was a woman and had two kids, and she had a college degree and I didn't. Her degree was in Phys Ed. The little fact that I had out-performed all the other candidates for the position was secondary.

When the mill announced that a paper mill would be built on the site, and later announced that there would be a strictly competitive training program to staff 50% of the jobs on the machine, I asked to be allowed into the program. The mill's HR department refused because it would "look bad" if a salaried professional joined the hourly production ranks. My boss (the Director of the Tech Dept. and a close friend) prevailed, and I was the last person to be admitted to the training program, and graduated with the highest scores and the best job-placement. Most of the union people that I worked with sacrificed, slaved, and out-performed the non-union people that I worked with in that mill.

People may dismiss my experiences as apocryphal or say that my experiences were "special" somehow. I submit this for your consideration:

-The head of the Technical Department was a VERY powerful person, as he should have been when a new pulp mill was being launched and shaken-down.

-He hired me instead of a newly-degreed chemical engineer because during the interview process, we were interrupted by the chief environmental engineer, whom I later worked for, and I suggested a successful strategy for dealing with an extreme pH shift that he was facing due to an unscheduled pulp mill shut-down, and acid boil-out.

-He championed my cause when I wanted to be allowed into the paper machine training program.

-The paper mill production manager and I conferred frequently during the negotiation of the contract, over the strenuous objections of the company's senior management and negotiators.

-The paper mill production manager and I spent many weekend days (all I could get off, anyway) running world-class white-water in northern Maine.

-My closest cousin is married to the son of the Union's president, and he and I spent many, many hours hand-loading, tuning, and shooting target loads and hunting loads.

-When I quit the mill (as a "union shop steward and advocate for worker's rights") the former director of the training department of my old mill recruited me to head up a new division for the world's 2nd largest industrial training company, when they decided that nuclear power-generation was in decline and they wanted to diversify into pulp and paper.

I have worked in every portion of the false dichotomy of "worker vs company" spectrum that you can imagine and I have lasting professional and personal relationships from those times. Remember that every time a union contract is negotiated, the union rank-and-file would have wanted a better deal, and the company would have wanted a better deal.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't understand "necessary". Unions are the cartelization of labor; they increase the marginal cost of labor for companies toward the monopoly level, decreasing the quantity of labor demanded. If the union is able to capture the revenue itself (pay increase mostly goes to high union dues, with union leadership taking high pay/perks) the benefits accrue to union leadership and highly skilled nonunion labor; if the union is not able to capture the revenue (union dues much lower than the pay increase) the benefits accrue to union members and highly skilled nonunion labor. The costs are borne by consumers, companies, and most nonunion labor. Fewer products are produced and many fewer workers are employed.

These things suggest that unions are likely to form, absent monopsony pressure from large companies or government regulation.

 

[turbo]

I don't understand "necessary". Unions are the cartelization of labor; they increase the marginal cost of labor for companies toward the monopoly level, decreasing the quantity of labor demanded. If the union is able to capture the revenue itself (pay increase mostly goes to high union dues, with union leadership taking high pay/perks) the benefits accrue to union leadership and highly skilled nonunion labor; if the union is not able to capture the revenue (union dues much lower than the pay increase) the benefits accrue to union members and highly skilled nonunion labor. The costs are borne by consumers, companies, and most nonunion labor. Fewer products are produced and many fewer workers are employed.

These things suggest that unions are likely to form, absent monopsony pressure from large companies or government regulation.

Unions (in my particular case) were instrumental in "selling" some very restrictive work rules and onerous schedules to their members in return for delivering some fair wages, retirement benefits, etc. That might not seem "necessary", but it is surely advantageous for companies to know that they have a stable work-force that can help them deliver value to share-holders in the "long" (3-5 years in the stupid vernacular of US corporations) -term. If you think that your company is getting a really good deal when acquiring a particular resource, you will make a "long-term" agreement to guarantee that you will continue to get that same resource on the same terms for years, not quarters, not spot market prices. When companies guess right, all the guys at the top get rich. When they guess wrong, they blame the unions for "forcing" them to agree to onerous terms. The guys at the top of the corporate ladder are never wrong ... see any patterns?

 

[rcgldr]

It's a balance of power between a corporation in control of a large number of jobs, and a union in control of a large number of employees. I don't have a problem with this.

From what I recall, Texas is a "right to work" state. Participaion in a union is optional (legally, I'm not so sure about peer pressure), so at least in the case of Texas, the employees get to descide if they think unions are necessary.

 

[russ_watters]

Unions can be done away with altogether.

I'd say they should stay - collective bargaining is a right - but there should be severe limitations on their power. Eh, maybe what I would envision wouldn't look much like unions look today.

 

[russ_watters]

They didn't know that...

Just out of curiosity, did you get paid overtime?

 

[russ_watters]

It's a balance of power between a corporation in control of a large number of jobs, and a union in control of a large number of employees. I don't have a problem with this.

I oppose monopolies of both kinds and right now labor monopolies are legal while coroporate monopolies are illegal.

 

[Danger]

I submit this for your consideration:

-The head of the Technical Department was a VERY powerful person, as he should have been when a new pulp mill was being launched and shaken-down.

-He hired me instead of a newly-degreed chemical engineer because during the interview process, we were interrupted by the chief environmental engineer, whom I later worked for, and I suggested a successful strategy for dealing with an extreme pH shift that he was facing due to an unscheduled pulp mill shut-down, and acid boil-out.

-He championed my cause when I wanted to be allowed into the paper machine training program.

-The paper mill production manager and I conferred frequently during the negotiation of the contract, over the strenuous objections of the company's senior management and negotiators.

-The paper mill production manager and I spent many weekend days (all I could get off, anyway) running world-class white-water in northern Maine.

-My closest cousin is married to the son of the Union's president, and he and I spent many, many hours hand-loading, tuning, and shooting target loads and hunting loads.

-When I quit the mill (as a "union shop steward and advocate for worker's rights") the former director of the training department of my old mill recruited me to head up a new division for the world's 2nd largest industrial training company, when they decided that nuclear power-generation was in decline and they wanted to diversify into pulp and paper.

I have worked in every portion of the false dichotomy of "worker vs company" spectrum that you can imagine and I have lasting professional and personal relationships from those times. Remember that every time a union contract is negotiated, the union rank-and-file would have wanted a better deal, and the company would have wanted a better deal.

Turbo, old bean... you know how much I admire most of your opinions here... but none of the quoted passages have anything to do with the subject at hand. I can make the same claims (on a smaller scale) and have never been close to a union.

 

[G01]

I don't think this is a black and white issue, and I don't have enough experience to try to generalize and decide if unions should be omnipresent or abolished.

I'd agree that people have a right to collective bargaining. In some situations unions may indeed be needed, such as in turbo-1's case. In other situations, unions may have too much power and hold progress back. Not everyone's experiences with this issue are the same. I think we all have to realize this and realize one union may help while another can hurt.

 

[turbo]

I'd say they should stay - collective bargaining is a right - but there should be severe limitations on their power. Eh, maybe what I would envision wouldn't look much like unions look today.

The unions of the pre-Reagan era are the bogeymen of the far right. Reagan packed the National Labor Relations Board (the charter of which says that the purpose of the board is to promote labor/management relations) with radical anti-labor activists, and the trend has never been reversed. The adversarial relationships between labor and management need never have been such, but moneyed interests prevailed. In the 1980s, International Paper announced huge pay raises for its corporate heads, and told the workers at the Jay, Maine mill (who had agreed to having their wages frozen for 5 years years to help the company become more profitable) that not only would they not be getting any raises, but that their their pay would be cut to cover the costs of their benefits. The workers struck, the company brought in scabs from Alabama (sub-contractors of Halliburton that you would recognize) and broke the union through attrition. That move cost IP and its shareholders dearly, though in the very competitive international paper market these days, that mill might still have been under IP management and making money, had they offered a modest increase in wages to the employees.

 

[Alfi]

I'd say they should stay - collective bargaining is a right -

I'm not so sure that a 'collective bargaining' is a right of any kind.

I see it as a convenience for the company and the workers.
Some people can get a bigger raise simply because they are better negotiators and that may not be fair to others that are better workers but lack verbal skills or haven't the guts to even ask for an increase in pay or perks.
The usefulness of a collective bargaining unit is one of the reasons I can't see a total end to unions.

In cases such as Fire and Police I would like to see an adoption of 'work to rule' as opposed to strikes. The unions don't seem to want to give up that ultimate power.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Turbo: As a sincere question... Do you think that the union, due to perception of unions deserved or not, may have undermined the process of making law changes that could cover the issues that the union covers? and maybe more? If people perceive union workers as being protected and perhaps even preferentially treated are they as likely to support law and regulation changes to support them?

 

[devil-fire]

Unions can be done away with altogether.

I believe the nature of a profitable business or corporation is such that they will only spend the minimum amount of resources on their labour in order to maximize profits. That amounts to doing the bare minimum to comply with the law, and sometimes not even that (the fine for allowing a work place to be unsafe could be less then the cost of making it safe). The quality of life for the workers doesn't factor in at all.

If you happen to have skills that are in high demand, a business will want to make you comfortable so you don't go anywhere, but other then that there is zero motivation to offer an employee good working conditions.

Without organized labour, I don't think labour laws would be adequate protection for workers because without organized labour I expect big business would try to influence the government to loosen up those labour laws. I mean it is just the nature of the beast to try to cut costs where ever they can


Look at china for example. Hardly any unions to speak of, fairly lax labour laws and Chinese business is extremely competitive, which is great for business but bad for everyone who has to inhale mercury at work.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I was a union member for several years. My experience is that it protected one against company management - but not against union management.

 

[turbo]

Just out of curiosity, did you get paid overtime?

Certainly, when I was a union member, and earlier when I held a non-exempt shift chemist position.

 

[turbo]

Turbo: As a sincere question... Do you think that the union, due to perception of unions deserved or not, may have undermined the process of making law changes that could cover the issues that the union covers? and maybe more? If people perceive union workers as being protected and perhaps even preferentially treated are they as likely to support law and regulation changes to support them?

It is, as I mention before, largely a matter of perception on the part of the public. Management is willing to work with unions to secure a stable, skilled work-force, and lock them in at rates that they can figure into their business plans for at least several years out. When it works well, it's raises all around for the managers, though the union employees are locked in at their contract rates. When it comes time to renegotiate, the flacks for the companies start hollering about how awful the unions are and how they are ruining the profitability of the company. Gullible, inexperienced members of the public lap this right up, especially when it is reinforced by politicians that are in the pockets of the corporations.

Our papermaker's union (Local 9) donated countless hours of members' labor in support of charitable causes, including Good Will-Hinckley school. We repaired plumbing, did drywall and painting and generally refurbished a run-down dormitory so that the school could host conferences and get some income from rentals of the rooms, and we refurbished other buildings on the campus, as well, and did necessary repairs to the physical plant. The school houses and educates kids (mostly teens) with behavioral problems, etc, many of whom have been physically and/or sexually abused, often by family members. Yep! those evil unions are ruining the country.

 

[skeptic2]

Though I'm not in a union a friend of mine used to be a union representative. He mentioned one time that when workers come to him to organize their plant, the reason is never higher wages, it's nearly always that they feel that the company is treating the workers unfairly. He took me to a foundry where nearly all the workers were Iranian women. The restrooms were kept locked and without any toilet paper or soap. In order to go to the restroom the women would have to go to their male supervisor and ask for the key, soap and toilet paper. As was the intention they felt embarrassed and degraded for just going to the restroom.

I also saw a study done by the University of Tennessee that found that on average union workers earn about 10% more than nonunion workers for the same jobs. They were also about 10% more productive than nonunion workers. This was mostly due to when a worker had a problem with a boss or a boss with a worker, there was a process for resolving the problem without the worker quitting and the company having to hire someone else with less experience. The biggest difference they found between union workers and nonunion workers was that the union workers had stayed with the same companies more years. That resulted in less training, fewer mistakes and higher productivity.

Part of the myth of the overpaid union worker comes from companies, especially during negotiations, reporting the hourly wage of the workers with the cost of all their benefits thrown such as medical and pensions. In other words if the company says their machinists are making $35/hr. we immediately think they're grossing $70,000 plus a year when in reality their gross wages may only be $25/hr.

 

[turbo]

Though I'm not in a union a friend of mine used to be a union representative. He mentioned one time that when workers come to him to organize their plant, the reason is never higher wages, it's nearly always that they feel that the company is treating the workers unfairly.

When I was shop steward, and papermill representative on the union's negotiating committee, we ended up going on strike for a few weeks. The big issues:

1) We papermakers wanted to the company to stop treating our reserve workers as if they were interchangeable and swapping them from shift to shift. These were recent hires, whose training was 100% on-the-job training by skilled crew-members. We couldn't train them properly if we kept getting new reserves every week or two - there was no continuity. Plus we lost valuable production time every time we needed a reserve to perform a simple (though often critical) function, only to find out that he or she didn't know how to do that. Then we also had to lose the help of a skilled person, who had to do the job and train the reserve.

2) We papermakers wanted to be able to work 3-on, 3-off 12-hour shifts instead of the Southern Swing. At least, during off-peak vacation periods winter/spring, we could plan on getting a couple of days off a week. The managers said that we couldn't possibly work 12-hour shifts, which was pretty insulting, because during start-up, when the machine was running very badly and we had to work our tails off, we put in 12-hour days or nights, 7 days a week for over three months without a single day off.

3) The skilled trades wanted to modify the work-rules so that pipers, welders, machinists, electricians, etc, could exercise their seniority when deciding whether to work in rotation with a particular shift in the pulp and paper mills, or be part of the general skilled-trades pools. This was important to us papermakers, too, because when you know the capabilities and temperament of the skilled trades-people at your disposal (on-shift), you can be much more efficient at getting repairs done, and communication between the trades and production crews were enhanced.

All three of these things were important to us, and all three of them were good for productivity. Luckily, I had become well-acquainted with the new paper mill production manager, and he quickly saw the value of these. The biggest obstacles were the negotiators from corporate who wanted to "sell" these things to the union by forcing us to make concessions. The production manager took some professional risks and bucked those idiots, and over the next few years, we made him a hero at corporate as production numbers increased, absenteeism went 'way down, and turnover slowed greatly.

 

[drankin]

Unions work well in particular industries inparticular places. They do not work everywhere. I remember a job I had where everyone got excited and unionized. The company shut their doors a couple of months later. I was like, "great, we just unionized ourselves out of a job".

 

[Alfi]

It is, as I mention before, largely a matter of perception on the part of the public. Management is willing to work with unions to secure a stable, skilled work-force, and lock them in at rates that they can figure into their business plans for at least several years out. When it works well, it's raises all around for the managers, though the union employees are locked in at their contract rates. When it comes time to renegotiate, the flacks for the companies start hollering about how awful the unions are and how they are ruining the profitability of the company. Gullible, inexperienced members of the public lap this right up, especially when it is reinforced by politicians that are in the pockets of the corporations.
...

Such as... ?? Got a name or two to back that up?
I agree, but around here it seems peeps want some facts to back up such claims.

I see many testimonials posted, and some posts that try to present sweeping remarks as fact ( unconfirmed facts ).
We have read them all without prejudice and we thank you.
Some posts have only fueled our argument more. As in, See! He/She agrees with me. hehehe
Some have given us some new thoughts to consider.
My wife and I are not ( we believe at any rate as we are both honour graduates ) gullible nor inexperienced ( I was Steel Worker, she was Textile ) and WE still haven't come to an agreement or consensus about the usefulness of some unions. I say some, because we can agree that small unions that mediate for the worker are far more beneficial to the individuals than the large unions that seem to have little interest in the worker and more interest in their own survival.

Please continue as we find the conversation interesting and thought provoking.

The unions of the Big Three auto manufacturers, to me, seem to be the latter type.
When times were good they demanded a larger part of the pie. When times get tuff they fear backing off as a sign of weakness.

 

[turbo]

Unfortunately, the strike that I participated in predated any Internet-type reporting so there are no links that I know of. We members of our local had already done a LOT of free work for the nearby school/shelter because we believed in the role of the organization in protecting children and putting them in a safe environment where they could heal and get counseling. A good friend of mine worked there, as did my sister, and my astrophotography-partner's wife worked in one of the feeder-programs which took in the most at-risk kids (often victims of rape, incest, physical abuse) and kept them under what often amounted to one-one surveillance to protect them from "family intervention" and prevent suicide attempts.

Anyway, before the labor dispute, we had held our board meetings in a rented meeting-room under a local bank. When the dispute heated up, we didn't have facilities to accommodate all the members that wanted to attend and be heard, and the administrators of the shelter/school jumped in with both feet. The gave us the use of their administrative building as strike headquarters, and they gave us the use of their auditorium/theater, as a hall for mass meetings. Their support was very welcome, and we paid them back in spades with more skilled and unskilled volunteer labor to rehabilitate the very old buildings on their large campus.

I know this sounds idealistic and apocryphal, but it happened. Ties between the school and the union are still very strong - it has only been about 25 years after all, and such memories run deep.

 

[Nick M]

I'm also pro-union (and a member of United Electrical).

I'm a wastewater operator employed by a paper mill that runs the town's wastewater treatment plant (90%+ of the flow is from the mill).

When you boil it down, business is about profit, and a business is going to seek to maximize that value. The business often has it's own employees (even entire boards) that focus on the business' interests with respect to the employees. It makes sense for the employees to have the same.

Employees must match their interests to those of the company on all levels. To meet corporate lobbying, unions must do the same to ensure the preservation of workers rights. One employee doesn't have the the same power as a large corporation - neither in the personnel office nor in Washington D.C.

 

[Alfi]

I'm also pro-union (and a member of United Electrical).

I'm a wastewater operator employed by a paper mill that runs the town's wastewater treatment plant (90%+ of the flow is from the mill).

When you boil it down, business is about profit, and a business is going to seek to maximize that value. The business often has it's own employees (even entire boards) that focus on the business' interests with respect to the employees. It makes sense for the employees to have the same.

Employees must match their interests to those of the company on all levels. To meet corporate lobbying, unions must do the same to ensure the preservation of workers rights. One employee doesn't have the the same power as a large corporation - neither in the personnel office nor in Washington D.C.

to ensure the preservation of workers rights.

That's my argument against unions. That is a function of law and lawyers. Not Unions.
I admit it was in a large part that the unions caused a lot of laws to be enacted but now that the laws are in place, the unions can and should, go into a reduced function as worker mediators but should not have the power to make or break a company.

 

[mgb_phys]

That's my argument against unions. That is a function of law and lawyers. Not Unions.

And if there hadn't been unions where would the demand for those laws come from?

 

[turbo]

That's my argument against unions. That is a function of law and lawyers. Not Unions.
I admit it was in a large part that the unions caused a lot of laws to be enacted but now that the laws are in place, the unions can and should, go into a reduced function as worker mediators but should not have the power to make or break a company.

In order to get the laws enforced, workers need access to the legal system. There is no way that individual workers can take on the companies that they work for, to have laws enforced. Individuals simply don't have the money to battle their employers. Without the money to press through the legal system (and lawyers are very expensive), about the only leverage the worker has is to withhold their labor. This cannot work on an individual basis because individual workers can be fired and replaced. Without collective bargaining agreements and the leverage of the threat of strikes against them, corporations would not adhere to agreed-to work rules, nor would they honor their financial commitments to their employees.

 

[Alfi]

There is no way that individual workers can take on the companies that they work for, to have laws enforced.

Exactly. That's why lawyers and police were invented.
Workers don't need unions as much as they may need good barristers.

And if there hadn't been unions where would the demand for those laws come from?

Agreed. Unions were necessary and needed. And in many ways they have served there purpose, and can now be modified to suit present conditions.
They are over powered with today's laws in place.

This is interesting in that my wife has pointed out those very issues and I attempt to counter them with my responses.

 

[TVP45]

I've been a union official and in management and have found that the best working conditions are in a non-union company that is afraid of being unionized. You get most of the safety rules, decent benefits, across the board respect, and no cumbersome work rules.

 

[mgb_phys]

Agreed. Unions were necessary and needed. And in many ways they have served there purpose, and can now be modified to suit present conditions.
They are over powered with today's laws in place.

Rather like saying we don't need Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth now we have the EPA to protect Alaska or we don't need consumer reports because the DoT will warn about dangerous tires.

 

[mheslep]

I can see perhaps a rationale for a union in a small one industry, one factory town, like Homestead which started it all. The best defense against labor abuse is not the government but the economic freedom to walk and do well elsewhere. That defense appears thin in on factory town.

 

[mgb_phys]

I can see perhaps a rationale for a union in a small one industry, one factory town,

The problem is that the industries are global so the Earth is a single factory town.
I would rather the airline pilots association had a strike over safety standards at airline X rather than an individual pilot simply moving to airline Y and being replaced.

Pretty much all the safety standards in heavy industry came about as a result of unions - you only have to look at the accident rates on something like the Hoover dam compared to a modern project. You could make the work cheaper by reducing wages, working conditions and safety/environmental standards - but so can your competitors. It depends wether you want to try and compete with Germany or chinese prison labor.

Yes unions damaged some industries by taking a big chunk of money when times were good, but so did CEOs and shareholders.

 

[TVP45]

Are we confusing the need for unions with the right to have unions? In many industries there is no longer a need, but most of the civilized world (whatever that is) has recognized collective bargaining as a basic human right for decades. It's somewhat akin to arguing that, since we have the internet, we can abolish freedom of the press.

And, where are the bright lines between the USWA, the AFT, and the AMA?

And, which unions are really so strong now as to cause a major problem? The days when the Teamsters could maintain an effective picket line by simply posting signs are long gone.

Why is this a perennial issue? Is there another question lurking beneath this one?

 

[turbo]

Are we confusing the need for unions with the right to have unions? In many industries there is no longer a need, but most of the civilized world (whatever that is) has recognized collective bargaining as a basic human right for decades. It's somewhat akin to arguing that, since we have the internet, we can abolish freedom of the press.

And, where are the bright lines between the USWA, the AFT, and the AMA?

And, which unions are really so strong now as to cause a major problem? The days when the Teamsters could maintain an effective picket line by simply posting signs are long gone.

Why is this a perennial issue? Is there another question lurking beneath this one?

Much of the abuse these days (apart from sweat-shops, indentured servitude, etc) comes in the form of chiseling at the retail level. A young woman that I know worked for a chain supermarket (Hannaford) and, like about everyone outside of management, she was restricted to 32 hours a week, so she did not qualify for overtime, nor any benefits. However, she was honest, fast, and accurate in the accounting necessary to cash up the registers at the end of the day, so the manager moved her to the last shift of the day, and as the other cashiers were punching out and going home, she was forced to punch out, then cash up (reconcile) the trays from every register, with no additional pay. Eventually, she complained about having to work "off the clock" for no pay (while still having to pay a sitter for the extra time to care for her little girl) and the manager retaliated by slashing her hours. After a couple of weeks, she asked to have her scheduled hours re-instated, and she was told she could once again get a 32-hour/wk schedule if she agreed to cash up the registers every night. She agreed, because she had no other way to support herself and her child, at the time. I know this because her new boyfriend (they married eventually) was on my crew on the paper machine, and he was so mad, he was beside himself.

When local papers started carrying stories about Wal-Mart pulling the same crap, I was not a bit surprised. BTW, our next Sec'y of State worked for the Rose Law Firm, whose efforts at keeping unions out of Wal-Mart are well-documented. Hillary is no friend of the labor movement.

 

[mheslep]

The problem is that the industries are global so the Earth is a single factory town.

If there are both Pepsi and Coke factories in the my town and Pepsi gets nasty I can walk and theoretically go to Coke, regardless if Coke is local or global.

Pretty much all the safety standards in heavy industry came about as a result of unions - you only have to look at the accident rates on something like the Hoover dam compared to a modern project.

It may be so, but that is not evidence the unions are responsible for the improved accident rate.

You could make the work cheaper by reducing wages, working conditions and safety/environmental standards - but so can your competitors. It depends wether you want to try and compete with Germany or chinese prison labor.

Perhaps in some fields but that is not at all necessarily true. Increasingly in the US the most valuable asset in a company is its people; acquiring, training, and retaining them the greatest expense. Losing people through job related injuries is thus expensive.

 

[ray b]

only people have rights
the idea that a CORP should have rights
is wrong

while CORPS ARE NOT PURE EVIL
THEY ARE AT BEST AMORAL
and many CORPs have done many EVIL THINGS

the neoconned support any fool idea that the CORPs think
will give them more power to make more money
union bashing is a major pillar of that kind of ''thinking''
just like the VOODOO ECONOMIC'S OF TAX CUTS
and so called ''FREE TRADE'' IDEAS
so now we have a new depression
thanks to the neo-conned crusade to de-regulate everything

so yes we need unions
what we don't need is neo-conned fools
trying to cut protections to get the CORPs more rights and cash

 

[Alfi]

Are we confusing the need for unions with the right to have unions?

This question has come up a few times.
If I put my self into the shoes of a person that starts a small business and grows it by hard work and good money management, I find it a hard pill to swallow that I can't just hire or fire anyone I want based on their work and team acceptance. I understand that one should not be able to fire someone simply based on the sex/religion/colour issues. ( I don't know how to say that in proper terms. I hope you get my gist. How a person fits in with everyone else should count for something. )

I still haven't been convinced that forming a union is a 'right'.
If I were that company owner and was facing a union recruiter, ( pre-supossing that I have been fair and just to my employees ) I would just tell them to stick it, shut down and reopen as a new company and only hire the people that wanted and were happy to work for me.

I agree that as soon as some company becomes a faceless CORP then the rules have changed, and the CORP should not be able to block a union forming.
Please note, I'm not thinking in term of limited liabilities and corporate tax issues that some companies consider when incorporating. I'm thinking more of size and direct/indirect control issues.
I'm tending to think along the lines of, if a corp can be a faceless management then they should be able to bargain with faceless workers. The two deserve each other.

so yes we need unions
what we don't need is neo-conned fools
trying to cut protections to get the CORPs more rights and cash

I'll take that as an emotional response as opposed to a thought out point to consider.

Please don't get this thread shut down due to emotions or outbursts. Thank you.

My, Our, OP was to debate the modern day use of unions and if they still have the same purpose.

 

[Danger]

I owned my company for over 17 years. (Technically, I still own it, but it's been dormant for 11 years.) While I never had any employees, I know that there's no way in the world they would be allowed to dictate how I conducted business. This is how much I pay, these are the benefits, these are the hours that you work; take it or hit the road.
Our current biggest employer, the local sawmill, had some idiots come in from who-knows-where and try to unionize them about 10 years ago. The employees unanimously told them to go **** themselves. The unionizers left with their tails between their legs and the workers carried on in a very fair and pleasant environment. Some of my friends have been working there for 30 years, and none of them feel the least bit oppressed. They were horrified at the thought of union goons taking control of them.

 

[mheslep]

...Pretty much all the safety standards in heavy industry came about as a result of unions - you only have to look at the accident rates on something like the Hoover dam compared to a modern project. ...

Here's a fatalities in the workplace chart starting in 1900 for coal and other mining industries. Shows the onset of various technological and procedural improvements. Also note that OSHA didn't come into existence until 1971.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/M822A1F5.GIF

 

[D H]

BTW, our next Sec'y of State worked for the Rose Law Firm, whose efforts at keeping unions out of Wal-Mart are well-documented. Hillary is no friend of the labor movement.

The Secretary of State has very little to do with labor law. That is the realm of the Secretary of Labor. Obama's appointee for Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, is markedly pro-union. For example, see http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17253.html and http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-solis9-2009jan09,0,5487953.story.

 

[Zantra]

There are 2 sides to every story. Most are probably familiar with Walmart's issues. i found this documentary to be enlightening:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

I know people who've worked for Walmart, and NO ONE gets full time with benefits, hence the reason Virginia (I believe?) passed that insurance law targeted at Walmart. Walmart alone is a good reason for Unions.

ON THE OTHER HAND..

Unions CAN be detrimental to a business. I've had some personal interaction with UAW folks, and some of the highlights include:

slowness: If a lightbulb needs to be changed, they need an hour to get the lightbulb, 30 minutes to get to the socket, and an hour to get back- with a 15 minute "standard" break in between.

Arrogance: Many are cocky and they let you know it. They make a lot of money, and don't mind telling you exactly how much, and they let you know that you're not the boss of them (unprompted, no matter you attitude towards them) and that they will do their task "when they get around to it"

Laziness: I recall in one building I used to work at there was a certain older union person who would drive near the building I was in, which was part of a large complex, drive to the back out of sight, and proceed to sleep in his car-not for a short nap, but the entire afternoon-every single day. This went on for weeks and weeks- maybe longer but I finally moved to a different building- people in my building would comment and joke about it, because we could see him from our building, but security (and his boss I imagine) could not.

beaureaucratic: If a union member who's an engineer walks by and sees a pencil on the floor, and he picks it up, he gets yelled at, because according to the union rules, by doing that he is taking away the union janitor's job function. I was not allowed to carry anything heavier than a book by union rules because I was taking away a union members job- despite the fact that putting a union request in usually took days, if not weeks.

I don't mean to say that there are no hard working, committed union workers that do their jobs well, but there's a prevailing attitude of indifference and overconfidence-at least from what I've seen and heard. Many are supremely confident that it's nearly impossible to loose their jobs, and until the recent economic shift they were right in most cases. I have many other stories and examples, but I just wanted to make a point. This is the ugly side of unions that gets downplayed. I ecountered many of the above examples over the years.

 

[TVP45]

There are 2 sides to every story. Most are probably familiar with Walmart's issues. i found this documentary to be enlightening:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

I know people who've worked for Walmart, and NO ONE gets full time with benefits, hence the reason Virginia (I believe?) passed that insurance law targeted at Walmart. Walmart alone is a good reason for Unions.

ON THE OTHER HAND..

Unions CAN be detrimental to a business. I've had some personal interaction with UAW folks, and some of the highlights include:

slowness: If a lightbulb needs to be changed, they need an hour to get the lightbulb, 30 minutes to get to the socket, and an hour to get back- with a 15 minute "standard" break in between.

Arrogance: Many are cocky and they let you know it. They make a lot of money, and don't mind telling you exactly how much, and they let you know that you're not the boss of them (unprompted, no matter you attitude towards them) and that they will do their task "when they get around to it"

Laziness: I recall in one building I used to work at there was a certain older union person who would drive near the building I was in, which was part of a large complex, drive to the back out of sight, and proceed to sleep in his car-not for a short nap, but the entire afternoon-every single day. This went on for weeks and weeks- maybe longer but I finally moved to a different building- people in my building would comment and joke about it, because we could see him from our building, but security (and his boss I imagine) could not.

beaureaucratic: If a union member who's an engineer walks by and sees a pencil on the floor, and he picks it up, he gets yelled at, because according to the union rules, by doing that he is taking away the union janitor's job function. I was not allowed to carry anything heavier than a book by union rules because I was taking away a union members job- despite the fact that putting a union request in usually took days, if not weeks.

I don't mean to say that there are no hard working, committed union workers that do their jobs well, but there's a prevailing attitude of indifference and overconfidence-at least from what I've seen and heard. Many are supremely confident that it's nearly impossible to loose their jobs, and until the recent economic shift they were right in most cases. I have many other stories and examples, but I just wanted to make a point. This is the ugly side of unions that gets downplayed. I ecountered many of the above examples over the years.

I agree about work rules being a burden in some instances. But, I must point out that it always takes two signatures on a labor contract. The automakers agreed to some real "sweetheart" contracts over the years, secure in the knowledge that, no matter what the cost, they could just pass that cost along to the consumer, so long as all the automakers had the same contract more or less (Who knew Asians could build cars?) The Big Three are sort of like the guy who's been drunk for forty years and now complains his liver is acting up.

 

[The Dagda]

The world wouldn't be the same without the French having the right to burn our sheep and cows.

 

[Alfi]

The world wouldn't be the same without the French having the right to burn our sheep and cows.

ummmm . too obscure for me. I don't understand what you are saying in that sentence.
I can't quite see what burning cows or sheep have to do with unions.



I am starting to hear more about the Employee Free Choice Act


Here's Why We Need the Employee Free Choice Act
It’s time to restore the freedom to form unions and bargain for a better life.

* America's Working Families Are Struggling
* Corporations and CEOs Have All the Power
* Workers in Unions Can Bargain for a Better Life

from Wiki :
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is legislation in the United States which aims to "amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes."
...
On March 1, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the act by a vote of 241 to 185. The Senate on June 26, 2007 voted 51 to 48 on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consider the bill. The bill failed to pass during the 110th United States Congress because of the 60 votes required to enforce cloture, which may be possible to obtain in the 111th United States Congress.[4]

 

[The Dagda]

ummmm . too obscure for me. I don't understand what you are saying in that sentence.
I can't quite see what burning cows or sheep have to do with unions.

Talking about the Unions blockading traffic into France, taking out animals from lorries and burning them as a union protest.