Labor Unions (Pro and Con)

[John Cuthber]

I don't have exact figures (not least because there are several Unions involved) but I believe that most of the people where I work are in a Union. Obviously, I can't speak for the whole of my country never mind another country.

In any event plenty of people have not voted with their feet.

 

Strictly speaking, what indicates that most people think they are a good idea is that they haven't been banned in democratic countries.

[iNow]

Strictly speaking, what indicates that most people think they are a good idea is that they haven't been banned in democratic countries.

 

Rubbing one's genitals on razor wire isn't a very good idea, but that hasn't been banned in democratic countries either. I'm neither speaking for nor against unions, just indicating that the arguments you've presented "for" appear lacking.

[john5746]

Rubbing one's genitals on razor wire isn't a very good idea....

 

Man, I hate when I do that. Then I pour alcohol on them and whoa, the pain!

 

[waitforufo]

I have belonged to unions (UAW, IATSE). The jobs I held while a union member paid better than the same job from a non union employer. Those union places of employment, however no longer exist. They just couldn't compete.

 

Unions in many respects have caused their own demise by promoting changes in labor law. By winning benefits for everyone through legislation, they no longer provide a comparative benefit to their members through collective bargaining with management. I think that is a sad thing. Workers would be better off negotiating within the capitalist system, than having benefits provided to them through socialistic government. Another example, in my opinion, of how socialism kills everything it touches.

 

The other problem with union gains through legislation is that legislation provides less flexibility to the economy than union contracts would. The flexibility provided by negotiated contracts would protect jobs by increasing corporate competitiveness while at the same time considering worker needs and welfare.

 

I don't currently belong to a union. Engineering unions do exist. Engineers at Boeing are unionized for example. If I had a choice, I don’t think I would join such a union today. I do however believe unions provide a positive good to society. I don't think any of us would like to live in a society without unions. Given the opportunity, management would grind people into the dirt. Individuals are just another expendable unit of labor. The union/management power balance changes over time. Unions are weak at the moment in part because they have given too much of their power to government. But if management gains too much power, particularly power backed by government, the unions will be back, and we will all be glad we have them.

[bascule]

I'm ambivalent about unions. I see their role in fighting for the rights of workers against a powerful corporate establishment who can fund armies of lobbyists and lawyers.

 

However, if a corporation wants to replace a worker with a fully automated machine that can do his/her job better, that should be their prerogative. In that case, the employees are just angry and disenfranchised neo-Luddites.

[ParanoiA]

Just seems like unions could end most criticism and the natural force against them if they changed their attitude to more of a labor provider rather than a labor lawyer. I was asked to steward here where I work and turned them down kind of brutally since I personally despise my union. Anytime they hand you a freakin' "book" of union bullshit, you know you're on your employers chopping block. I'll never forgive them for screwing with the demand for my labor. It's like watching Herm Edwards take a number one offense and reduce them to complete losers.

[waitforufo]

My experience with unions as both a union member and as management is that unions are apposed to all improvements in productivity. Improving productivity reduces the number of union employees required to accomplish a job. When I was a member of the UAW there were complaints from the union when new fasteners were introduced that allowed quicker assembly of sub-components. The union was also against laser scan inventory tags. Less labor was required to take inventory and improvements in accuracy meant inventory needed to be taken less often. Unions are very anti technology.

 

Then the unions wonder why the companies they work for can't compete.

 

Still, I'm glad unions are around.

[John Cuthber]

Rubbing one's genitals on razor wire isn't a very good idea, but that hasn't been banned in democratic countries either. I'm neither speaking for nor against unions, just indicating that the arguments you've presented "for" appear lacking.

 

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear to you.

Most societies have laws that explicitly recognise the benefits that unions bring. For example, here in the UK, the health and safety legislation is jointly discussed by representatives of the Government, the Unions and Industry.

 

So far as I'm aware there isn't a similar group for razorwire/ genital juxtaposition.

 

So the population seems to vote in favour of governments that recognise the unions. Perhaps they are dumb, but I guess it's because they support unions.

 

"Just seems like unions could end most criticism and the natural force against them if they changed their attitude to more of a labor provider rather than a labor lawyer."

Isn't that a Gangmaster's job?

Certainly Gangmasters are not usually found in the same industries as strong Unions.

Incidentally, who do you think should have the role of labour lawyer? Most individuals can't really afford one, but most companies can. Do you feel that maintaining that iniquity is beneficial?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "Anytime they hand you a freakin' "book" of union bullshit, you know you're on your employers chopping block. ".

Do you mean that Unions only distribute books when the company is about to fold?

Is it that the employers sack people specifically because they are in unions?

If it's the latter, are you in China?

 

 

 

"Unions are very anti technology."

Did you read what I said earlier?

Here it is again; I am a member of a Union that only represents technical and professional staff (mainly scientists).

I presume that, as a member of the union you got actively involved and tried to change their attitudes.

[iNow]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear to you.

I strongly suspect that is not the case, but that's okay. You seem to favor unions. I don't have a strong perspective regarding unions one way or the other, and was hoping to hear your arguments in their favor. If you'd rather not articulate the merits of your position, and would instead prefer to be a big conversational condescending boar, then that's fine too.

[ParanoiA]

Isn't that a Gangmaster's job?

Certainly Gangmasters are not usually found in the same industries as strong Unions.

Incidentally' date=' who do you think should have the role of labour lawyer? Most individuals can't really afford one, but most companies can. Do you feel that maintaining that iniquity is beneficial?[/quote']

 

I've never negotiated a wage with the presence of a company lawyer. The company doesn't need a lawyer to haggle wage and price with me. However, the labor union can do that just fine and I'm all for it, and that's what I want them to do. Through organization we can leverage the maximum market value of our labor.

 

What I don't want them to do is to continue on past that and use the leverage to coerce management to empower our ideas on how the business should run. Or to force management to use net credited service to selectively move their workers around rather than by performance or some other method of their choosing. Or to pretend as if the machine age isn't really here and that we can do shit by hand seemingly forever while the union-less competition evolves with the rate of the rest of the world.

 

In other words, I jump off the union wagon when they LOWER THE DEMAND FOR OUR PRODUCT: Labor.

 

You don't market cheeseburgers by forcing your customers to all buy the same one. You don't market french fries by forcing your customers to eat the old ones first. It's economics 101.

 

The union should allow the employer to move workers around as they choose, per their business whims. They should allow poor performers to be demoted or terminated. They should even help. As a union, I would like to see the membership turn to the slackers and tell them to ship up or ship the hell out. They are making us look bad, and that hurts the union. The better the membership, the better the laborers, the more money we make. This is about maximizing our market value - not sticking it to the rich guy.

 

But that's just the problem. It *isn't* about maximizing our value or even fair working conditions. It's about sticking it to the rich guy. They achieve their representation by emoting how awful our rich employer is and how horrible our conditions are and how unfair they treat us and blah blah blah - basically the same mentallity as a conspiracy wacko. They just play off of our natural fears. We're helpless and their rich and powerful and...rinse and repeat.

 

And that's how they maintain their representation as well. Every few years at contract time they start talking about how our greedy employer is and boasts how stupid upper management is - all of this in the face of breaking records for growth in our industry, becoming the second largest provider in the world in our market. We always weather recessions well, with solid investments and sound monetary decisions that the union throws temper tantrums about because they have no interest in making the company money. WTF? That's our freaking job!!!

 

For crying out loud they keep our labor in low demand because we encroach on their business - which is doubly insulting because we simultaneously aren't doing OUR business, which is to do the best job we can, to EARN our money.

 

I sit next to people who have stated out loud, literally "I'm not going to do any work, and they can't make me". I swear I'm not making this up. This person retired a year or so ago, and they were right, they could never make her do a damn thing. She used the union handbook and management's classification beaurocracy to keep herself without responsibility. Most of the people here spend all day bitching about greedy upper management, while I work my ass off to do what they're not doing. And I still find time to post on here.

 

Right now, my union enjoys the same inflated status the housing market enjoyed. It's unnatural. They only exist because the legal structure props them up. They make the employer hire us, we don't entice the employer at all. They are constantly trying to get rid of us. And I don't blame them a damn bit. That would all stop if we would let them run their business and start acting like a labor provider - that's what we are.

 

It would take ZERO change in wages to turn it around - attitude alone would increase our demand and we could end this unnatural, unhealthy war between workers and management that the union depends on for its survival. I'm a profiteer. A proud american capitalist. It's just a matter of time until these anti-capitalist unions die and I can't wait.

[waitforufo]

iNow,

I think your last statement to John Cuthber was a little out of line. If you ever wonder why participants in science forums topics get personal with you, perhaps you should consider your post above.

 

ParanoiA,

Your

I sit next to people who have stated out loud, literally "I'm not going to do any work, and they can't make me".

reminded me of when I use to work with union employees from the IBEW

 

IBEW = International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

 

We use to call them

 

IBEW = I Barely Ever Work.

 

John Cuthber,

I think things are different in the UK than in the states. As I mentioned Boeing has an engineers union but such unions are rare.

[iNow]

iNow,

I think your last statement to John Cuthber was a little out of line. If you ever wonder why participants in science forums topics get personal with you, perhaps you should consider your post above.

Nope, I've never once wondered why people get personal with me. I'm fairly self-aware, my friend.

[Sayonara]

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

When one talks about a body "failing", the implication is that they couldn't or wouldn't do enough to meet the expectations vested in them. Proposing that their powers be curtailed doesn't seem like the appropriate solution in that case.

 

Did you mean to say that unions have made a hash of things by exceeding their remit?

[waitforufo]

Nope, I've never once wondered why people get personal with me. I'm fairly self-aware, my friend.

Then quit crying about it.

[iNow]

iNow,

I think your last statement to John Cuthber was a little out of line. If you ever wonder why participants in science forums topics get personal with you, perhaps you should consider your post above.

 

Then quit crying about it.

 

Hello pot? Meet kettle.

 

Can we end this stupidity now, and move back on with the conversation? That'd be super.

[JohnB]

I don't have exact figures (not least because there are several Unions involved) but I believe that most of the people where I work are in a Union.

Closed shop huh? Well just to help here are the 2005 figures for the UK.

Union density among women rose strongly in 2005 - up by 0.9

percentage points to 29.9 per cent of employees. Male union density

fell by 0.3 percentage points to 28.2 per cent.

Female union membership up, male down.

The number of people in employment who were trade union

members in the UK fell by approximately 107,000 or 1.6 per cent.

That's a lot of extra unemployed union members.

Less than one in five (17.2 per cent) private sector employees in the

United Kingdom were union members in autumn 2005. Private sector

union density remained the same as 2004.

Almost three in five (58.6 per cent) public sector employees in the UK

were union members.

The only thing keeping the union numbers up is the civil service membership. Those who do not rely on HMG for their paypacket have voted with their wallets and have not joined a union.

Strictly speaking, what indicates that most people think they are a good idea is that they haven't been banned in democratic countries.

Bull. Even at the height of the Cold War we didn't ban the communist party down here in Oz.

[Mr Skeptic]

Just seems like unions could end most criticism and the natural force against them if they changed their attitude to more of a labor provider rather than a labor lawyer.

 

My experience with unions as both a union member and as management is that unions are apposed to all improvements in productivity. Improving productivity reduces the number of union employees required to accomplish a job.

 

However, the labor union can [wage haggle] just fine and I'm all for it, and that's what I want them to do. Through organization we can leverage the maximum market value of our labor.

 

What I don't want them to do is to continue on past that and use the leverage to coerce management to empower our ideas on how the business should run. Or to force management to use net credited service to selectively move their workers around rather than by performance or some other method of their choosing. Or to pretend as if the machine age isn't really here and that we can do shit by hand seemingly forever while the union-less competition evolves with the rate of the rest of the world.

 

In other words, I jump off the union wagon when they LOWER THE DEMAND FOR OUR PRODUCT: Labor.

 

This all pretty much sums up how I feel about unions. BTW, ParanoiA, in proper economics terms, the unions increase demand for labor in their company, but they decrease the value of it, both of which are done by making labor inefficient so that more is needed. In the meantime, they increase the cost of labor (ie, wages), which is what they should mostly stick to. While a little efficiency can be sacrificed for the benefit of the workers, it can easily go too far.

[John Cuthber]

Thanks for the data.

I think this bit "In autumn 2005 an estimated 6.39 million employees in the United

Kingdom were members of a trade union. This was a fall of

approximately 119,000 or 1.9 per cent, compared with levels recorded

in autumn 2004. Nonetheless union density increased by 0.2

percentage points, from 28.8 per cent to 29.0 per cent of employees in

autumn 2005." shows that people who are in work are generally joining unions.

 

If I worked in a closed shop I would know what the union membership was, it would be 100%.

Since I said I don't know the figure you can be sure its not a closed shop.

 

Government employees have a higher level of Union membership. The bigger the organisation you work for the more difficulty you will have making your voice heard on your own. Employers don't get bigger than governments.

 

 

I think having a communist party is a good idea- it lets you know where the communists are.

 

However, I think the biggest reason that many of you seem to have had bad experiences with unions is that you have had experiences with bad unions. Those in the US seem to have a rather different outlook to the one I'm in.

 

Here's what the Union says about itself.

http://www.prospect.org.uk/aboutus/index

Anyone able to cite a comparable site for any of the Unions you have had experience of?

[JohnB]

If I worked in a closed shop I would know what the union membership was, it would be 100%.

Since I said I don't know the figure you can be sure its not a closed shop.

I should have thought of that.

Those in the US seem to have a rather different outlook to the one I'm in.

I'm an Aussie. Our unions have too many people who celebrate May Day and go around calling each other "comrade". Does that give a hint of what the problem might be?

 

Seriously, there is a place for unions. I think of our industrialised nations as being best served by a triumvirate of unions, business and government. There has to be a balance. Unions here had way too much power and have been smacked down.

 

I noticed yours lists itself as non political. (I like that.) All aussie unions are affiliated with the ACTU and the ACTU actively campaigns and funds the Australian Labour Party. This gives the ACTU considerable power in deciding the policies of the ALP, which is now in government.

[waitforufo]

I noticed yours lists itself as non political. (I like that.) All aussie unions are affiliated with the ACTU and the ACTU actively campaigns and funds the Australian Labour Party. This gives the ACTU considerable power in deciding the policies of the ALP, which is now in government.

 

One of the largest and most politically active unions in the US is the school teachers union (NEA, National Education Association). The amazing part of this is that some see no causation between poor student performance and the power and influence of this union.

[John Cuthber]

I should have thought of that.

 

I'm an Aussie. Our unions have too many people who celebrate May Day and go around calling each other "comrade". Does that give a hint of what the problem might be?

 

 

Well, I do sometimes address emails to the other reps as "Siblings", but only as a joke. Also, I do celebrate May day (though not always on May 1st) - it's a public holiday .

 

It's a habit I picked up as a student.

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