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

[turbo]

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

The right to form unions and bargain collectively is under assault everywhere in the US. The latest battleground is the check-card fiction, which was used by business PACs to attack Susan Collins' opponent in her Senatorial race last fall. About every 30 minutes or less, we would see a commercial in which a very large stern Italian gentleman would coerce an individual worker to vote for union representation, and we were told that workers would lose their right to use secret ballots in such voting. Republicans in Congress are still pushing that fiction. The option of using check-offs to opt for collective bargaining would be in addition to the option of using secret ballots, and it would make it more difficult for companies to harass and intimidate workers who might want to form a union.

 

[ThomasT]

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?

The problem with our economy isn't that workers have too much power, it's that they have too little power.

Abuses by workers or their union representatives are small compared to abuses by owners, executives and managers that diminishing any power that workers still have would entail.

A relatively few people benefit at the expense of the mass of consumers primarily because prices are allowed to arbitrarily rise without associated incremental increases in workers wages.

The best defense against this is unionization, or the real threat of it.

Or, you could freeze, or place severe limitations on increasing, prices.

 

[Zantra]

The problem with our economy isn't that workers have too much power, it's that they have too little power.

Abuses by workers or their union representatives are small compared to abuses by owners, executives and managers that diminishing any power that workers still have would entail.

A relatively few people benefit at the expense of the mass of consumers primarily because prices are allowed to arbitrarily rise without associated incremental increases in workers wages.

The best defense against this is unionization, or the real threat of it.

Or, you could freeze, or place severe limitations on increasing, prices.

While I agree that executive compensation is way out of whack compared to any value they bring to that organization, I don't think socialization is the way to address that, and it sounds like that's what you're hinting at. I think a system that rewards hard work and punishes laziness is a just system. Guaranteeing wages to those who don't really earn it means someone else has to compensate by doing 2 or 3 times the work because in a balanced system, the slack must be taken up by someone. For every union worker there are 5 non union workers pulling double and triple shifts to keep their jobs. And what happens when everyone jumps on the same band wagon and there's no one left to pick up the slack? The big 3 tumble because they can't afford to sustain white collar wages for blue collar workers indefinitely or through economic valleys.

IMHO, there needs to be a balance between sweat shops and cake walks. $30/hour is the true hourly wage give or take, that a seasoned union auto worker brings home, with lots of perks. That's $62K/year, PLUS they get generous overtime, so 6 figures is not uncommon-they make as much as doctors and lawyers-for what amounts to putting one specific section of a car together day in and out without variation. How many with Bachelors degrees make less? How many with Masters? Unions overvalue workers and are one of the main reasons US automakers can't remain competetive (I know, old news). While the concept of a union is good, there need to be checks for the unions that tie compensation and job security more directly to company performance.

Of course arrogant automakers trying to push SUVs down everyone's throats even after gas spiked and people stopped buying them didn't help either. They were the architects of their own demise. I guess you CAN'T always tell the people what they should want, eh Mr. Ford?

Just my thoughts..

 

[turbo]

IMHO, there needs to be a balance between sweat shops and cake walks. $30/hour is the true hourly wage give or take, that a seasoned union auto worker brings home, with lots of perks. That's $62K/year, PLUS they get generous overtime, so 6 figures is not uncommon-they make as much as doctors and lawyers-for what amounts to putting one specific section of a car together day in and out without variation. How many with Bachelors degrees make less? How many with Masters? Unions overvalue workers and are one of the main reasons US automakers can't remain competetive (I know, old news). While the concept of a union is good, there need to be checks for the unions that tie compensation and job security more directly to company performance.

There are already checks in place that tie union compensation to performance. Companies that cannot compete, fail and they cannot pay their workers. That is not a short-term surgical hit, but a real, predictable, long-term consequence.

American workers are very productive, and have been for many years. Collective bargaining has not brought the American auto industry to where it is today (lots of inefficient, expensive vehicles loaded with unnecessary goodies that are hard to sell in a bad economy). The workers only build what their management tells them to build. Bad production choices are made and promulgated very high up in these companies by people who are decidedly non-union. After their plans fail, the blame always gets assigned to the "greedy unions". Guess what? Every time a labor contract is signed, the union representatives sign off on it, AND the company signs off on it. The company thought that the contract was a good deal or they would not have signed up. Then, when things turn down a bit, they howl to the public and to the stock-holders about the evil unions.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The company thought that the contract was a good deal or they would not have signed up.

All that means is that the company thought the contract was better than the alternatives - such as a strike.

 

[Zantra]

I'm not saying that unions are to blame for the current state of the auto industry. In fact they are just one catalyst among many, and the blame ultimately falls on the overconfident auto executives who did not react fast enough, if at all, to changing consumer needs. If they had refreshed their lines a decade ago to be more fuel efficient, cost effective, and dependable they could have remained competative even in this economy, and we might be having a different conversation. I think auto execs realize that when a strike costs them millions of dollars per day, and times are good, it's cheaper to pay off the blackmailers then to stick to their guns.

As for unions, you can't blame the tiger for eating the meat when it's placed in front of him. But maybe the tiger should at least have to put up a fight to get his reward. It shouldn't take a recession to bring a factor worker's compensation in line with other non union factory jobs. Globalization and this recession means the end of 6 figure blue collar jobs, which is probably for the best. Overcompensation isn't just for executives.