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

[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.

 

[CRGreathouse]

First, let me say that when I wrote that "I don't understand 'necessary'", I meant it. I still don't. What is meant by that? I can't agree that unions (banks, roads, food) are necessary until I know what is meant. That's not a dig against (or a support of) unions, just a question for the original poster.

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.

What do you mean when you say "fair wages"? Fair compared to what similar workers got elsewhere (what I call "market wages")? Fair compared to the year's profits (below market wages in a bad year for that sector, above market wages for a good year)? Fair compared to the cost of living, without regard to the amount of work performed? Fair compared to historical wages at the same company? Fair compared to what people at the same company are making (not doubling the pay of the foremen while taking it out of the line workers' wages)?

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.

But neither unions nor companies can keep their side of the bargain. Workers can decide to not work despite a union's agreement (forming a new union, work slowdowns/stoppages/sit-ins, or simply leaving for other jobs). Companies can have governments void contracts or can go into bankruptcy proceedings to do the same. And government regulations can change the cost per worker (mostly up, but sometimes down) without allowing the company (or in those rare cases, the union) to renegotiate. Say a union and company agree to a five-year contract with $18/hour wages alongside a particular benefits package, then the government removes an expensive safety requirement that was costing the company $3/hour/worker. The union doesn't get to negotiate (until 5 years later) to get either the same safety features (even though they're no longer required), or some amount of the savings in wages -- unfair to the workers.

The guys at the top of the corporate ladder are never wrong ... see any patterns?

Who is saying that? I've never heard those words ("The guys at the top of the corporate ladder are never wrong"), or anything to their effect, from any person except mockingly. That's a strawman.

 

[Alfi]

First, let me say that when I wrote that "I don't understand 'necessary'", I meant it. I still don't. What is meant by that? I can't agree that unions (banks, roads, food) are necessary until I know what is meant. That's not a dig against (or a support of) unions, just a question for the original poster.

I am the original poster and the question came about from a conversion about unions by my wife and I.
My original argument went along the lines that originally the unions formed to stop companies from using unsafe work practices. The unions then caused laws to be enacted to protect workers. ( no, I am not going to try to find which specific ones ) Therefore the unions have served there purpose and are no longer needed for the role of worker guardians.
My wife's position is that if the unions were to be phased out, companies will once again force conditions upon workers that are not safe or fair ( subject to a definition of fair as noted in the post above) . Unions are ( so it would seem from the talk about WallMart ) still required to protect the worker from the faceless corporations that would put profit above work conditions.

I choose 'necessary' as the word in the title to be the focal point of discussion.
I have read some convincing testimonials that it may be indeed detrimental to the general workforce if the laws and lawyers are the only buffer between workers and employers.

I have conceded to her that unions still have a value in today's society and she has conceded to me that some unions have outgrown their original purpose and have an excessive amount of power.

We did not expect the question to have a cut and dry yes or no answer and the variety of posted viewpoints has shown this, to us, to be true.:)

 

[Alfi]

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

That sounds less like a 'union protest' and more like a bunch of criminals with no regard to other peoples property. And, depending on how the killing/burning was done ( I presume they were not burned alive ) , no regard to life.
If such actions were sanctioned by union leaders, I hope they paid large fines and were jailed for inciting criminal activities. This would be an example of a union that has over stepped it's purpose.
If this was not a union led action then it has nothing to do with unions and only to do with stupid people behaving like idiots.

I did a quick search but have not found anything about the 'action' you indicated.

 

[ThomasT]

I am the original poster and the question came about from a conversion about unions by my wife and I.
My original argument went along the lines that originally the unions formed to stop companies from using unsafe work practices. The unions then caused laws to be enacted to protect workers. ( no, I am not going to try to find which specific ones ) Therefore the unions have served there purpose and are no longer needed for the role of worker guardians.
My wife's position is that if the unions were to be phased out, companies will once again force conditions upon workers that are not safe or fair ( subject to a definition of fair as noted in the post above) . Unions are ( so it would seem from the talk about WallMart ) still required to protect the worker from the faceless corporations that would put profit above work conditions.

I choose 'necessary' as the word in the title to be the focal point of discussion.
I have read some convincing testimonials that it may be indeed detrimental to the general workforce if the laws and lawyers are the only buffer between workers and employers.

I have conceded to her that unions still have a value in today's society and she has conceded to me that some unions have outgrown their original purpose and have an excessive amount of power.

We did not expect the question to have a cut and dry yes or no answer and the variety of posted viewpoints has shown this, to us, to be true.


:)

I'm semi-retired, and have never been a union member. I think that the ability of people to form unions and collectively bargain shouldn't be infringed upon by legislation ("phased out"?) or coercion of any sort. Otherwise, we would be taking a BIG step backward.

As has been mentioned, sometimes all that's needed is the mere threat of unionization.

Score this one for your wife.

 

[The Dagda]

That sounds less like a 'union protest' and more like a bunch of criminals with no regard to other peoples property. And, depending on how the killing/burning was done ( I presume they were not burned alive ) , no regard to life.
If such actions were sanctioned by union leaders, I hope they paid large fines and were jailed for inciting criminal activities. This would be an example of a union that has over stepped it's purpose.
If this was not a union led action then it has nothing to do with unions and only to do with stupid people behaving like idiots.

I did a quick search but have not found anything about the 'action' you indicated.

Oh it happened, don't worry about that, I don't know if it was officially sanctioned, probably only the blockades were. But in France the unions do have a great deal of power.

 

[CRGreathouse]

My original argument went along the lines that originally the unions formed to stop companies from using unsafe work practices. The unions then caused laws to be enacted to protect workers. ( no, I am not going to try to find which specific ones ) Therefore the unions have served there purpose and are no longer needed for the role of worker guardians.
My wife's position is that if the unions were to be phased out, companies will once again force conditions upon workers that are not safe or fair ( subject to a definition of fair as noted in the post above) . Unions are ( so it would seem from the talk about WallMart ) still required to protect the worker from the faceless corporations that would put profit above work conditions.

Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I would say that unions are no longer necessary:* appropriately safe conditions should be ensured by a combination of laws already passed, wage competition, and the unusually high amount of worker capital.**

But as I pointed out in my first post on page 1, unions still increase the total payment to labor. So in the sense "do unions still benefit workers", I would say yes -- on the whole, unions are still good for workers. There are times that companies fail because of supracompetitive wage payments, but even then the loss to the company is greater than the loss to the workers.

* Here, I limit my answer to the United States. I don't know enough about the situation of labor in other countries, but I would suspect that even many advanced economies like South Korea may still require unions for your purpose.
** US workers make substantially more money per hour than workers elsewhere in the world. This is not because of any lost love between companies and workers, but because US workers are more productive. This productivity is called 'worker capital', and companies find worker capital is worth protecting (like any other asset). If labor had uniform human capital, then companies would value the protection of employees at zero (they'd be protected only as part of their compensation package, essentially).

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm semi-retired, and have never been a union member. I think that the ability of people to form unions and collectively bargain shouldn't be infringed upon by legislation ("phased out"?) or coercion of any sort. Otherwise, we would be taking a BIG step backward.

I'm confused. Is anyone talking about removing that power?

 

[Alfi]

Score this one for your wife.

lol - I'll tell her.

Some stories show me the unions are still required. Other stories show how some unions are step away from organized crime mobs.

Unions must use some restraint or find themselves being restrained.

Right now, somewhere, a teachers union is making life hell for a bunch of students.

Ontario's largest teachers' union has a strike fund of almost $100 million in hand if it decides to go to the picket line.

a $100 Million of the members money!
How did you get 100 Million out of those low paid overworked teachers?
http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/427600

Collectively they ( unions ) may be needed, but individually they can be a right pain in the ...
economic recovery sympathy package.

Catholic, French and secondary school teachers have all settled contracts with the province that will see them get a salary increase of more than 12 per cent over four years.

The Ministry of Education is now offering public elementary teachers a four per cent increase over two years.

It's almost a children thing of 'but they got more' cry cry. I want more! I want MORE than they got because ..!.. ( insert contract offer here )
or I'll hold my breath till you die.

I will not concede to my wife completely.
Some unions are no longer necessary.

 

[ThomasT]

I'm confused. Is anyone talking about removing that power?

I'm not sure what the OP meant by unions being "phased out", and didn't see how that could be done without some sort of prohibitive legislation or tacitly government-sanctioned coercion.

 

[Alfi]

What power?

Phased out.? hmmmm - as just an evolution of the union's functions.
I see an enhanced role of the dept of HR ( human resources) that many companies have.

Can unions be replaced by altering the HR function of some companies?