Unions

I would feel uncomfortable joining a union. I am a workaholic; right now I'm a part-time student, and work six days a week. I'm the happiest I have ever been. Even if unionization resulted in better compensation, I would rather be empowered and be able to take credit for the gains that I have been responsible for. There is very little red tape at work, and those who work hard are rewarded appropriately.

In so many ways modern unionization reeks of entitlement. While some people may be comfortable with entitlement, I am not. I only think I deserve what I earn.

I think some professions need unions in order to survive. The current unions in these fields are very bad for everyone involved, except the few that are ranking members of the union. This includes police, fire, and rescue unions. A great deal of them have good compensation for the hours they put in, but they tend to get greedy and ask for more and more while doing less and less. At least on the local level in my area, teachers unions are satisfied with not cutting jobs and maintaining the already low wages. On the state and national level, things get more complicated.

The average factory worker has no need to belong to a union. If they work hard and do what they need to do, then they'll keep their jobs. I know of a few F-ups that work at our local paper mill. They're union, so they don't get in much trouble at all. My next door neighbor also works there. He busts his arse every time he goes into work. He comes home dead tired. While he does pretty well for himself, I feel that he'd be in the same position now without union representation for the past 15 years.

Some people really need to have the threat of not having a job tomorrow if they screw up in order to do what they were hired for. When unions protect these people, everyone suffers.

As a former parcel delivery employee... I will never work in a union environment again. Not because either side was worse than the other - it was like having two asshat employers - the union was in my pocket and chock full of ridiculous rules about who could do what work and when. The company treated us poorly - I believe partially because any slight mistake was going to be a huge union vs company hassle (and partly because they would have anyway). The number of middle aged men with both cushy paychecks and bleeding ulcers was extraordinary.

The whole "us vs them" just breeds a terrible, hostile work environment.

Derick Freese wrote: The average factory worker has no need to belong to a union. If they work hard and do what they need to do, then they'll keep their jobs. I know of a few F-ups that work at our local paper mill. They're union, so they don't get in much trouble at all. My next door neighbor also works there. He busts his arse every time he goes into work. He comes home dead tired. While he does pretty well for himself, I feel that he'd be in the same position now without union representation for the past 15 years.

I once agreed with that sentiment until I saw the Frontline episode about the McWane plants. It's pretty bad.

Where I work, I wear several hats. I am a product/furniture/exhibit designer on one hand, and a CNC operator and fabricator on the other. I enjoy the feedback I get from doing both processes. It has greatly improved my skills and abilities in all of those things. Were I working in a union shop, I would be limited to one of those things, and attempting to work with design as a fabricator or vice versa would be met with a lot of "us vs. them" BS.

That said, I'm not making nearly as much as I could working for a competitor down the street. I work ridiculous hours sometimes, and my benefits are OK for a company with less than 10 people, but again they would be better down the street. Were we a union shop, we would not be doing the cool projects we do like designing and building 10' tall football helmets or the like.

There isn't a clear answer, but a coworker and I formed an alliance a couple years back to bring some sanity back to the hours we were working (18 hours with table saws and other power tools just isn't safe). We talked with the boss, brought up the safety concerns, and talked about reasonable steps to get the work done and to keep people safe, and the changes were implemented. Sounds like a union to me, but without any long term organization, dues, etc. On the other side of it, we could have both just been fired were we not (at that time) vital to the completion of the project and holders of most of the corporate skill and experience, or if my boss were a jerk (which he isn't).

So I see a need for unions because exploitation of people is a pretty easy thing to do if you have the right leverage. The problem is that it seems the unions tend to balance the situation then attempt exploitation of their own. I think that's just human behavior.

When the unions became involved in electing the Government they overstepped their purpose, bring back the days of them acting for the workers.

No union is acting for all their members when they choose a political side.

I also disagree with collective bargaining, if each person is rated by performance they would be paid accordingly and the lazy ones would improve or get fired. Simple.

It will be interesting to see how the NFL/ NFLPA and the Wisconsin public employees will settle their issues.

aussiesmg wrote: When the unions became involved in electing the Government they overstepped their purpose, bring back the days of them acting for the workers. No union is acting for all their members when they choose a political side. I also disagree with collective bargaining, if each person is rated by performance they would be paid accordingly and the lazy ones would improve or get fired. Simple.

Organized labor and the Democrat Party have supported each other for decades. The relationship helped elect Democrats to legislative and governmental power in state and local elections. It was easy to negotiate lucrative contracts and benefits when both sides are essentially sleeping with each other. Now, all the fat kids are on the thin ice of the pond and it's getting real warm outside.

There's a reason even FDR disapproved of unions in the pubic sector. Wisconsin is a good example why a champion of labor felt that way.

aussiesmg wrote: When the unions became involved in electing the Government they overstepped their purpose, bring back the days of them acting for the workers.

I have no love of unions, but you could substitute Big Business for unions and the sentence would still make sense.

Ignorant wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: When the unions became involved in electing the Government they overstepped their purpose, bring back the days of them acting for the workers.

I have no love of unions, but you could substitute Big Business for unions and the sentence would still make sense.

I have to disagree because Big Business has only one purpose, that is to make money, they have never acted for the workers. Workers are a requirement to make money only.

I have developed a kind of arrogant, short sighted view of unions (at least I admit it right?). With the exception of a few trades, you probably aren't that skilled if you have to use a union to artifically protect you against job loss, get raises etc.

Derick Freese wrote: IThe average factory worker has no need to belong to a union. If they work hard and do what they need to do, then they'll keep their jobs. I know of a few F-ups that work at our local paper mill. They're union, so they don't get in much trouble at all. My next door neighbor also works there. He busts his arse every time he goes into work. He comes home dead tired. While he does pretty well for himself, I feel that he'd be in the same position now without union representation for the past 15 years.

Most people don't need one often, but it's good to have when you do. I worked for 7 years and took off three sick days total in that time, we're given 12 a year that we can bank since they don't provide disablity ins. that a private company in NY would have to. I had a car accident just before I was supposed to be promoted, and missed three months of work with a hospital stay and numerous broken bones. When I came back I was denied my promotion for being a sick time abuser, since I had just gone and used all my time at once, even though that is not how the rule is written in their rulebook, and I had never had any kind of dicipline before this.

Fortunately the union was able to get it sorted out and I did get my promotion, although a little later than I should have.

aussiesmg wrote: I have to disagree because Big Business has only one purpose, that is to make money, they have never acted for the workers. Workers are a requirement to make money only.

I see your point, but I would argue that a better sustainable business model is to develop, educate, advance and take care of your employees. In the end your profits will be larger and the company will be better poised to weather future issues.. Look to Southwest and Toyota as great models for developing employees, sticking with them and promoting from within..

The business model you are advocating is effectively on the outs as with the aging population, it is tougher to find and hold on to your skilled employees in the US.

Ignorant wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: I have to disagree because Big Business has only one purpose, that is to make money, they have never acted for the workers. Workers are a requirement to make money only.

I see your point, but I would argue that a better sustainable business model is to develop, educate, advance and take care of your employees. In the end your profits will be larger and the company will be better poised to weather future issues.. Look to Southwest and Toyota as great models for developing employees, sticking with them and promoting from within.. The business model you are advocating is effectively on the outs as with the aging population, it is tougher to find and hold on to your skilled employees in the US.

In many ways you're right. And it was a path companies took after WWII.

Demand for products was high, production capacity was high but skilled/willing workers were at a premium. The competition for those people was intense and companies adjusted compensation to attract and keep employees. That was a huge influence on why the old nemesis of employer-covered health insurance became a staple of employment.

As competition increased and profits didn't, non-unionized workers have had to increasingly share the costs of their benefit packages - or fund them on their own. Public sector, unionized workers haven't dealt with that reality.

Until now, anyway.

oldsaw wrote: In many ways you're right. And it was a path companies took after WWII. Demand for products was high, production capacity was high but skilled/willing workers were at a premium. The competition for those people was intense and companies adjusted compensation to attract and keep employees. That was a huge influence on why the old nemesis of employer-covered health insurance became a staple of employment. As competition increased and profits didn't, non-unionized workers have had to increasingly share the costs of their benefit packages - or fund them on their own. Public sector, unionized workers haven't dealt with that reality. Until now, anyway.

To follow along with this interesting thread....

One of the things that happened in the 60's, I think, was a major focus on profitability for Wall Street- the investors. I may have read this wrong, but it appears that the start of short term profit over long term corporate benefits AND the nasty battles with the unions.

I've read some really interesting articles about horrendus union battles, and they always start with a few things- the company making oodles of money AND asking the workers for more. Instead of making the workers feel as if they were a major part of the process, the opposite happened. And instead of focusing on products and processes that were better, management shared the wealth.

IMHO, this is where the union management saw opportunity to be- whateve ryou want to call it...- and take advantage of the people they were supposed to represent.

The US companies had all of the tools to have the best of the best- quality, process control, etc. But it was the desparate Japanese who had no real choice but to adopt the processes to stand apart and to utilize what little they had right after the war.

Greed can be a bitch.

Eric

aussiesmg wrote:

Ignorant wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: When the unions became involved in electing the Government they overstepped their purpose, bring back the days of them acting for the workers.

I have no love of unions, but you could substitute Big Business for unions and the sentence would still make sense.

I have to disagree because Big Business has only one purpose, that is to make money, they have never acted for the workers. Workers are a requirement to make money only.

And BB does it at the expense of themselves and everything else. The big business model people seem to like don't understand that it's not sustainable. The way business has worked in the past- they would basically both run out of customers, since wages would be so low that the entire economy couldn't drive it self (which you see very, very much right now) AND they would likely run out of workers due to safety/health reasons.

I've read a few times that China gets part #2 in spades, but momentum may have made the government actions too late.

Capitolism with a conscience is the way to go, it's just that left without oversight, companies lack a conscience. Remember, every law that restricts companies came from a concer that started with an individual.

alfadriver wrote: Capitolism with a conscience is the way to go

I agree whole heartedly.

However, recently smaller companies have been selling out to larger ones to allow them to grow. Some partial buy outs some whole hog. The big companies control the distribution and shelf space.

Stonyfield yogurt = Dannon Burts bees = Colgate-Palmolive Honest Tea and Vitamin water = Coke Toms of Maine = Colgate-Palmolive Ben and Jerrys = Some big company

Usually the deals require them to keep up with the roots of the company...

oldsaw wrote: In many ways you're right. And it was a path companies took after WWII.

Neat theory about the whole thing is Krugmans "The Great Compression."

It makes sense, I guess.

Here's a blog post explaining it. http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/09/the-great-compr.html

Basically Krugman believes that unions played a big part in decreasing the worker/management wage gap, in the 50's and 60's, and that is why we were so propserous then...

I don't know if I buy it wholesale, but It gets you thinking.

more info: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/

alfadriver wrote: Capitolism with a conscience is the way to go, it's just that left without oversight, companies lack a conscience. Remember, every law that restricts companies came from a concer that started with an individual.

Having or lacking a conscience is not a problem exclusive to business; the same applies to government, too.

Government, by necessity, exists to provide a buffer between those who abide by law and those who ignore it. But, government is just another form of cancer when it is abused and used to advance ideologies.

Krugman makes some valid points, but Friedman did also. And Friedman was an unabased "free-marketer" who always recognized and welcomed government's role, but in a more limited scope. More food for thought...

In reply to oldsaw:

That's why we are supposed to vote.

McCarthyism ended due to voting.

Legal separation of races ended due to voting.

Child labor ended due to voting.

I know it goes both ways, but just with a single vote, people have significant power over the government, which have prooved to be a lot harder for business.

People really like to think that our governemnt is the most corrupt in the world, for some reason, when most of the instanes that they claim trample all over their rights were the result of someone else abusing the system, and rules had to be put into place.

Or not seeing that significant parts of society would never develop via business alone- roads, schools, some significant technology lines, etc.

No, governement can't nor should do everything, but to keep saying that they are worthless is just as bad as the other side of the coin. Oddly enough, just like unions.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to oldsaw: That's why we are supposed to vote. McCarthyism ended due to voting. Legal separation of races ended due to voting. Child labor ended due to voting. I know it goes both ways, but just with a single vote, people have significant power over the government, which have prooved to be a lot harder for business. People really like to think that our governemnt is the most corrupt in the world, for some reason, when most of the instanes that they claim trample all over their rights were the result of someone else abusing the system, and rules had to be put into place. Or not seeing that significant parts of society would never develop via business alone- roads, schools, some significant technology lines, etc. No, governement can't nor should do everything, but to keep saying that they are worthless is just as bad as the other side of the coin. Oddly enough, just like unions.

I agree with most everything you've noted, except for the inference that limited-government proponents are akin to anarchists. Exaggerate much?

Yes, votes count! That's why there was a pendulm swing in public policy in 2006/2008 and why we're experiencing another swing right now. The extremes do not represent the balance mandated by those who vote. Aside from the dogmatic hyperbole, we're not that far apart.

I still have a problem with public-sector unions - not unions, in general.

I've got a split view on unions. I've been in a union, not in one, a business owner, and fought against them. One thing you have to remember, is that you have to take into account human behavior. Just like businesses, you have varying degrees of humanity at the top, some are good, some bad, and some inbetween. No matter what your ideology, this will come into play. That is why there is no perfect system and their never will be.

And once people get to the top, usually a corruption of their powers occur. That is why our government has so many controls in place. Unions though, have no such control, and these days, it's not just businesses they threaten, but the government with a lot of money thrown a particular candidates way, and a guarantee of good voting block. Most unions exist these days as business unto themselves. Neither the company nor their members are of much concern, only the profit the unions make and how much power they can weild.

Having said that, i think unions do far more damage these days than they do good. They cost a company a lot of money, and there is no doubt that it adds to the costs of the products they sell, and in many cases, results in a lower quality product. The union places I've worked at most of the workers couldn't care less about doing a good job in any way shape or form. They were there to get what they could out of the company, and had no clue that the company had to actually make money and stay in business for them to keep their jobs.

While unions no doubt help protect their members, in the long run they mostly damage the companies themselves so badly that they hinder their ability to compete and even exist in some cases. And I would add, that government unions do even greater damage. The state of our education system is not caused by lack of money, but the philosophy behind it, and in my opinion, the unions are one of the "broken" components, to use a popular phrase. I pretty much have zero sympathy for these striking teachers.

oldsaw wrote: I agree with most everything you've noted, except for the inference that limited-government proponents are akin to anarchists. Exaggerate much?

Based on some of their exaggerations, I'm just meeting theirs. There's a lot of "all government is evil" talk out there. It's not until you outline parts when you find that people seem to hate the idea, but like the application of it.

For public sector unions- I have no problem with them in existence- else you do get ideologs ruling over their lives. On one side, you get the people who say that the agencies never do enough- you must work harder and harder on seemingly insignificant things, on the other side are the ones about "too big"- you are fired.

We flip flop so much in overall management that it's not fair for the ones trying to do work FOR the public. They do need some protection from the whims of the ruling party at the time.

Not to say there are no issues- plenty of them. Many of the major issues that private unions have are just as bad or worse for public ones (especially the protection of all as each person is an equal, when that's quite far from the truth).

3 pages and no flounders. You guys are awesome.

I'm curious why some of you think that public workers unions are more evil that private unions?

I would guess it is the fact that when public unions abuse the system, they are "stealing" from all of use (tax money). When private ones do, they are just screwing their own company (of course those prices are passed on also).