Potential solution: Have something like anti-trust regulation for Unions. Unions can enforce mandatory unionization ("We will strike if you hire non union folks") but they cannot force them into their union.
This exists, and it makes unions impotent. It's called 'right to work' and makes union membership strictly voluntary, which makes it impossible to unionize work places and then makes it impossible for pre-existing unionized workplaces to strike.
I think you may be misunderstanding him?
I think he's saying that unions could force a union-only workplace, but nothing is saying that they'd all have to join Bricklayers local 19 if some feel that Stonecutter International #256 makes a better offer.
No, that's exactly what Right to Work laws prevent. Membership of a union or payment of their dues can't be a condition of employment in a right to work state.
no, the idea was that the union would mandate union membership generally, just not in a particular union.
That still doesn't really change anything though, if hypothetical new workers could just join the Do Nothings Local 245
Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the "open shop" rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he or she joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether or not he or she is a member or financial contributor to such a union.
I don't see how that leaves a loophole that would allow an employer to fire non union employees.
One assumes that we're talking about amending taft-hartley to make these changes.
Under this hypothetical framework workers could be compelled to join a union of their choice, just not obligated to join one union exclusively. This would encourage competition among unions to do a good job representing workers, I guess?
Right to work laws are essentially state amendments to the Taft-Hartley act.
Employees covered by state Right to Work laws can not lawfully be required to pay any union fees to keep their jobs. But state Right to Work laws do not protect railway and airline employees and employees of private-sector contractors on some federal properties.
One assumes that we're talking about amending taft-hartley to make these changes.
Under this hypothetical framework workers could be compelled to join a union of their choice, just not obligated to join one union exclusively. This would encourage competition among unions to do a good job representing workers, I guess?
The basic purpose of a union is to represent the workers collectively to management so as to embolden their bargaining power for better ___ in comparison to each member negotiating as an individual. For that to be the case how would having 8 different unions representing the same segment of workers be a good idea? If anything its worse than the conglomerated unions who don't really give a shit about the little shops because now you have a bunch of different unions vying to get a better deal out of management and getting played against each other.
I know, I said this earlier
I'm just trying to explain what I thought the idea was
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'd also challenge your contention that it's unions as opposed to bad products or poor management that has led to the economic malaise in the rustbelt (or anywhere else, really). The unions and the workers don't choose which cars get manufactured or what the specification for some product is going to be. They just make them - to blame the peons for the poor decisions of their employers is kind of unbelievable.
I said unions were partly responsible for the economic malaise in the industrial sector of our economy. Don't get me wrong- management is as much to blame for the collapse of the auto industry, for example.
But, many unions have treated their respective companies as a cash cow for their members, without thinking of the long-term consequences involved in their gold-plated union contracts. The Japanese and German car-makers opened plants in Right to Work States because labor costs were cheaper and unions could not force their plants to become unionized.
And as for the point about the unions not having the power to decide which cars are made, unions have forced various car makers to keep making certain cars because they did not want the respective factories to close. And their contracts have kept unionized American automakers from automating their factories to the same extent as their Japanese and German competitors.
American unions tend to treat management as the enemy (and vice versa) rather than a long-term partner.
But, the American private sector unions are going the way of the dinosaur. The really powerful unions these days are the public-sector ones. And they are becoming even more destructive to the country than the private-sector unions ever were. California is in the shape its in right now in substantial part due to things like the Corrections Officers and Teachers Unions draining the treasury dry.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
A very specific problem we have with the local Teamsters is that they keep upping Health Insurance premiums and such, without increasing benefit. I think they've even dropped benefits or quality or something else in the past as well.
This isn't union specific. Everyone has been getting bit in the ass by health insurance premium increases for over a decade. Even if your union self insures, you'd be feeling the butt rape.
American unions tend to treat management as the enemy (and vice versa) rather than a long-term partner.
Members come to expect it as well. My mother and I work at the same company and she is president of the local there. She has a lot of meetings with management on behalf of her members and gets to know these higher-up people very well. She's had members yell at her because she'll be pleasant or joking with management. They expect her to hate these people instead of trying to facilitate a solution.
Also maybe it's different there, but in general the people in your local are employees of that company, just like you. They just do all this other shit on top of all their own work.
I'm honestly pretty on the fence about unions. I think they do good in keeping managers in line. It's the middle-management people who think they have more power than they do that need to be watched by the unions. The directors and directors general know what they can and can't do, but the little supervisor who was just promoted tends to cross the line quite often. I see my mother working very hard to correct real issues that management creates and how they treat their employees unfairly.
However, I also see asshole members eat away at her soul by making ridiculous demands and complaints. Obviously I can't go into details, but some of the shit I've heard that people think they are entitled to? It's absurd and in a non-unionized workplace these people would be fired for straight up incompetence. It's very frustrating to see, but these people need to be defended too along with those with real complaints.
Also everyone who bitches about a union but gets a yearly raise because of their collective agreement can go fuck themselves.
American unions tend to treat management as the enemy (and vice versa) rather than a long-term partner.
As a disclaimer, the theory in here is mostly pre-internet.
Also, anything even close to an actual "American labor movement" was killed off in the 1930s. The last death throws were destroyed by Reagan.
Yet this is, in my eyes, the crux of the issue. Not to delve too far down into economics, but there is an inherently antagonistic relationship necessary between collective workers and bosses. It is from this tension that money is given it's value. By direct negotiation, a vis-a-vis exchange is created which places a very distinctive "value" on "labor" and directs the productive forces which create surplus value for the bosses.
Again, inherently it is the drive of the bosses to destroy any value that labor holds. necessarily this means that (theoretically) without worker's collective power there would be no value to labor due to the fact that it would create the largest surplus of value for the bosses.
It is, therefore, the place of the collective workers to negotiate a value to labor and to employ their power as a collective workforce to secure said value.
Wal-mart is a great example. Anti-union in order to create the largest surplus value. The "internet age" has screwed with this concept and instead of creating surplus value it simply allows for the "pricing" of goods to be ultra-competitive.
Yet Wal-mart is a misunderstanding. There is a certain "ceiling" of price-points that causes the degradation of surplus value. Wal-mart is able to achieve the highest level of surplus value that is possible under the current market conditions. They are able to do so because of a lack of collective action possible by the non-existence of powerful unions.
Members come to expect it as well. My mother and I work at the same company and she is president of the local there. She has a lot of meetings with management on behalf of her members and gets to know these higher-up people very well. She's had members yell at her because she'll be pleasant or joking with management. They expect her to hate these people instead of trying to facilitate a solution.
What we have here, and what should be blatantly clear, is that unions have lost any actual power over the larger issue of distribution of surplus value. Instead they huddle themselves together and grab at the few powers they still are able to bring to bear: namely contract-based "bargaining" and labor law.
So it's no surprise that unions are "unnecessary". They cease to be necessary the moment you take on a non-antagonistic approach. They go from being an expression of the collective, working-class economic interest to an extension of the bosses' search for excess value. Every worker in a factory becomes a larger entity, a being with arms and legs and a head, when engaged in collective action. The bosses have won the greatest achievement over the working class in neutering unions and becoming the "head" that directs the powers of labor toward the interest of the ruling class.
I do not mean to denigrate the small works that unions continue to provide for their members, and on a practical level they provide protection and bargaining that a single, or even a handful of workers would be unable to achieve.
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Of late I am a big fan of analyzing behavior primarily through analyzing incentives. We can throw this whole question away just by saying "there are good and bad companies, and there are good and bad unions." However, although I am no expert, I tend to think that the incentives involved, while they vary greatly from one instution to the next, overall seem to promote corruption within unions moreso than corruption within management.
Unions have incentive to try to get more money from you, use their leverage for poltiical power, etc. But generally they have no incentive to actually help you. Well, except to prevent you from getting fired, because then that is less dues for them. Companies on the other hand have to at least pay you wages, and from there usually understand at least some incentive to help you be a happier worker.
And unions focus on minimum wage because union contracts are often written as a multiple of minimum wage.
The idea that management will always try to screw you voer any way they can, while union bosses are there to help you out of the goodness of their heart, is a wholly illogical analysis of human behavior.
Of late I am a big fan of analyzing behavior primarily through analyzing incentives. We can throw this whole question away just by saying "there are good and bad companies, and there are good and bad unions." However, although I am no expert, I tend to think that the incentives involved, while they vary greatly from one instution to the next, overall seem to promote corruption within unions moreso than corruption within management.
Unions have incentive to try to get more money from you, use their leverage for poltiical power, etc. But generally they have no incentive to actually help you. Well, except to prevent you from getting fired, because then that is less dues for them. Companies on the other hand have to at least pay you wages, and from there usually understand at least some incentive to help you be a happier worker.
And unions focus on minimum wage because union contracts are often written as a multiple of minimum wage.
The idea that management will always try to screw you voer any way they can, while union bosses are there to help you out of the goodness of their heart, is a wholly illogical analysis of human behavior.
Companies have the incentive of maximizing profits. Your welfare comes second. Unions are designed around protecting the employee. If they don't do their job, they aren't reelected to be your representative. That's their incentive. Your incentives criteria can be used and come to a completely opposite conclusion.
Again, most of the people who you deal with in your union are not paid extra for their services. While their motives may not be solely altruistic, it's not like the union is a scheming overreaching entity out to steal the money from your pockets. And it's not like management is doing everything they can at all times for their employees at the cost of business.
It's not nearly as simple a relationship as you are implying.
I thought I took great lengths not to convey that it is just a simple good-and-evil / yes-or-no issue, but I guess I failed to communicate that. Either way my point is that your concept of "designed around" doesn't make it so, whereas many people just assume it does. Unions are supposed to help me, ergo they do. Again, at least your employer makes good on depositing a chunk of dough in your bank every week and doesn't actively try to prevent you from working somewhere else without their blessing. From there, usually msot of them know that they will make more money by making you a happy worker. With unions, the incentives aren't so clear. You talk of re-election, but if it isn't a paid job, why is that an incentive? Often there is an incentive, one that is not in the employee's best interest, and getting re-elected becomes a political sideshow.
Lets not forget that US unions have suffered under the stigma of being "comunist" for a long time. When Somebody calls you in effect a traitor it sets the tone for the relationship.
People forget that the majority of those draged in front of the Un-American affairs committe where union reps. Often accused by their own managment.
Its also a fact that a lot of the benefits a union provides in the US like Health care and pensions are a much smaller part of union activity in other countries. In Europe for example its a vanishingly small part. This creates a much more cordial relationship between managment and union.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Lets not forget that US unions have suffered under the stigma of being "comunist" for a long time. When Somebody calls you in effect a traitor it sets the tone for the relationship.
People forget that the majority of those draged in front of the Un-American affairs committe where union reps. Often accused by their own managment.
Its also a fact that a lot of the benefits a union provides in the US like Health care and pensions are a much smaller part of union activity in other countries. In Europe for example its a vanishingly small part. This creates a much more cordial relationship between managment and union.
Unions in the US, since 1930, have been nothing more than the working-class arm of the bosses industry apparatus. Reagan killed the remains during his time as POTUS.
Take a look at 1970's Italy, or Greece, currently, for a better idea of the function and ability of organized workers collectives.
Disclaimer:
I'm a Rep for a Canadian Union. I work my full time job with my employer, and then I work even more hours unpaid for the union. I'm picking out points I've noticed in this thread and offering my opinion from that perspective.
1. My Union Sucks! All of the execs are just fat cats making me pay dues and I don't get jack shit!
I really don't understand this very common complaint. I get it, there are some shitty unions out there, but who's fault is that? YOU are your union. If you do not like your union leadership. CHANGE IT. And don't say you can't change the way people vote. You get your vote out. Talk to your co-workers, explain what your issues are and see if they agree. Get them to come to general meetings. Hell, GO to general meetings.
I had a friend who thought her union did nothing, but she had NEVER been to a union meeting in her life.
2. Ya but, I only work 15 hours a week & I pay X dollars in dues but I don't get my medical benefits.
Now, every union, and in most cases, every local has a different contract with their employer. That contract is negotiated with the union and the employer. Every single "Benefit" in your contract costs something. most of the time, out of future wage increases. and sometimes (Read: a lot of the time) a lot of the wants of the general membership are unattainable. Benefits are EXPENSIVE. and it's quite possible the employer would not move on paying for very part time employees benefits when they are only getting 15 hours a week out of you.
3. Well, what the hell are my dues paying for then if not for me to have super awesome benefits?
Your dues pay for lots of things. the major things are the ability to negotiate a contract, enforce said contract, and strike fund ( ie. strike pay)
It also covers things like paying dues to a national union (which helps in turn with strike pay, paying for awesome lawyers when the need arises, and paying the wages of the full time national reps who are there to assist your local with it's tougher issues.
4. I still don't want to be forced to be in a union! I don't like them.
That's your choice and that's fine. You are never FORCED to be in a union. Oh it's a closed shop? (ie. joining the union is a condition of employment) then get a job SOMEPLACE ELSE. there are LOTS of non-unionized jobs out there. get one and quit bitching about it.
5. My union doesn't train the employee's and we all suck
Union's Job: Negotiate a Contract on behalf of it's members and enforce said contract.
Not Union's Job: Train people how to do their job, provide advice & guidance, manage, ect.
(note: this could be different in a trades environment, but I have never worked in once so I am unsure)
6. My co-workers are all shlubs! they should all have been fired ages ago.
In most cases, it's not hard to fire somebody under a union contract.
Example:
I'm late for work by 5 min every day.
My boss gives me a warning and a chance to improve the behavior
I'm late again next week
My boss gives me a letter of discipline
I'm late again the next day
My Boss gives me a suspension
I come back to work again, late
My boss terminates my employment.
Ta Da! Yes, it takes a little longer, but it can be done. It's to give employees the chance to improve instead of just tossing them on their ass.
If however, management just lets people get away with being shlubs. It's not the union's place to do managements job for them. If you don't like the fact that your co-workers are shlubs, talk to your manager.
7. My union doesn't DO anything
Are you sure? most of the members in my local never see us. they go about their days with only a once a month letter with the general meeting minutes as their only contact with us. Many never come to the genral meetings to find out what the general state of affairs, or even to vote.
Also, many either have no issues in their workplace, or never even read their collective agreement to realize they are being screwed, or they just never come to us with their complaint.
Be that as it may, we work our asses off for the people who need us and come to us for help. people who are being bullied and harassed, people who are sick or disabled and may need a work place accommodation so they can keep working, or even somebody who gets unjustly terminated. These are the people who see us most and see how hard we are all working in our free time for them.
So make sure you really know what's going on with your union before you sit back and say they don't do anything just because you can't see them.
Ok, that's all i can handle this early in the morning with no tea. blerg.
SmallLady on
"we're just doing what smalllady told us to do" - @Heels
Companies have the incentive of maximizing profits. Your welfare comes second. Unions are designed around protecting the employee. If they don't do their job, they aren't reelected to be your representative. That's their incentive. Your incentives criteria can be used and come to a completely opposite conclusion.
Again, most of the people who you deal with in your union are not paid extra for their services. While their motives may not be solely altruistic, it's not like the union is a scheming overreaching entity out to steal the money from your pockets. And it's not like management is doing everything they can at all times for their employees at the cost of business.
It's not nearly as simple a relationship as you are implying.
Bold lime for so much truth. My friends complain I work to much. what's a weekend again?
SmallLady on
"we're just doing what smalllady told us to do" - @Heels
If however, management just lets people get away with being shlubs. It's not the union's place to do managements job for them. If you don't like the fact that your co-workers are shlubs, talk to your manager.
This isn't that uncommon, union or no. The current situation makes it very difficult to fire people in the first place. Even if you have proper documentation, a terminated person can still cause a lot of trouble for a business if they want to. I interned at a telecom for a semester, and I saw some crap I just did not believe. The manager I talked to at my exit interview for it said that it's hard to find people better than a lot of the people they have now, and getting rid of some of the people they have now just wouldn't be worth the trouble of trying to deal with the bureaucracy.
Disclaimer:
I'm a Rep for a Canadian Union. I work my full time job with my employer, and then I work even more hours unpaid for the union. I'm picking out points I've noticed in this thread and offering my opinion from that perspective.
Nice post. You said everything I wanted to say better than I could have!
I think the only thing that puts me on the fence about unions is that it really is difficult to fire incompetent people. You forgot the steps where people are transferred to other divisions, they are put on lengthy probationary periods, the person in question usually files a grievance against their supervisor saying that they are being "bullied" or picked on.
These are the people I can't stand because it takes the union rep's time away from those with real issues. The ones who file grievance after grievance after grievance. It sucks that eventually they can't be told to just fuck off and do their goddamn job.
EDIT: Well maybe if it's in non-unionized workplaces as well, then there needs to be a thread about the inability to easily fire people.
4. I still don't want to be forced to be in a union! I don't like them.
That's your choice and that's fine. You are never FORCED to be in a union. Oh it's a closed shop? (ie. joining the union is a condition of employment) then get a job SOMEPLACE ELSE. there are LOTS of non-unionized jobs out there. get one and quit bitching about it.
This kills me, and I'm kind of amazed you'd write it.
The standard argument against unions is that if you don't like your pay and benefits, go work somewhere else. You aren't being forced to work there. And at least the free market doesn't have such things as "closed shops" so you actually can go work somewhere else.
You have a lot of good points in your post, but this one is completely against any acceptable reason, and you probably need a better justification for why someone should be forced to join a union in order to work a certain job.
That's your choice and that's fine. You are never FORCED to be in a union. Oh it's a closed shop? (ie. joining the union is a condition of employment) then get a job SOMEPLACE ELSE. there are LOTS of non-unionized jobs out there. get one and quit bitching about it.
This comment is a little disingenuous. Unions have spent a lot of effort trying to create as many closed shop workplaces as possible. For a union rep to make the freedom of choice argument with regards to employment is hypocritical since, if it was up to unions, everyone would be required to join a union as a condition of employment.
If certain people in a workplace want to unionize, so be it. The rest of the workers shouldn't be forced to make the decision between joining the union or quitting their job.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I don't see why it's disingenuous to say people have a choice.
Do I want all working people to have decent jobs with a livable wage? Yes
Hell, do I want non working people and children to not live in abject poverty? Hell yes
Do I realistily think that every employer in Canada will be unionized in my lifetime? No
Do I want to listen to people bitching waaa waaa I don't want to be in a union waaaa? NO! I don't. Frankly, I work my damn ass off for people. many of them appreciate the hard work I do. and they are why I do it.
But if somebody is going to whine and complain about, go work at mcdonalds or google and be happy with your choices.
However, If somebody has genuine concerns about how things in their union are run and want to make it better. I'll talk and help to the best of my ability.
SmallLady on
"we're just doing what smalllady told us to do" - @Heels
I don't see why it's disingenuous to say people have a choice.
Do I want all working people to have decent jobs with a livable wage? Yes
Hell, do I want non working people and children to not live in abject poverty? Hell yes
Do I realistily think that every employer in Canada will be unionized in my lifetime? No
Do I want to listen to people bitching waaa waaa I don't want to be in a union waaaa? NO! I don't. Frankly, I work my damn ass off for people. many of them appreciate the hard work I do. and they are why I do it.
But if somebody is going to whine and complain about, go work at mcdonalds or google and be happy with your choices.
However, If somebody has genuine concerns about how things in their union are run and want to make it better. I'll talk and help to the best of my ability.
The real labor movement is weeping in its shallow grave.
You have a lot of good points in your post, but this one is completely against any acceptable reason, and you probably need a better justification for why someone should be forced to join a union in order to work a certain job.
How about "you're not a fucking special snowflake, so get over yourself?"
The people at that job have decided to unionize, to get the benefits of collective bargaining. This is a decision that they made collectively, and thus they all hold up to it collectively. You're not some special snowflake who gets to come in and say "hey, I don't like your decision, and I should have the right to tell you all to go fuck off."
You have a lot of good points in your post, but this one is completely against any acceptable reason, and you probably need a better justification for why someone should be forced to join a union in order to work a certain job.
How about "you're not a fucking special snowflake, so get over yourself?"
The people at that job have decided to unionize, to get the benefits of collective bargaining. This is a decision that they made collectively, and thus they all hold up to it collectively. You're not some special snowflake who gets to come in and say "hey, I don't like your decision, and I should have the right to tell you all to go fuck off."
Or, more to the point, a union loses it's power when members of the labor category break ranks. Why hire union when you can hire non-union? One is an obviously better choice for an employer than the other.
I don't see why it's disingenuous to say people have a choice.
Really? You don't? I mean as soon as you have to say 'you DO have a choice, so if you don't like your union go work for mcdonalds!' alarm bells aren't going off in your head?
"quit and work somewhere else if you don't like it" is the rallying cry used to justify all sorts of employer abuse. I'm shocked to hear it from someone who apparently represents a union.
The people at that job have decided to unionize, to get the benefits of collective bargaining. This is a decision that they made collectively, and thus they all hold up to it collectively. You're not some special snowflake who gets to come in and say "hey, I don't like your decision, and I should have the right to tell you all to go fuck off."
In that situation, the person who does not want to be in a union isn't telling the members of the union to do anything. They're still free to unionize, they're just not free to force others into their union.
The union members, on the other hand, are the ones telling people "either join our union, or find work elsewhere."
Frankly, that attitude is why a lot of Southern States passed Right to Work laws in order to protect the freedoms of their workers.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
The people at that job have decided to unionize, to get the benefits of collective bargaining. This is a decision that they made collectively, and thus they all hold up to it collectively. You're not some special snowflake who gets to come in and say "hey, I don't like your decision, and I should have the right to tell you all to go fuck off."
In that situation, the person who does not want to be in a union isn't telling the members of the union to do anything. They're still free to unionize, they're just not free to force others into their union.
The union members, on the other hand, are the ones telling people "either join our union, or find work elsewhere."
Frankly, that attitude is why a lot of Southern States passed Right to Work laws in order to protect the freedoms of their workers.
The company signed that contract, too.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I don't see why it's disingenuous to say people have a choice.
Really? You don't? I mean as soon as you have to say 'you DO have a choice, so if you don't like your union go work for mcdonalds!' alarm bells aren't going off in your head?
"quit and work somewhere else if you don't like it" is the rallying cry used to justify all sorts of employer abuse. I'm shocked to hear it from someone who apparently represents a union.
Sorry, clearly my lack of sleep is getting to me.
To clairfy, this is the senario I'm talking about.
John Doe wants a job.
John Doe does not want to be in a union.
John Doe can go get a job at a non unionized work site like mcdonlds or google or toyota or microsoft or small family run business as examples
If you really want to work for that unioized lock smith, then you may have to accept the fact that you will be unionized. (again, talking about non "right to work" environment) and If you dont' like the way your union is run or you think it sucks, you have the power to change it.
SmallLady on
"we're just doing what smalllady told us to do" - @Heels
I don't see why it's disingenuous to say people have a choice.
Really? You don't? I mean as soon as you have to say 'you DO have a choice, so if you don't like your union go work for mcdonalds!' alarm bells aren't going off in your head?
"quit and work somewhere else if you don't like it" is the rallying cry used to justify all sorts of employer abuse. I'm shocked to hear it from someone who apparently represents a union.
Sorry, clearly my lack of sleep is getting to me.
To clairfy, this is the senario I'm talking about.
John Doe wants a job.
John Doe does not want to be in a union.
John Doe can go get a job at a non unionized work site like mcdonlds or google or toyota or microsoft or small family run business as examples
If you really want to work for that unioized lock smith, then you may have to accept the fact that you will be unionized. (again, talking about non "right to work" environment) and If you dont' like the way your union is run or you think it sucks, you have the power to change it.
That seems pretty revolting to me.
Take your labor cartel and shove it.
I don't need a home owners association running my work life.
I don't see why it's disingenuous to say people have a choice.
Really? You don't? I mean as soon as you have to say 'you DO have a choice, so if you don't like your union go work for mcdonalds!' alarm bells aren't going off in your head?
"quit and work somewhere else if you don't like it" is the rallying cry used to justify all sorts of employer abuse. I'm shocked to hear it from someone who apparently represents a union.
Sorry, clearly my lack of sleep is getting to me.
To clairfy, this is the senario I'm talking about.
John Doe wants a job.
John Doe does not want to be in a union.
John Doe can go get a job at a non unionized work site like mcdonlds or google or toyota or microsoft or small family run business as examples
If you really want to work for that unioized lock smith, then you may have to accept the fact that you will be unionized. (again, talking about non "right to work" environment) and If you dont' like the way your union is run or you think it sucks, you have the power to change it.
That seems pretty revolting to me.
Take your labor cartel and shove it.
I don't need a home owners association running my work life.
fortunately, they don't get to unless you let them!
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The people at that job have decided to unionize, to get the benefits of collective bargaining. This is a decision that they made collectively, and thus they all hold up to it collectively. You're not some special snowflake who gets to come in and say "hey, I don't like your decision, and I should have the right to tell you all to go fuck off."
In that situation, the person who does not want to be in a union isn't telling the members of the union to do anything. They're still free to unionize, they're just not free to force others into their union.
The union members, on the other hand, are the ones telling people "either join our union, or find work elsewhere."
Frankly, that attitude is why a lot of Southern States passed Right to Work laws in order to protect the freedoms of their workers.
Yeah.... don't think so.
They passed it so they could engage in divide and conquer on workers. More specificaly minority workers that had been exluded from union activity in the past. Its technicaly illegal to fire somebody for joining a union, but in right to work states its common.
Plus Unions have worked hard, sacrifices a lot to get the benefits they do. Some Johnny come lately like Yar is supposed to be able walz in and reap the reward from their struggle? Thats being a free-riding parasite.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
fortunately, they don't get to unless you let them!
Unless I need the job, then I'm pretty much fucked eh?
I think there is something to be said for collective labor organizations promoting freedom from want, but it's a dicey proposition on which side the real increase in personal freedom lays when you are forced into an association because of the trade you practice.
John Doe wants a job.
John Doe does not want to be in a [unsafe work environment].
John Doe can go get a job at a [safe] work site like mcdonlds or google or toyota or microsoft or small family run business as examples
If you really want to work for that [company with an unsafe work environment], then you may have to accept the fact that you will be [in an unsafe work environment]. (again, talking about non [OSHA regulated] environment) and If you dont' like the way your [company] is run or you think it sucks, you have the power to [go elsewhere].
This is what people are talking about about when they say this argument is identical to what was used by employers in the pre-union age. The one thing that invalidates this comparison is that union employees at least get a vote to alter the course of their union, but the nature of union politics can be discouraging.
EDIT: oh man, somebody mentioned the California teacher's union. I had a teacher who made 150k. He was the worst mathematics instructor I have ever seen anywhere, ever, and everyone at that school knew it. They spent a decade trying to fire him (he'd been working there for thirty years before they tried to fire him, so he was somewhat... entrenched). This is obviously a huge outlier case, probably with extenuating circumstances that I as a student was not privy to, but I recall several administrators (and TEACHERS) complaining about him in my presence, which goes to show how extreme the situation was.
And for clarity, I don't think 150k is an unreasonable amount for a teacher to make, necessarily, but when his peers are making 40k and he is literally the worst teacher in the school I think something is fucked. Just because a guy has been working for forty years doesn't mean he's worth more than three times his peers.
fortunately, they don't get to unless you let them!
Unless I need the job, then I'm pretty much fucked eh?
I think there is something to be said for collective labor organizations promoting freedom from want, but it's a dicey proposition on which side the real increase in personal freedom lays when you are forced into an association because of the trade you practice.
How tragic that work is not immediately available that conforms perfectly to your moral and economic wants/needs.
It's mildly ironic you bring "personal freedom" into this, too. You also have the freedom to starve to death for your convictions, if you want.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Frankly, that attitude is why a lot of Southern States passed Right to Work laws in order to protect the freedoms of their workers.
Heh. You know, I've got a bridge in New York that I'm looking to offload cheap - care to make a deal?
If you honestly believe that southern states passed right to work laws to protect workers, you're delusional to the point of schizophrenia. They were passed to increase the power of employers, which has always been a big thing in the South.
And finally, it's nice to note that you're really into majority rule when it comes down to denying rights to homosexuals, but when it comes to workers standing up for their interests, you think they should go take a hike. Sort of telling there, don't you think?
fortunately, they don't get to unless you let them!
Unless I need the job, then I'm pretty much fucked eh?
I think there is something to be said for collective labor organizations promoting freedom from want, but it's a dicey proposition on which side the real increase in personal freedom lays when you are forced into an association because of the trade you practice.
How tragic that work is not immediately available that conforms perfectly to your moral and economic wants/needs.
It's mildly ironic you bring "personal freedom" into this, too. You also have the freedom to starve to death for your convictions, if you want.
This is the problem with American economics. Our default position is "screw you", not, like, "hey, you need a job and an income".
fortunately, they don't get to unless you let them!
Unless I need the job, then I'm pretty much fucked eh?
I think there is something to be said for collective labor organizations promoting freedom from want, but it's a dicey proposition on which side the real increase in personal freedom lays when you are forced into an association because of the trade you practice.
Corporations have a say in your work life, more so then the unions. Are you saying its okay for corporations to determine how,when and where you work but not unions?
And remember Unions are there to counteract the power your employer has over you at work. Like you know 18 hours shifts and sudden wage cuts.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
To clairfy, this is the senario I'm talking about.
John Doe wants a job.
John Doe does not want to be in a union.
John Doe can go get a job at a non unionized work site like mcdonlds or google or toyota or microsoft or small family run business as examples
That scenario is bad enough and I'm surprised any reasonable person can support such blatant discrimination in hiring. I wonder if you would be so supportive of a workplace that required new employees to join a church as a condition of employment?
But, the even worse scenario is where you have a previously non-union workplace where a union organizes the workers. Do you really not have a problem with everyone in the workplace being told that their only options are to join the union (and thereby be forced to pay dues) or quit? You're basically admitting that you think you know what's best for the people who don't want to join the union.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Posts
Right to work laws are essentially state amendments to the Taft-Hartley act.
I know, I said this earlier
I'm just trying to explain what I thought the idea was
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
But, many unions have treated their respective companies as a cash cow for their members, without thinking of the long-term consequences involved in their gold-plated union contracts. The Japanese and German car-makers opened plants in Right to Work States because labor costs were cheaper and unions could not force their plants to become unionized.
And as for the point about the unions not having the power to decide which cars are made, unions have forced various car makers to keep making certain cars because they did not want the respective factories to close. And their contracts have kept unionized American automakers from automating their factories to the same extent as their Japanese and German competitors.
American unions tend to treat management as the enemy (and vice versa) rather than a long-term partner.
But, the American private sector unions are going the way of the dinosaur. The really powerful unions these days are the public-sector ones. And they are becoming even more destructive to the country than the private-sector unions ever were. California is in the shape its in right now in substantial part due to things like the Corrections Officers and Teachers Unions draining the treasury dry.
Rigorous Scholarship
This isn't union specific. Everyone has been getting bit in the ass by health insurance premium increases for over a decade. Even if your union self insures, you'd be feeling the butt rape.
Members come to expect it as well. My mother and I work at the same company and she is president of the local there. She has a lot of meetings with management on behalf of her members and gets to know these higher-up people very well. She's had members yell at her because she'll be pleasant or joking with management. They expect her to hate these people instead of trying to facilitate a solution.
Also maybe it's different there, but in general the people in your local are employees of that company, just like you. They just do all this other shit on top of all their own work.
I'm honestly pretty on the fence about unions. I think they do good in keeping managers in line. It's the middle-management people who think they have more power than they do that need to be watched by the unions. The directors and directors general know what they can and can't do, but the little supervisor who was just promoted tends to cross the line quite often. I see my mother working very hard to correct real issues that management creates and how they treat their employees unfairly.
However, I also see asshole members eat away at her soul by making ridiculous demands and complaints. Obviously I can't go into details, but some of the shit I've heard that people think they are entitled to? It's absurd and in a non-unionized workplace these people would be fired for straight up incompetence. It's very frustrating to see, but these people need to be defended too along with those with real complaints.
Also everyone who bitches about a union but gets a yearly raise because of their collective agreement can go fuck themselves.
As a disclaimer, the theory in here is mostly pre-internet.
Also, anything even close to an actual "American labor movement" was killed off in the 1930s. The last death throws were destroyed by Reagan.
Yet this is, in my eyes, the crux of the issue. Not to delve too far down into economics, but there is an inherently antagonistic relationship necessary between collective workers and bosses. It is from this tension that money is given it's value. By direct negotiation, a vis-a-vis exchange is created which places a very distinctive "value" on "labor" and directs the productive forces which create surplus value for the bosses.
Again, inherently it is the drive of the bosses to destroy any value that labor holds. necessarily this means that (theoretically) without worker's collective power there would be no value to labor due to the fact that it would create the largest surplus of value for the bosses.
It is, therefore, the place of the collective workers to negotiate a value to labor and to employ their power as a collective workforce to secure said value.
Wal-mart is a great example. Anti-union in order to create the largest surplus value. The "internet age" has screwed with this concept and instead of creating surplus value it simply allows for the "pricing" of goods to be ultra-competitive.
Yet Wal-mart is a misunderstanding. There is a certain "ceiling" of price-points that causes the degradation of surplus value. Wal-mart is able to achieve the highest level of surplus value that is possible under the current market conditions. They are able to do so because of a lack of collective action possible by the non-existence of powerful unions.
What we have here, and what should be blatantly clear, is that unions have lost any actual power over the larger issue of distribution of surplus value. Instead they huddle themselves together and grab at the few powers they still are able to bring to bear: namely contract-based "bargaining" and labor law.
So it's no surprise that unions are "unnecessary". They cease to be necessary the moment you take on a non-antagonistic approach. They go from being an expression of the collective, working-class economic interest to an extension of the bosses' search for excess value. Every worker in a factory becomes a larger entity, a being with arms and legs and a head, when engaged in collective action. The bosses have won the greatest achievement over the working class in neutering unions and becoming the "head" that directs the powers of labor toward the interest of the ruling class.
I do not mean to denigrate the small works that unions continue to provide for their members, and on a practical level they provide protection and bargaining that a single, or even a handful of workers would be unable to achieve.
You are stuck with a bad one. Sorry.
I'm just lucky to have a good one I guess.
Unions have incentive to try to get more money from you, use their leverage for poltiical power, etc. But generally they have no incentive to actually help you. Well, except to prevent you from getting fired, because then that is less dues for them. Companies on the other hand have to at least pay you wages, and from there usually understand at least some incentive to help you be a happier worker.
And unions focus on minimum wage because union contracts are often written as a multiple of minimum wage.
The idea that management will always try to screw you voer any way they can, while union bosses are there to help you out of the goodness of their heart, is a wholly illogical analysis of human behavior.
Companies have the incentive of maximizing profits. Your welfare comes second. Unions are designed around protecting the employee. If they don't do their job, they aren't reelected to be your representative. That's their incentive. Your incentives criteria can be used and come to a completely opposite conclusion.
Again, most of the people who you deal with in your union are not paid extra for their services. While their motives may not be solely altruistic, it's not like the union is a scheming overreaching entity out to steal the money from your pockets. And it's not like management is doing everything they can at all times for their employees at the cost of business.
It's not nearly as simple a relationship as you are implying.
People forget that the majority of those draged in front of the Un-American affairs committe where union reps. Often accused by their own managment.
Its also a fact that a lot of the benefits a union provides in the US like Health care and pensions are a much smaller part of union activity in other countries. In Europe for example its a vanishingly small part. This creates a much more cordial relationship between managment and union.
Unions in the US, since 1930, have been nothing more than the working-class arm of the bosses industry apparatus. Reagan killed the remains during his time as POTUS.
Take a look at 1970's Italy, or Greece, currently, for a better idea of the function and ability of organized workers collectives.
I'm a Rep for a Canadian Union. I work my full time job with my employer, and then I work even more hours unpaid for the union. I'm picking out points I've noticed in this thread and offering my opinion from that perspective.
1. My Union Sucks! All of the execs are just fat cats making me pay dues and I don't get jack shit!
I really don't understand this very common complaint. I get it, there are some shitty unions out there, but who's fault is that? YOU are your union. If you do not like your union leadership. CHANGE IT. And don't say you can't change the way people vote. You get your vote out. Talk to your co-workers, explain what your issues are and see if they agree. Get them to come to general meetings. Hell, GO to general meetings.
I had a friend who thought her union did nothing, but she had NEVER been to a union meeting in her life.
2. Ya but, I only work 15 hours a week & I pay X dollars in dues but I don't get my medical benefits.
Now, every union, and in most cases, every local has a different contract with their employer. That contract is negotiated with the union and the employer. Every single "Benefit" in your contract costs something. most of the time, out of future wage increases. and sometimes (Read: a lot of the time) a lot of the wants of the general membership are unattainable. Benefits are EXPENSIVE. and it's quite possible the employer would not move on paying for very part time employees benefits when they are only getting 15 hours a week out of you.
3. Well, what the hell are my dues paying for then if not for me to have super awesome benefits?
Your dues pay for lots of things. the major things are the ability to negotiate a contract, enforce said contract, and strike fund ( ie. strike pay)
It also covers things like paying dues to a national union (which helps in turn with strike pay, paying for awesome lawyers when the need arises, and paying the wages of the full time national reps who are there to assist your local with it's tougher issues.
4. I still don't want to be forced to be in a union! I don't like them.
That's your choice and that's fine. You are never FORCED to be in a union. Oh it's a closed shop? (ie. joining the union is a condition of employment) then get a job SOMEPLACE ELSE. there are LOTS of non-unionized jobs out there. get one and quit bitching about it.
5. My union doesn't train the employee's and we all suck
Union's Job: Negotiate a Contract on behalf of it's members and enforce said contract.
Not Union's Job: Train people how to do their job, provide advice & guidance, manage, ect.
(note: this could be different in a trades environment, but I have never worked in once so I am unsure)
6. My co-workers are all shlubs! they should all have been fired ages ago.
In most cases, it's not hard to fire somebody under a union contract.
Example:
I'm late for work by 5 min every day.
My boss gives me a warning and a chance to improve the behavior
I'm late again next week
My boss gives me a letter of discipline
I'm late again the next day
My Boss gives me a suspension
I come back to work again, late
My boss terminates my employment.
Ta Da! Yes, it takes a little longer, but it can be done. It's to give employees the chance to improve instead of just tossing them on their ass.
If however, management just lets people get away with being shlubs. It's not the union's place to do managements job for them. If you don't like the fact that your co-workers are shlubs, talk to your manager.
7. My union doesn't DO anything
Are you sure? most of the members in my local never see us. they go about their days with only a once a month letter with the general meeting minutes as their only contact with us. Many never come to the genral meetings to find out what the general state of affairs, or even to vote.
Also, many either have no issues in their workplace, or never even read their collective agreement to realize they are being screwed, or they just never come to us with their complaint.
Be that as it may, we work our asses off for the people who need us and come to us for help. people who are being bullied and harassed, people who are sick or disabled and may need a work place accommodation so they can keep working, or even somebody who gets unjustly terminated. These are the people who see us most and see how hard we are all working in our free time for them.
So make sure you really know what's going on with your union before you sit back and say they don't do anything just because you can't see them.
Ok, that's all i can handle this early in the morning with no tea. blerg.
Bold lime for so much truth. My friends complain I work to much. what's a weekend again?
This isn't that uncommon, union or no. The current situation makes it very difficult to fire people in the first place. Even if you have proper documentation, a terminated person can still cause a lot of trouble for a business if they want to. I interned at a telecom for a semester, and I saw some crap I just did not believe. The manager I talked to at my exit interview for it said that it's hard to find people better than a lot of the people they have now, and getting rid of some of the people they have now just wouldn't be worth the trouble of trying to deal with the bureaucracy.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
Nice post. You said everything I wanted to say better than I could have!
I think the only thing that puts me on the fence about unions is that it really is difficult to fire incompetent people. You forgot the steps where people are transferred to other divisions, they are put on lengthy probationary periods, the person in question usually files a grievance against their supervisor saying that they are being "bullied" or picked on.
These are the people I can't stand because it takes the union rep's time away from those with real issues. The ones who file grievance after grievance after grievance. It sucks that eventually they can't be told to just fuck off and do their goddamn job.
EDIT: Well maybe if it's in non-unionized workplaces as well, then there needs to be a thread about the inability to easily fire people.
The standard argument against unions is that if you don't like your pay and benefits, go work somewhere else. You aren't being forced to work there. And at least the free market doesn't have such things as "closed shops" so you actually can go work somewhere else.
You have a lot of good points in your post, but this one is completely against any acceptable reason, and you probably need a better justification for why someone should be forced to join a union in order to work a certain job.
If certain people in a workplace want to unionize, so be it. The rest of the workers shouldn't be forced to make the decision between joining the union or quitting their job.
Rigorous Scholarship
Do I want all working people to have decent jobs with a livable wage? Yes
Hell, do I want non working people and children to not live in abject poverty? Hell yes
Do I realistily think that every employer in Canada will be unionized in my lifetime? No
Do I want to listen to people bitching waaa waaa I don't want to be in a union waaaa? NO! I don't. Frankly, I work my damn ass off for people. many of them appreciate the hard work I do. and they are why I do it.
But if somebody is going to whine and complain about, go work at mcdonalds or google and be happy with your choices.
However, If somebody has genuine concerns about how things in their union are run and want to make it better. I'll talk and help to the best of my ability.
The real labor movement is weeping in its shallow grave.
How about "you're not a fucking special snowflake, so get over yourself?"
The people at that job have decided to unionize, to get the benefits of collective bargaining. This is a decision that they made collectively, and thus they all hold up to it collectively. You're not some special snowflake who gets to come in and say "hey, I don't like your decision, and I should have the right to tell you all to go fuck off."
Or, more to the point, a union loses it's power when members of the labor category break ranks. Why hire union when you can hire non-union? One is an obviously better choice for an employer than the other.
Really? You don't? I mean as soon as you have to say 'you DO have a choice, so if you don't like your union go work for mcdonalds!' alarm bells aren't going off in your head?
"quit and work somewhere else if you don't like it" is the rallying cry used to justify all sorts of employer abuse. I'm shocked to hear it from someone who apparently represents a union.
It's a club that protects a core of long term state workers but treats less senior members as expendable. They are shrill, abusive and unreasonable.
If I'm ever governor I will crush them.
Kind of like a corporation, eh?
The union members, on the other hand, are the ones telling people "either join our union, or find work elsewhere."
Frankly, that attitude is why a lot of Southern States passed Right to Work laws in order to protect the freedoms of their workers.
Rigorous Scholarship
The company signed that contract, too.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
One of these things is not like the other :whistle:
Sorry, clearly my lack of sleep is getting to me.
To clairfy, this is the senario I'm talking about.
John Doe wants a job.
John Doe does not want to be in a union.
John Doe can go get a job at a non unionized work site like mcdonlds or google or toyota or microsoft or small family run business as examples
If you really want to work for that unioized lock smith, then you may have to accept the fact that you will be unionized. (again, talking about non "right to work" environment) and If you dont' like the way your union is run or you think it sucks, you have the power to change it.
That seems pretty revolting to me.
Take your labor cartel and shove it.
I don't need a home owners association running my work life.
fortunately, they don't get to unless you let them!
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Yeah.... don't think so.
They passed it so they could engage in divide and conquer on workers. More specificaly minority workers that had been exluded from union activity in the past. Its technicaly illegal to fire somebody for joining a union, but in right to work states its common.
Plus Unions have worked hard, sacrifices a lot to get the benefits they do. Some Johnny come lately like Yar is supposed to be able walz in and reap the reward from their struggle? Thats being a free-riding parasite.
Unless I need the job, then I'm pretty much fucked eh?
I think there is something to be said for collective labor organizations promoting freedom from want, but it's a dicey proposition on which side the real increase in personal freedom lays when you are forced into an association because of the trade you practice.
This is what people are talking about about when they say this argument is identical to what was used by employers in the pre-union age. The one thing that invalidates this comparison is that union employees at least get a vote to alter the course of their union, but the nature of union politics can be discouraging.
EDIT: oh man, somebody mentioned the California teacher's union. I had a teacher who made 150k. He was the worst mathematics instructor I have ever seen anywhere, ever, and everyone at that school knew it. They spent a decade trying to fire him (he'd been working there for thirty years before they tried to fire him, so he was somewhat... entrenched). This is obviously a huge outlier case, probably with extenuating circumstances that I as a student was not privy to, but I recall several administrators (and TEACHERS) complaining about him in my presence, which goes to show how extreme the situation was.
And for clarity, I don't think 150k is an unreasonable amount for a teacher to make, necessarily, but when his peers are making 40k and he is literally the worst teacher in the school I think something is fucked. Just because a guy has been working for forty years doesn't mean he's worth more than three times his peers.
How tragic that work is not immediately available that conforms perfectly to your moral and economic wants/needs.
It's mildly ironic you bring "personal freedom" into this, too. You also have the freedom to starve to death for your convictions, if you want.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Heh. You know, I've got a bridge in New York that I'm looking to offload cheap - care to make a deal?
If you honestly believe that southern states passed right to work laws to protect workers, you're delusional to the point of schizophrenia. They were passed to increase the power of employers, which has always been a big thing in the South.
And finally, it's nice to note that you're really into majority rule when it comes down to denying rights to homosexuals, but when it comes to workers standing up for their interests, you think they should go take a hike. Sort of telling there, don't you think?
This is the problem with American economics. Our default position is "screw you", not, like, "hey, you need a job and an income".
Corporations have a say in your work life, more so then the unions. Are you saying its okay for corporations to determine how,when and where you work but not unions?
And remember Unions are there to counteract the power your employer has over you at work. Like you know 18 hours shifts and sudden wage cuts.
But, the even worse scenario is where you have a previously non-union workplace where a union organizes the workers. Do you really not have a problem with everyone in the workplace being told that their only options are to join the union (and thereby be forced to pay dues) or quit? You're basically admitting that you think you know what's best for the people who don't want to join the union.
Rigorous Scholarship