I have another friend who was working as a contractor in a former estate home owned by the state. Before they could start their work, the furniture and other posessions needed to be cleared out. So guys from the woodworkers union came and removed everything in the room my friend was hired to work in, except for a metal desk. My friend asked them why they didn't take the desk out, and they said that the metal workers union had to handle it, and they could not touch it. My friend and the rest of his team sat there for 8 hours before someone from the metal workers union showed up to take the desk. They were paid for every minute of the wait.
I don't know if these are representative of how unions normally operate, but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of either story.
This sort of thing does happen at many construction sites where union work is involved and obviously is something that needs to be worked on. Again I'm a person who believes that abuses need to be excised with a scalpel, not a union busting meat cleaver.
Two things:
1.) Trade unions and public sector unions are two different things. Fire, Police, Teachers, public sector. Carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc are not state employees in most cases, they just have dealings with the state.
2.) If anyone is wondering why his friend and crew wouldn't just move the metal desk into the other room and start working its probably because they didn't like the idea of having a union reps foot buried in their asshole for taking their work.
My friend actually suggested moving the desk. That got shot down by his boss really fast for this exact reason.
Everything you have said here is fair. I guess that since I have heard countless horror stories about unions, like workers who would show up to work drunk, be fired for it, and then show up again a week later because the union got reinstated, and I have seen stubborn unions result in real lasting harm to companies and their workers in the course of my job, they just don't seem like something worth protecting to me. And this is coming from someone whose family is mostly unionized (I even have a family member who was president of a union for many years).
But regardless of personal views, to me, it seems like forcing these union contracts on the tax payers, at potentially great cost, doesn't make a lot of sense. For example, the private sector moved on from defined benefit plans years ago because of the huge costs associated with them, yet we as the tax payers are stuck paying for them indefinitely? Doesn't seem right to me.
No, the private sector moved from defined benefit plans thanks to Saint Ronnie throwing the doors open to the corporate raiders.
As for the metal desk, what never gets mentioned is the flip side of that coin, where businesses transfer additional duties to an employee without any added compensation, and pocket the increase in productivity.
But regardless of personal views, to me, it seems like forcing these union contracts on the tax payers, at potentially great cost, doesn't make a lot of sense.
You keep saying this over and over again. It does not happen. The contracts are contracts. Consensual, severable, agreements between parties. Force is not involved. Don't want your local or state or federal government to be able to agree to contracts, or to have the contracts they are currently involved in enforced? That's a pretty extreme view.
The only consistent claim I see here is that the agreements themselves are onerous.
You don't like that the government is keeping it's agreements while the private sector long ago figured out how to unilaterally get out of them without having to pay up?
There are plenty of examples of governments, where those governments get to unilaterally make changes to the agreements they enter into. It's just they're seldom called "Democracies, or Republics."
No, the private sector moved from defined benefit plans thanks to Saint Ronnie throwing the doors open to the corporate raiders.
As for the metal desk, what never gets mentioned is the flip side of that coin, where businesses transfer additional duties to an employee without any added compensation, and pocket the increase in productivity.
Especially amongst large successful companies, pensions still exist, but they disappear as you go lower in the org. Pensions still exist for Upper management almost everywhere. Many places still have pensions for middle management. Some few places have pensions for supervisors.
Europe and in Industrialized Asia pensions are gone for the same reason most buisness don't provide health care.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
I think the general idea about the contracts that the unions sign with the government is that they are negotiated in bad faith by politicians who are beholden to the unions directly or indirectly. This allows the unions to get significantly more then they should, particularly in the areas of health care and pensions where future costs can be passed on to the next administration, damaging the fiscal health of the state.
The contracts were made in a rigged system and should therefor be invalid.
I do not know if this is true but that is the general argument I have seen against public sector unions. It could probably apply to many contracts given out to private companies by the government where the officials are corrupted by past or future business associations but I do not see many people calling for the invalidation of existing Halliburton contracts and the seizure of their profits made during the Iraq war.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
No, the private sector moved from defined benefit plans thanks to Saint Ronnie throwing the doors open to the corporate raiders.
As for the metal desk, what never gets mentioned is the flip side of that coin, where businesses transfer additional duties to an employee without any added compensation, and pocket the increase in productivity.
Could you explain the first point? Once assets go into a plan, they generally can not be returned to the company, per the "exclusive benefit rule." The rules for defined benefit plans are complex, administration is onerous and expensive, and the risk of good intentioned foot faults which can result in potentially serious penalties is high.
I'm not sure that I see the harm in having the wood worker carry the metal desk. He is still getting paid on an hourly basis, presumably. If the result is that we eliminate jobs that weren't really needed but for the rules in their contracts, I am ok with that.
I think the general idea about the contracts that the unions sign with the government is that they are negotiated in bad faith by politicians who are beholden to the unions directly or indirectly. This allows the unions to get significantly more then they should, particularly in the areas of health care and pensions where future costs can be passed on to the next administration, damaging the fiscal health of the state.
The problem is that public sector unions hold a lot of political power. So, public officials who negotiate CBA's with those unions know that if they are too tough during the negotiations, the unions will likely target them come election time. There's a strong incentive for those officials to keep the unions happy by giving them sweetheart CBA deals.
That same dynamic doesn't exist in the private sector, where company officials are only answerable to shareholders.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Seuko - Can you please provide a source indicating that you can contract around the FLSA? I have never seen anyone even attempt to contract around wage and hour rules, employee classification, etc. other than by attempting to label common law employees as independent contractor (these attempts are not normally respected.)
But regardless of personal views, to me, it seems like forcing these union contracts on the tax payers, at potentially great cost, doesn't make a lot of sense.
You keep saying this over and over again. It does not happen. The contracts are contracts. Consensual, severable, agreements between parties. Force is not involved. Don't want your local or state or federal government to be able to agree to contracts, or to have the contracts they are currently involved in enforced? That's a pretty extreme view.
The only consistent claim I see here is that the agreements themselves are onerous.
You don't like that the government is keeping it's agreements while the private sector long ago figured out how to unilaterally get out of them without having to pay up?
There are plenty of examples of governments, where those governments get to unilaterally make changes to the agreements they enter into. It's just they're seldom called "Democracies, or Republics."
I read through this thread again, and I don't think that I have been inconsistent. To clear up any confusion, I will lay out what I see as the argument against public unions.
1. Collective Bargaining Agreements (public and private) are generally very large scale contracts which set out terms of employment and work conditioons in a great level of detail. They are also generally among the hardest contracts to unilaterally terminate (lawfully, pursuant to their terms, not to breach), because unlike most contracts which do permit either party to end them with a notice period, CBAs do not usually include provisions permitting either side to end them without the other side's consent.
2. Every aspect of government action should be subject to direct or indirect voter action. Therefore, the government should not bind itself in ways that cannot be changed through the democratic process.
3. Because CBAs are wide ranging, have a long term, affect many employees (if not an entire class of worker, like police, fire fighters or teachers) and cannot normally be ended without the agreement of the union, they limit the ability of the government to take action through the democratic process during their term. While other contracts are also binding for their terms, they do not normally cover such a large number of employees, and are normally susceptible to unilateral termination by either party.
Put another way, the state should not take any major action which sets policy with respect to an entire policy arena, such as teacher pay/evaluations, which it cannot reverse if the public wants a change. So, while there may not be functional differences between public and private unions (and if we are being honest, private unions actually have more power than public in most states) the nature of unions is ill suited to the public sphere because of those shared properties.
No, the private sector moved from defined benefit plans thanks to Saint Ronnie throwing the doors open to the corporate raiders.
As for the metal desk, what never gets mentioned is the flip side of that coin, where businesses transfer additional duties to an employee without any added compensation, and pocket the increase in productivity.
Especially amongst large successful companies, pensions still exist, but they disappear as you go lower in the org. Pensions still exist for Upper management almost everywhere. Many places still have pensions for middle management. Some few places have pensions for supervisors.
Europe and in Industrialized Asia pensions are gone for the same reason most buisness don't provide health care.
You may say this is mere semantics, but a company cannot actually maintain a traditional defined benefit plan for upper tier people, without violating the anti discrimination requirements in the tax code. That said, lots of companies provide other types of qualified plans (such as cash balance plans, which can be aggregated with 401(k) plans for testing purposes) or nonqualified deferred compensation plans to upper tier employees. Another thing you may have encountered is companies where the non-union employees have a pension, but the union employees do not (this is permissible under the tax code). Yet another possibility is that the plan has been frozen to new participants, and only management or higher level employees would have been around long enough to be grandfathered in.
I think the general idea about the contracts that the unions sign with the government is that they are negotiated in bad faith by politicians who are beholden to the unions directly or indirectly. This allows the unions to get significantly more then they should, particularly in the areas of health care and pensions where future costs can be passed on to the next administration, damaging the fiscal health of the state.
The problem is that public sector unions hold a lot of political power. So, public officials who negotiate CBA's with those unions know that if they are too tough during the negotiations, the unions will likely target them come election time. There's a strong incentive for those officials to keep the unions happy by giving them sweetheart CBA deals.
That same dynamic doesn't exist in the private sector, where company officials are only answerable to shareholders.
And the attacks are no idle threat. It seems like the UFT (NY teachers union) is prepared to burn the world (and Bloomberg) down over the performance evaluation system, which has to be implemented to keep the schools from losing tens of millions in grants. But when it comes to actually helping members solve problems, they're nowhere to be found (at least that has been my wife's experience with them).
I think the general idea about the contracts that the unions sign with the government is that they are negotiated in bad faith by politicians who are beholden to the unions directly or indirectly. This allows the unions to get significantly more then they should, particularly in the areas of health care and pensions where future costs can be passed on to the next administration, damaging the fiscal health of the state.
The problem is that public sector unions hold a lot of political power. So, public officials who negotiate CBA's with those unions know that if they are too tough during the negotiations, the unions will likely target them come election time. There's a strong incentive for those officials to keep the unions happy by giving them sweetheart CBA deals.
That same dynamic doesn't exist in the private sector, where company officials are only answerable to shareholders.
And the attacks are no idle threat. It seems like the UFT (NY teachers union) is prepared to burn the world (and Bloomberg) down over the performance evaluation system, which has to be implemented to keep the schools from losing tens of millions in grants. But when it comes to actually helping members solve problems, they're nowhere to be found (at least that has been my wife's experience with them).
The national teachers' union spent $1 million to help defeat Adrian Fenty here in DC because Michelle Rhee was so unfriendly to the union and its interests.
That sends a pretty strong message to any public official who dares stand up to the teachers' union.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
But regardless of personal views, to me, it seems like forcing these union contracts on the tax payers, at potentially great cost, doesn't make a lot of sense.
You keep saying this over and over again. It does not happen. The contracts are contracts. Consensual, severable, agreements between parties. Force is not involved. Don't want your local or state or federal government to be able to agree to contracts, or to have the contracts they are currently involved in enforced? That's a pretty extreme view.
The only consistent claim I see here is that the agreements themselves are onerous.
you obviously have no experience being on the other side of the table against a union.
im an attorney, and i can tell you right now, not all contracts are the same, or even in the same ball park. some contracts require arbitration in front of a union friendly arbitrator called, (sinisterly) "the office of the impartial chairperson". isnt that hilarious? they have to put the word "impartial" in there to make sure you know they're impartial and not at all union friendly. and of course all their decisions are strictly confidential. i'd wager 1000 to 1 that 90%+ of their decisions fall in the union's favor. but it's a black box. no one will ever know. and the unions will never let you sit in front of a regular judge or even the american arbitration association, because they aren't impartial enough i assume. it's like something straight out of 1984.
spacekungfuman is pretty much right on target regarding union agreements. it is impossible to get out of them. force is not only involved (i.e., strikes) it is standard operating procedure.
You don't like that the government is keeping it's agreements while the private sector long ago figured out how to unilaterally get out of them without having to pay up?
There are plenty of examples of governments, where those governments get to unilaterally make changes to the agreements they enter into. It's just they're seldom called "Democracies, or Republics."
i dont really have anything to say specifically about public vs. private sector unions. in my experience dealing with unions, i find that they are terrible and lead to a mentality of underachievement, foot dragging and featherbedding.
No, the private sector moved from defined benefit plans thanks to Saint Ronnie throwing the doors open to the corporate raiders.
As for the metal desk, what never gets mentioned is the flip side of that coin, where businesses transfer additional duties to an employee without any added compensation, and pocket the increase in productivity.
wait what? are you actually trying to defend this practice (i.e., "i can't plug this machine in, because that machine can only be operated by the metal worker's union")?
also, i think you need to rethink how businesses work. employees aren't partners. they put in no capital, they take no risk, hence they don't share in the profit. if they want to share in the return, then they should share in the risk also. it's not that hard to do that. how about this: instead of receiving a wage, why don't you just ask for equity instead. then you can share in the profits like every other partner. i would love if my employees asked for equity instead of wages. it would make them more invested in the business and probably question why we use the union in the first place. they'd have to deal with the ups and downs of business though.
i think the most illustrative point about unions is that even people who are heavily, heavily pro-union will never hire a union contractor if they have to pay for it out of their own pocket. the union representative for my building just recently decided to use a non-union company to do his own apartment's terrace work. he told me the union bid was 3 times higher even though he was providing all the materials himself. we laughed about it. cognitive dissonance and all that.
last union story from me: i was working with a non-profit organization that was trying to reintegrate lightly mentally disabled individuals into the work place. the organization wanted to provide various individuals to us as paid interns to learn the basics of the job. then after 6 months, they would be released into the market with at least some useful skills. no one at our company would be replaced or even given more work. they would just be shadowed for 6 months. the union killed the program before it could start because they didn't want to increase the labor pool.
i have difficulty sympathizing with unions because i have too much experience with them.
force is not only involved (i.e., strikes) it is standard operating procedure.
Number of strikes and/or work stoppages since 1950:
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
force is not only involved (i.e., strikes) it is standard operating procedure.
Number of strikes and/or work stoppages since 1950:
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
And whats the difference of a company saying "Do this, even though you don't get paid to do it and we will never pay you to do it, or you're fired"?
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
I'm failing to see what the problem here is.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
force is not only involved (i.e., strikes) it is standard operating procedure.
Number of strikes and/or work stoppages since 1950:
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
And whats the difference of a company saying "Do this, even though you don't get paid to do it and we will never pay you to do it, or you're fired"?
Well, first off, if you are not a salaried employee, then you can bring an unfair labor practices claim against the company, and if the practice is widespread, you can bring a class action. If you are an executive, there is a good chance that you can quit for "good reason" meaning that you can quit over being assigned tasks inconsistent with your job and still get severance. But let's assume you are salaried, and you are fired for refusing. You may collect some severance if it is offered, but you will definitely have access to unemployment, and can look for another job. That said, being fired for refusing to do something once would be very unusual. If it is more that the nature of your job is changing into something you don't like, then it is up to you to decide if you want to stay and work under those new parameters or not.
If a company negotiates hard with its union (and remember, this negotiation could be over something that may literally bankrupt the company over a long enough time frame, like retiree medical obligations) and the union strikes, the company may be shut down. In a low margin business, even a short shut down could move your company from black to red. I'm not saying that there is neccesarily a moral difference here, but the sense of scale is very different, and I think that matters.
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
I'm failing to see what the problem here is.
That post was in response to the graph saying that unions don't strike. I was just sharing my experience that even though actual strikes are rare, the threat of a strike is still very real, and frequently employed.
That said, I do think the entire tactic of the strike is somewhat surreal, since you may effectively be told that you are not allowed to work (or be paid) anymore because the union is fighting about an issue you may not care about, or may even actively dislike. If you are a young employee who hates seniority, why should you be prohibited from working to protect it?
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I've been a part of a strike. As a cashier for a grocery store chain in NJ during the summer of 2001.
The owners of our particular chain wanted to lower our 6month raises from 15cents to 10cents, and change our vacations from 2 weeks once we worked a full year to 2 weeks once we worked 1.5years. and a bunch of other things.
The union decided to strike, we all went to the meeting and voted. Well, except for those of us that were working that night, and when we got the call that the union voted to strike, we walked off the job. We ended up being on strike until just before thanksgiving (2 months total). And we got exactly what we wanted. Higher pay raises and the same vacations.
most of the community was actually behind us, bringing us pizza and coffee and subs and things. At least until 9/11. Then we got rotten food thrown at us....
I think the general idea about the contracts that the unions sign with the government is that they are negotiated in bad faith by politicians who are beholden to the unions directly or indirectly. This allows the unions to get significantly more then they should, particularly in the areas of health care and pensions where future costs can be passed on to the next administration, damaging the fiscal health of the state.
The contracts were made in a rigged system and should therefor be invalid.
I do not know if this is true but that is the general argument I have seen against public sector unions. It could probably apply to many contracts given out to private companies by the government where the officials are corrupted by past or future business associations but I do not see many people calling for the invalidation of existing Halliburton contracts and the seizure of their profits made during the Iraq war.
For one bad private sector example, the spouse of the owner of Aramark is on the boards of trustees of several universities.
Oh, ok. It all becomes clear. SKFman is upset that he can't treat his employees like shit and fire them without cause, then cackle as they apply for reparations through a toothless federal program that actually looks out for the corporations who fund it or lose all their money attempting to sue him through a justice system that rewards the person who has enough money to last longer than the other guy.
Yes, it's true that if a union strikes hard enough that they can break a company, but what you are apparently too obtuse to realise is that then those people are also out of a job. Strikes may be bad PR (except in this day and age the fucking right wing media has demonised them to the point where the Joe Public thinks of them as just lazy fuckers unwilling to put in an honest day's work, so they no longer are bad PR) but the strikers don't get paid either.
Unions developed for a reason: working conditions were absolute shit and workers were, as a rule, screwed in the ass and left to die destitute. Why the hell would we get rid of them? So that poor corporations that make >$100 million can make a bigger profit? Most REAL small businesses (AKA not the type the Republicans like to pretend exist) don't have a large enough workforce for them to be unionised anyway.
psyck0 on
Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Do you guys have any idea why unions were formed in the first place? Do you think things were all hunky dory utopia rich corporations are fair and trickle down totally works you guys?
Unions formed because workers were forced into long hours for very little pay while in unsafe conditions. <-NOT hyperbole.
If you're contesting that the corporations of today who gleefully threw the world into the largest recession in near a century are suddenly more moral and fair than the corporations of a couple hundred years ago, well, I have a bridge to sell you.
And here's the rub: public sector employees are at the same risk of abuse. Like I said, popular opinion in Canada of public sector employees, who make less than the private sector, is that they are lazy and overpaid. So when they strike, the public lashes out at them. This same public wouldn't give a shit if the people that put out the fires (literally), take the injured to the hospital, ensure we have clean drinking water and pave our roads were making peanuts because taxes.
Either that, or they'd do the same thing as California and break the bank.
force is not only involved (i.e., strikes) it is standard operating procedure.
Number of strikes and/or work stoppages since 1950:
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
And whats the difference of a company saying "Do this, even though you don't get paid to do it and we will never pay you to do it, or you're fired"?
Well, first off, if you are not a salaried employee, then you can bring an unfair labor practices claim against the company, and if the practice is widespread, you can bring a class action. If you are an executive, there is a good chance that you can quit for "good reason" meaning that you can quit over being assigned tasks inconsistent with your job and still get severance. But let's assume you are salaried, and you are fired for refusing. You may collect some severance if it is offered, but you will definitely have access to unemployment, and can look for another job. That said, being fired for refusing to do something once would be very unusual. If it is more that the nature of your job is changing into something you don't like, then it is up to you to decide if you want to stay and work under those new parameters or not.
If a company negotiates hard with its union (and remember, this negotiation could be over something that may literally bankrupt the company over a long enough time frame, like retiree medical obligations) and the union strikes, the company may be shut down. In a low margin business, even a short shut down could move your company from black to red. I'm not saying that there is neccesarily a moral difference here, but the sense of scale is very different, and I think that matters.
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
I'm failing to see what the problem here is.
That post was in response to the graph saying that unions don't strike. I was just sharing my experience that even though actual strikes are rare, the threat of a strike is still very real, and frequently employed.
That said, I do think the entire tactic of the strike is somewhat surreal, since you may effectively be told that you are not allowed to work (or be paid) anymore because the union is fighting about an issue you may not care about, or may even actively dislike. If you are a young employee who hates seniority, why should you be prohibited from working to protect it?
A) How many non-salaried employees know they can do the bolded? How many non-salaried employees can survive being labelled a "troublemaker" in the industry? How many of them can afford the potential fallout, termination, discrimination from management etc.
the bolded italicisized ignores the fact that unemployment sucks, has often times been threatened with or faces cuts and will often times completely fail to cover expenses.
C) as far as the underlined, one would hope there were smart enough young employees to realize they would eventually be senior employees and that seniority might protect them from being fired and replaced with younger workers who do the same job for less benefits and less profit so as to maximize management bonus structure
I have come to believe that the worst thing that has happened to American Capitalism is not the unions, but the NYSE. Simply because so many decisions are made for short term profits and dividends and less for long-term survival of the company.
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
I'm failing to see what the problem here is.
That post was in response to the graph saying that unions don't strike. I was just sharing my experience that even though actual strikes are rare, the threat of a strike is still very real, and frequently employed.
You seem to be incapable of reading graphs. The data show that strikes are quite rare, and not commonplace as Ketherial claimed. The argument was never that strikes don't happen.
That said, I do think the entire tactic of the strike is somewhat surreal, since you may effectively be told that you are not allowed to work (or be paid) anymore because the union is fighting about an issue you may not care about, or may even actively dislike. If you are a young employee who hates seniority, why should you be prohibited from working to protect it?
Because the union is about making sure all employees get a fair deal, and the older ones don't get fired because they're too expensive. Sometimes you strike about stuff you don't like to help the people who care about it, because when it comes time for the company to try to screw you over, those people have your back.
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
I'm failing to see what the problem here is.
That post was in response to the graph saying that unions don't strike. I was just sharing my experience that even though actual strikes are rare, the threat of a strike is still very real, and frequently employed.
You seem to be incapable of reading graphs. The data show that strikes are quite rare, and not commonplace as Ketherial claimed. The argument was never that strikes don't happen.
That said, I do think the entire tactic of the strike is somewhat surreal, since you may effectively be told that you are not allowed to work (or be paid) anymore because the union is fighting about an issue you may not care about, or may even actively dislike. If you are a young employee who hates seniority, why should you be prohibited from working to protect it?
Because the union is about making sure all employees get a fair deal, and the older ones don't get fired because they're too expensive. Sometimes you strike about stuff you don't like to help the people who care about it, because when it comes time for the company to try to screw you over, those people have your back.
That's why it's called "Collective Action".
Like everything conservatives hate, it's all about solving a collective action problem.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Oh, ok. It all becomes clear. SKFman is upset that he can't treat his employees like shit and fire them without cause, then cackle as they apply for reparations through a toothless federal program that actually looks out for the corporations who fund it or lose all their money attempting to sue him through a justice system that rewards the person who has enough money to last longer than the other guy.
Yes, it's true that if a union strikes hard enough that they can break a company, but what you are apparently too obtuse to realise is that then those people are also out of a job. Strikes may be bad PR (except in this day and age the fucking right wing media has demonised them to the point where the Joe Public thinks of them as just lazy fuckers unwilling to put in an honest day's work, so they no longer are bad PR) but the strikers don't get paid either.
Unions developed for a reason: working conditions were absolute shit and workers were, as a rule, screwed in the ass and left to die destitute. Why the hell would we get rid of them? So that poor corporations that make >$100 million can make a bigger profit? Most REAL small businesses (AKA not the type the Republicans like to pretend exist) don't have a large enough workforce for them to be unionised anyway.
I am not saying workers should have no protections. I think we should follow the example of most other developed nations and provide protections (hours, working conditions, severance, notice before layoff or termination, etc.) through our employment laws, instead of leaving them to negotiation. At least that way we take the self interest of the union and the employer's desire not to be disadvantaged relative to peer employers out of the equation. And in the public contest, doing it this way ensures that everything stays firmly within the democratic process, since laws are easier to change in response to a voter outcry than a collective bargaining agreement.
force is not only involved (i.e., strikes) it is standard operating procedure.
Number of strikes and/or work stoppages since 1950:
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
And whats the difference of a company saying "Do this, even though you don't get paid to do it and we will never pay you to do it, or you're fired"?
Well, first off, if you are not a salaried employee, then you can bring an unfair labor practices claim against the company, and if the practice is widespread, you can bring a class action. If you are an executive, there is a good chance that you can quit for "good reason" meaning that you can quit over being assigned tasks inconsistent with your job and still get severance. But let's assume you are salaried, and you are fired for refusing. You may collect some severance if it is offered, but you will definitely have access to unemployment, and can look for another job. That said, being fired for refusing to do something once would be very unusual. If it is more that the nature of your job is changing into something you don't like, then it is up to you to decide if you want to stay and work under those new parameters or not.
If a company negotiates hard with its union (and remember, this negotiation could be over something that may literally bankrupt the company over a long enough time frame, like retiree medical obligations) and the union strikes, the company may be shut down. In a low margin business, even a short shut down could move your company from black to red. I'm not saying that there is neccesarily a moral difference here, but the sense of scale is very different, and I think that matters.
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
I'm failing to see what the problem here is.
That post was in response to the graph saying that unions don't strike. I was just sharing my experience that even though actual strikes are rare, the threat of a strike is still very real, and frequently employed.
That said, I do think the entire tactic of the strike is somewhat surreal, since you may effectively be told that you are not allowed to work (or be paid) anymore because the union is fighting about an issue you may not care about, or may even actively dislike. If you are a young employee who hates seniority, why should you be prohibited from working to protect it?
A) How many non-salaried employees know they can do the bolded? How many non-salaried employees can survive being labelled a "troublemaker" in the industry? How many of them can afford the potential fallout, termination, discrimination from management etc.
the bolded italicisized ignores the fact that unemployment sucks, has often times been threatened with or faces cuts and will often times completely fail to cover expenses.
C) as far as the underlined, one would hope there were smart enough young employees to realize they would eventually be senior employees and that seniority might protect them from being fired and replaced with younger workers who do the same job for less benefits and less profit so as to maximize management bonus structure
I have come to believe that the worst thing that has happened to American Capitalism is not the unions, but the NYSE. Simply because so many decisions are made for short term profits and dividends and less for long-term survival of the company.
A - This is a complaint with the current process and laws. Why shouldn't the answer be to fix the process instead of interposing unions?
B - Of course losing your job is a bad thing (although it could be made much better if we strengthened our labor laws to include mandatory notice in advance of being fired or pay in lieu of notice) but I still think that the scale of a strike or refusal by a union to relax certain terms of the contract is just different, since such actions can destroy the entire company.
C - But not all workers have the same goals in mind. A kid working a part time job at a supermarket would be completely rational in desiring a bump in starting pay in exchange for the elimination of seniority rules. When my wife was teaching, she found time and time again that the union was not interested in helping her with any issues that she faced. It was only concerned with issues it decided were important, like making sure that teachers who sat around reading the paper instead of teaching could not be fired.
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
I'm failing to see what the problem here is.
That post was in response to the graph saying that unions don't strike. I was just sharing my experience that even though actual strikes are rare, the threat of a strike is still very real, and frequently employed.
You seem to be incapable of reading graphs. The data show that strikes are quite rare, and not commonplace as Ketherial claimed. The argument was never that strikes don't happen.
I think it was clear from my response that I was saying that the decline of actual strikes does not equate to a decline in the use of coercive bargaining tactics by unions. And even if this wasn't clear to you, does that justify a personal attack?
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
I'm failing to see what the problem here is.
That post was in response to the graph saying that unions don't strike. I was just sharing my experience that even though actual strikes are rare, the threat of a strike is still very real, and frequently employed.
You seem to be incapable of reading graphs. The data show that strikes are quite rare, and not commonplace as Ketherial claimed. The argument was never that strikes don't happen.
That said, I do think the entire tactic of the strike is somewhat surreal, since you may effectively be told that you are not allowed to work (or be paid) anymore because the union is fighting about an issue you may not care about, or may even actively dislike. If you are a young employee who hates seniority, why should you be prohibited from working to protect it?
Because the union is about making sure all employees get a fair deal, and the older ones don't get fired because they're too expensive. Sometimes you strike about stuff you don't like to help the people who care about it, because when it comes time for the company to try to screw you over, those people have your back.
That's why it's called "Collective Action".
Like everything conservatives hate, it's all about solving a collective action problem.
Why isn't this particular collective action problem better dealt with by passing stronger employment laws to ensure that everyone gets what society determines to be a "fair deal" instead of the current system where workers doing the same work can have wildly different working conditions based on if they work in a union shop or not, and which union they belong to?
You do realize that the reason why other developed countries have much stronger employment laws is because virtually all of them have much stronger unions?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
You do realize that the reason why other developed countries have much stronger employment laws is because virtually all of them have much stronger unions?
"Strength" is kind of a funny term here. From the employer's perspective, a "strong" union that doesn't disadvantage you relative to your peers on employment terms is much better than a "weak" union which imposes all kinds of restrictions, work rules, seniority requirements, etc.
But that is really beside the point. Without unions, we could address working conditions if the voting public supports doing so. And if they don't, and they want to only offer $5 an hour to be a police officer, then I don't see why that isn't what we should do in the public arena. If the results turn out to be bad (which they no doubt would be) then we can course correct. If people don't like being subject to public control, then they should not take public jobs imo.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Why isn't this particular collective action problem better dealt with by passing stronger employment laws to ensure that everyone gets what society determines to be a "fair deal" instead of the current system where workers doing the same work can have wildly different working conditions based on if they work in a union shop or not, and which union they belong to?
Because workers don't get to make laws, duh.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
You do realize that the reason why other developed countries have much stronger employment laws is because virtually all of them have much stronger unions?
"Strength" is kind of a funny term here. From the employer's perspective, a "strong" union that doesn't disadvantage you relative to your peers on employment terms is much better than a "weak" union which imposes all kinds of restrictions, work rules, seniority requirements, etc.
But that is really beside the point. Without unions, we could address working conditions if the voting public supports doing so. And if they don't, and they want to only offer $5 an hour to be a police officer, then I don't see why that isn't what we should do in the public arena. If the results turn out to be bad (which they no doubt would be) then we can course correct. If people don't like being subject to public control, then they should not take public jobs imo.
Because people don't know about any of this without unions. Unions garner attention for themselves which is necessary because people aren't always going to vote for what's their best long or even short term interest.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Why isn't this particular collective action problem better dealt with by passing stronger employment laws to ensure that everyone gets what society determines to be a "fair deal" instead of the current system where workers doing the same work can have wildly different working conditions based on if they work in a union shop or not, and which union they belong to?
Because workers don't get to make laws, duh.
The strength and influence of public sector unions when it comes to elections has been mentioned a few times in this thread. If they devoted that influence to pushing for employment laws instead of pursuing their own self interest, maybe we could get somewhere.
It isn't beside the point at all. Empirically, strong unions lead to strong employment laws. Governance isn't driven by asking the public what they want on every single issue (one would have to be tremendously naive to believe that to be the case), it's much more complex than that. Persuasion, both of the public and of politicians, requires both money and manpower. In the absence of unions, there is no pro-working conditions lobby. There is no pro-higher minimum wage (or indeed, higher wages in general) lobby. There is very little in the way of a pro-social services lobby.
Edit: Public (and private) sector unions do push for employment laws. They don't get very far because American unions are weak. They do, however, prevent the repeal of laws that are already on the books.
Edit 2: To give one example of an employment law that labor did manage to pass, California recently decided to require home healthcare workers be paid minimum wage and overtime (they were previously exempted).
Brian Krakow on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It isn't beside the point at all. Empirically, strong unions lead to strong employment laws. Governance isn't driven by asking the public what they want on every single issue (one would have to be tremendously naive to believe that to be the case), it's much more complex than that. Persuasion, both of the public and of politicians, requires both money and manpower. In the absence of unions, there is no pro-working conditions lobby. There is no pro-higher minimum wage (or indeed, higher wages in general) lobby. There is very little in the way of a pro-social services lobby.
Edit: Public (and private) sector unions do push for employment laws. They don't get very far because American unions are weak. They do, however, prevent the repeal of laws that are already on the books.
Two points: 1) there is no reason we can't have pro worker lobbies which are divorced from the day to day aspects of the management-labor dynamic and 2) the way unions lobby with member dues seems a lot like the "no control over how a corporation I invest in campaigns" issue people seem so upset with under Citizen's United. My wife and I actively hate the teachers union, and would vote to get rid of it if we could, yet her salary went to supporting their self interested lobbying activities all the same.
Two points: 1) there is no reason we can't have pro worker lobbies which are divorced from the day to day aspects of the management-labor dynamic and 2) the way unions lobby with member dues seems a lot like the "no control over how a corporation I invest in campaigns" issue people seem so upset with under Citizen's United. My wife and I actively hate the teachers union, and would vote to get rid of it if we could, yet her salary went to supporting their self interested lobbying activities all the same.
1) Please, show me an effective example of one.
2) Uh, she can vote to get rid of it. It's called decertification.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
The point that politicians are beholdent to union officials and are light on the contracts because of it. I don't think that is so much of the issue as government contracting in general.
The government through statute, laws and executive order when they start a contract they try to start out the contracting process fair. In the middle. The unions start the contracting process on the side of the unions. So any compromise or meeting of minds will be in the favor of the unions. Government service, and acquisition contracts are the same way.
My wife and I actively hate the teachers union, and would vote to get rid of it if we could, yet her salary went to supporting their self interested lobbying activities all the same.
Really? Your wife wants to teach a class size of 50+, with half the resources she's currently given, and less pay? Because without the union I can guarantee that is what would happen
The point that politicians are beholden to union officials and are light on the contracts because of it. I don't think that is so much of the issue as government contracting in general.
The government through statute, laws and executive order when they start a contract they try to start out the contracting process fair. In the middle. The unions start the contracting process on the side of the unions. So any compromise or meeting of minds will be in the favor of the unions. Government service, and acquisition contracts are the same way.
Again, I think you need to consider the scale. Contracts with public unions govern every single worker of that class in the state or municipality, for a multi-year term, and are nearly unbreakable. If the government is negotiating a supplier for materials for a highway project, at least it only governs that project.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
My wife and I actively hate the teachers union, and would vote to get rid of it if we could, yet her salary went to supporting their self interested lobbying activities all the same.
Really? Your wife wants to teach a class size of 50+, with half the resources she's currently given, and less pay? Because without the union I can guarantee that is what would happen
My wife wanted an effective avenue for protesting things like having kids from other teachers classes put in her room (despite staying on the other teacher's roster) because the other teachers were too busy reading news papers or polishing their toenails (these are real examples) to deal with problem kids. She wanted somewhere to complain about mistakes made in her payroll designation for her first year (they did not credit her for her masters degree). She wanted somewhere to complain about a teacher who gave answers to the state exams to her students. In each of these cases, the union refused to assist her, but the principal (the hated "management") helped her.
My wife and I actively hate the teachers union, and would vote to get rid of it if we could, yet her salary went to supporting their self interested lobbying activities all the same.
Really? Your wife wants to teach a class size of 50+, with half the resources she's currently given, and less pay? Because without the union I can guarantee that is what would happen
My wife wanted an effective avenue for protesting things like having kids from other teachers classes put in her room (despite staying on the other teacher's roster) because the other teachers were too busy reading news papers or polishing their toenails (these are real examples) to deal with problem kids. She wanted somewhere to complain about mistakes made in her payroll designation for her first year (they did not credit her for her masters degree). She wanted somewhere to complain about a teacher who gave answers to the state exams to her students. In each of these cases, the union refused to assist her, but the principal (the hated "management") helped her.
Getting rid of the union wont help that, changing the union will. If she hates the way the union is currently run she should try to change that by getting involved with the union. I know this is possible since it's exactly what my grandmother did in the 80's and 90's
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Two points: 1) there is no reason we can't have pro worker lobbies which are divorced from the day to day aspects of the management-labor dynamic and 2) the way unions lobby with member dues seems a lot like the "no control over how a corporation I invest in campaigns" issue people seem so upset with under Citizen's United. My wife and I actively hate the teachers union, and would vote to get rid of it if we could, yet her salary went to supporting their self interested lobbying activities all the same.
1) Please, show me an effective example of one.
2) Uh, she can vote to get rid of it. It's called decertification.
1) I don't know if there is one or not, but why would there be a need for them when the unions are collecting mandatory dues to fund their lobbying? Whether they exist or not in a world with unions has no bearing on if they could exist in a world without unions. Are you contending that there is something inherent to labor issues which makes it impossible to have a non-union lobbying group?
2) Good luck getting the necessary votes to decertify the UFT. There aren't even enough young teachers to get enough votes, even if they were unanimous in wanting to get rid of it. A general public vote is the only viable way for the public to get rid of it.
1) If you look at history, there are basically two groups that have lobbied for labor rights: churches and organized labor. The former don't really do that anymore.
If there is another alternative, it hasn't developed, and even if it did it would take a long time to get anywhere. At any rate, I'm not interested in discussing all possible worlds here, only the world we have.
2) So you expect workers to get a majority of the public on their side if they want a raise, but apparently getting a majority of whatever labor unit your wife is in to decertify the apparently abominable union is too difficult.
Posts
My friend actually suggested moving the desk. That got shot down by his boss really fast for this exact reason.
Everything you have said here is fair. I guess that since I have heard countless horror stories about unions, like workers who would show up to work drunk, be fired for it, and then show up again a week later because the union got reinstated, and I have seen stubborn unions result in real lasting harm to companies and their workers in the course of my job, they just don't seem like something worth protecting to me. And this is coming from someone whose family is mostly unionized (I even have a family member who was president of a union for many years).
But regardless of personal views, to me, it seems like forcing these union contracts on the tax payers, at potentially great cost, doesn't make a lot of sense. For example, the private sector moved on from defined benefit plans years ago because of the huge costs associated with them, yet we as the tax payers are stuck paying for them indefinitely? Doesn't seem right to me.
As for the metal desk, what never gets mentioned is the flip side of that coin, where businesses transfer additional duties to an employee without any added compensation, and pocket the increase in productivity.
You keep saying this over and over again. It does not happen. The contracts are contracts. Consensual, severable, agreements between parties. Force is not involved. Don't want your local or state or federal government to be able to agree to contracts, or to have the contracts they are currently involved in enforced? That's a pretty extreme view.
The only consistent claim I see here is that the agreements themselves are onerous.
You don't like that the government is keeping it's agreements while the private sector long ago figured out how to unilaterally get out of them without having to pay up?
There are plenty of examples of governments, where those governments get to unilaterally make changes to the agreements they enter into. It's just they're seldom called "Democracies, or Republics."
Especially amongst large successful companies, pensions still exist, but they disappear as you go lower in the org. Pensions still exist for Upper management almost everywhere. Many places still have pensions for middle management. Some few places have pensions for supervisors.
Europe and in Industrialized Asia pensions are gone for the same reason most buisness don't provide health care.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
The contracts were made in a rigged system and should therefor be invalid.
I do not know if this is true but that is the general argument I have seen against public sector unions. It could probably apply to many contracts given out to private companies by the government where the officials are corrupted by past or future business associations but I do not see many people calling for the invalidation of existing Halliburton contracts and the seizure of their profits made during the Iraq war.
Could you explain the first point? Once assets go into a plan, they generally can not be returned to the company, per the "exclusive benefit rule." The rules for defined benefit plans are complex, administration is onerous and expensive, and the risk of good intentioned foot faults which can result in potentially serious penalties is high.
I'm not sure that I see the harm in having the wood worker carry the metal desk. He is still getting paid on an hourly basis, presumably. If the result is that we eliminate jobs that weren't really needed but for the rules in their contracts, I am ok with that.
That same dynamic doesn't exist in the private sector, where company officials are only answerable to shareholders.
Rigorous Scholarship
I read through this thread again, and I don't think that I have been inconsistent. To clear up any confusion, I will lay out what I see as the argument against public unions.
1. Collective Bargaining Agreements (public and private) are generally very large scale contracts which set out terms of employment and work conditioons in a great level of detail. They are also generally among the hardest contracts to unilaterally terminate (lawfully, pursuant to their terms, not to breach), because unlike most contracts which do permit either party to end them with a notice period, CBAs do not usually include provisions permitting either side to end them without the other side's consent.
2. Every aspect of government action should be subject to direct or indirect voter action. Therefore, the government should not bind itself in ways that cannot be changed through the democratic process.
3. Because CBAs are wide ranging, have a long term, affect many employees (if not an entire class of worker, like police, fire fighters or teachers) and cannot normally be ended without the agreement of the union, they limit the ability of the government to take action through the democratic process during their term. While other contracts are also binding for their terms, they do not normally cover such a large number of employees, and are normally susceptible to unilateral termination by either party.
Put another way, the state should not take any major action which sets policy with respect to an entire policy arena, such as teacher pay/evaluations, which it cannot reverse if the public wants a change. So, while there may not be functional differences between public and private unions (and if we are being honest, private unions actually have more power than public in most states) the nature of unions is ill suited to the public sphere because of those shared properties.
You may say this is mere semantics, but a company cannot actually maintain a traditional defined benefit plan for upper tier people, without violating the anti discrimination requirements in the tax code. That said, lots of companies provide other types of qualified plans (such as cash balance plans, which can be aggregated with 401(k) plans for testing purposes) or nonqualified deferred compensation plans to upper tier employees. Another thing you may have encountered is companies where the non-union employees have a pension, but the union employees do not (this is permissible under the tax code). Yet another possibility is that the plan has been frozen to new participants, and only management or higher level employees would have been around long enough to be grandfathered in.
The number of active pension plans available to new participants has been in a free fall since the 80's. This is outdated, but the chart on the first page is a good illustration: http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_relations/news_events/0707_latimes-pension.pdf
And the attacks are no idle threat. It seems like the UFT (NY teachers union) is prepared to burn the world (and Bloomberg) down over the performance evaluation system, which has to be implemented to keep the schools from losing tens of millions in grants. But when it comes to actually helping members solve problems, they're nowhere to be found (at least that has been my wife's experience with them).
That sends a pretty strong message to any public official who dares stand up to the teachers' union.
Rigorous Scholarship
Can't really fault the teachers for not wanting her to stay in office.
you obviously have no experience being on the other side of the table against a union.
im an attorney, and i can tell you right now, not all contracts are the same, or even in the same ball park. some contracts require arbitration in front of a union friendly arbitrator called, (sinisterly) "the office of the impartial chairperson". isnt that hilarious? they have to put the word "impartial" in there to make sure you know they're impartial and not at all union friendly. and of course all their decisions are strictly confidential. i'd wager 1000 to 1 that 90%+ of their decisions fall in the union's favor. but it's a black box. no one will ever know. and the unions will never let you sit in front of a regular judge or even the american arbitration association, because they aren't impartial enough i assume. it's like something straight out of 1984.
spacekungfuman is pretty much right on target regarding union agreements. it is impossible to get out of them. force is not only involved (i.e., strikes) it is standard operating procedure.
i dont really have anything to say specifically about public vs. private sector unions. in my experience dealing with unions, i find that they are terrible and lead to a mentality of underachievement, foot dragging and featherbedding.
wait what? are you actually trying to defend this practice (i.e., "i can't plug this machine in, because that machine can only be operated by the metal worker's union")?
also, i think you need to rethink how businesses work. employees aren't partners. they put in no capital, they take no risk, hence they don't share in the profit. if they want to share in the return, then they should share in the risk also. it's not that hard to do that. how about this: instead of receiving a wage, why don't you just ask for equity instead. then you can share in the profits like every other partner. i would love if my employees asked for equity instead of wages. it would make them more invested in the business and probably question why we use the union in the first place. they'd have to deal with the ups and downs of business though.
i think the most illustrative point about unions is that even people who are heavily, heavily pro-union will never hire a union contractor if they have to pay for it out of their own pocket. the union representative for my building just recently decided to use a non-union company to do his own apartment's terrace work. he told me the union bid was 3 times higher even though he was providing all the materials himself. we laughed about it. cognitive dissonance and all that.
last union story from me: i was working with a non-profit organization that was trying to reintegrate lightly mentally disabled individuals into the work place. the organization wanted to provide various individuals to us as paid interns to learn the basics of the job. then after 6 months, they would be released into the market with at least some useful skills. no one at our company would be replaced or even given more work. they would just be shadowed for 6 months. the union killed the program before it could start because they didn't want to increase the labor pool.
i have difficulty sympathizing with unions because i have too much experience with them.
Number of strikes and/or work stoppages since 1950:
I have never had a union I was up against strike, but they always threaten to do it, and in the end, you come to a compromise to avoid it. Strikes are bad PR, and obviously work stoppages of any kind hurt the bottom line, so you agree with a gun to your head. Also, they will picket you without a strike or labor stoppage, which, again is bad PR.
I'm failing to see what the problem here is.
Well, first off, if you are not a salaried employee, then you can bring an unfair labor practices claim against the company, and if the practice is widespread, you can bring a class action. If you are an executive, there is a good chance that you can quit for "good reason" meaning that you can quit over being assigned tasks inconsistent with your job and still get severance. But let's assume you are salaried, and you are fired for refusing. You may collect some severance if it is offered, but you will definitely have access to unemployment, and can look for another job. That said, being fired for refusing to do something once would be very unusual. If it is more that the nature of your job is changing into something you don't like, then it is up to you to decide if you want to stay and work under those new parameters or not.
If a company negotiates hard with its union (and remember, this negotiation could be over something that may literally bankrupt the company over a long enough time frame, like retiree medical obligations) and the union strikes, the company may be shut down. In a low margin business, even a short shut down could move your company from black to red. I'm not saying that there is neccesarily a moral difference here, but the sense of scale is very different, and I think that matters.
That post was in response to the graph saying that unions don't strike. I was just sharing my experience that even though actual strikes are rare, the threat of a strike is still very real, and frequently employed.
That said, I do think the entire tactic of the strike is somewhat surreal, since you may effectively be told that you are not allowed to work (or be paid) anymore because the union is fighting about an issue you may not care about, or may even actively dislike. If you are a young employee who hates seniority, why should you be prohibited from working to protect it?
The owners of our particular chain wanted to lower our 6month raises from 15cents to 10cents, and change our vacations from 2 weeks once we worked a full year to 2 weeks once we worked 1.5years. and a bunch of other things.
The union decided to strike, we all went to the meeting and voted. Well, except for those of us that were working that night, and when we got the call that the union voted to strike, we walked off the job. We ended up being on strike until just before thanksgiving (2 months total). And we got exactly what we wanted. Higher pay raises and the same vacations.
most of the community was actually behind us, bringing us pizza and coffee and subs and things. At least until 9/11. Then we got rotten food thrown at us....
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
For one bad private sector example, the spouse of the owner of Aramark is on the boards of trustees of several universities.
Yes, it's true that if a union strikes hard enough that they can break a company, but what you are apparently too obtuse to realise is that then those people are also out of a job. Strikes may be bad PR (except in this day and age the fucking right wing media has demonised them to the point where the Joe Public thinks of them as just lazy fuckers unwilling to put in an honest day's work, so they no longer are bad PR) but the strikers don't get paid either.
Unions developed for a reason: working conditions were absolute shit and workers were, as a rule, screwed in the ass and left to die destitute. Why the hell would we get rid of them? So that poor corporations that make >$100 million can make a bigger profit? Most REAL small businesses (AKA not the type the Republicans like to pretend exist) don't have a large enough workforce for them to be unionised anyway.
Unions formed because workers were forced into long hours for very little pay while in unsafe conditions. <-NOT hyperbole.
If you're contesting that the corporations of today who gleefully threw the world into the largest recession in near a century are suddenly more moral and fair than the corporations of a couple hundred years ago, well, I have a bridge to sell you.
And here's the rub: public sector employees are at the same risk of abuse. Like I said, popular opinion in Canada of public sector employees, who make less than the private sector, is that they are lazy and overpaid. So when they strike, the public lashes out at them. This same public wouldn't give a shit if the people that put out the fires (literally), take the injured to the hospital, ensure we have clean drinking water and pave our roads were making peanuts because taxes.
Either that, or they'd do the same thing as California and break the bank.
A) How many non-salaried employees know they can do the bolded? How many non-salaried employees can survive being labelled a "troublemaker" in the industry? How many of them can afford the potential fallout, termination, discrimination from management etc.
C) as far as the underlined, one would hope there were smart enough young employees to realize they would eventually be senior employees and that seniority might protect them from being fired and replaced with younger workers who do the same job for less benefits and less profit so as to maximize management bonus structure
I have come to believe that the worst thing that has happened to American Capitalism is not the unions, but the NYSE. Simply because so many decisions are made for short term profits and dividends and less for long-term survival of the company.
Because the union is about making sure all employees get a fair deal, and the older ones don't get fired because they're too expensive. Sometimes you strike about stuff you don't like to help the people who care about it, because when it comes time for the company to try to screw you over, those people have your back.
That's why it's called "Collective Action".
Like everything conservatives hate, it's all about solving a collective action problem.
I am not saying workers should have no protections. I think we should follow the example of most other developed nations and provide protections (hours, working conditions, severance, notice before layoff or termination, etc.) through our employment laws, instead of leaving them to negotiation. At least that way we take the self interest of the union and the employer's desire not to be disadvantaged relative to peer employers out of the equation. And in the public contest, doing it this way ensures that everything stays firmly within the democratic process, since laws are easier to change in response to a voter outcry than a collective bargaining agreement.
A - This is a complaint with the current process and laws. Why shouldn't the answer be to fix the process instead of interposing unions?
B - Of course losing your job is a bad thing (although it could be made much better if we strengthened our labor laws to include mandatory notice in advance of being fired or pay in lieu of notice) but I still think that the scale of a strike or refusal by a union to relax certain terms of the contract is just different, since such actions can destroy the entire company.
C - But not all workers have the same goals in mind. A kid working a part time job at a supermarket would be completely rational in desiring a bump in starting pay in exchange for the elimination of seniority rules. When my wife was teaching, she found time and time again that the union was not interested in helping her with any issues that she faced. It was only concerned with issues it decided were important, like making sure that teachers who sat around reading the paper instead of teaching could not be fired.
I think it was clear from my response that I was saying that the decline of actual strikes does not equate to a decline in the use of coercive bargaining tactics by unions. And even if this wasn't clear to you, does that justify a personal attack?
Why isn't this particular collective action problem better dealt with by passing stronger employment laws to ensure that everyone gets what society determines to be a "fair deal" instead of the current system where workers doing the same work can have wildly different working conditions based on if they work in a union shop or not, and which union they belong to?
"Strength" is kind of a funny term here. From the employer's perspective, a "strong" union that doesn't disadvantage you relative to your peers on employment terms is much better than a "weak" union which imposes all kinds of restrictions, work rules, seniority requirements, etc.
But that is really beside the point. Without unions, we could address working conditions if the voting public supports doing so. And if they don't, and they want to only offer $5 an hour to be a police officer, then I don't see why that isn't what we should do in the public arena. If the results turn out to be bad (which they no doubt would be) then we can course correct. If people don't like being subject to public control, then they should not take public jobs imo.
Because workers don't get to make laws, duh.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Because people don't know about any of this without unions. Unions garner attention for themselves which is necessary because people aren't always going to vote for what's their best long or even short term interest.
The strength and influence of public sector unions when it comes to elections has been mentioned a few times in this thread. If they devoted that influence to pushing for employment laws instead of pursuing their own self interest, maybe we could get somewhere.
Edit: Public (and private) sector unions do push for employment laws. They don't get very far because American unions are weak. They do, however, prevent the repeal of laws that are already on the books.
Edit 2: To give one example of an employment law that labor did manage to pass, California recently decided to require home healthcare workers be paid minimum wage and overtime (they were previously exempted).
Two points: 1) there is no reason we can't have pro worker lobbies which are divorced from the day to day aspects of the management-labor dynamic and 2) the way unions lobby with member dues seems a lot like the "no control over how a corporation I invest in campaigns" issue people seem so upset with under Citizen's United. My wife and I actively hate the teachers union, and would vote to get rid of it if we could, yet her salary went to supporting their self interested lobbying activities all the same.
1) Please, show me an effective example of one.
2) Uh, she can vote to get rid of it. It's called decertification.
The government through statute, laws and executive order when they start a contract they try to start out the contracting process fair. In the middle. The unions start the contracting process on the side of the unions. So any compromise or meeting of minds will be in the favor of the unions. Government service, and acquisition contracts are the same way.
Really? Your wife wants to teach a class size of 50+, with half the resources she's currently given, and less pay? Because without the union I can guarantee that is what would happen
[citation needed]
Before the rise of public unions most public workers were paid approximately jack shit. I don't see why it would be any different today.
Again, I think you need to consider the scale. Contracts with public unions govern every single worker of that class in the state or municipality, for a multi-year term, and are nearly unbreakable. If the government is negotiating a supplier for materials for a highway project, at least it only governs that project.
My wife wanted an effective avenue for protesting things like having kids from other teachers classes put in her room (despite staying on the other teacher's roster) because the other teachers were too busy reading news papers or polishing their toenails (these are real examples) to deal with problem kids. She wanted somewhere to complain about mistakes made in her payroll designation for her first year (they did not credit her for her masters degree). She wanted somewhere to complain about a teacher who gave answers to the state exams to her students. In each of these cases, the union refused to assist her, but the principal (the hated "management") helped her.
Getting rid of the union wont help that, changing the union will. If she hates the way the union is currently run she should try to change that by getting involved with the union. I know this is possible since it's exactly what my grandmother did in the 80's and 90's
1) I don't know if there is one or not, but why would there be a need for them when the unions are collecting mandatory dues to fund their lobbying? Whether they exist or not in a world with unions has no bearing on if they could exist in a world without unions. Are you contending that there is something inherent to labor issues which makes it impossible to have a non-union lobbying group?
2) Good luck getting the necessary votes to decertify the UFT. There aren't even enough young teachers to get enough votes, even if they were unanimous in wanting to get rid of it. A general public vote is the only viable way for the public to get rid of it.
If there is another alternative, it hasn't developed, and even if it did it would take a long time to get anywhere. At any rate, I'm not interested in discussing all possible worlds here, only the world we have.
2) So you expect workers to get a majority of the public on their side if they want a raise, but apparently getting a majority of whatever labor unit your wife is in to decertify the apparently abominable union is too difficult.