Of course they're doing something wrong to the employee, they're being let go. Its not "wrong" in the sense that it makes logical sense to try and streamline production and not doing it just to say "sorry buddy, you're fired" for their own joy or to be dicks, but its wrong in the employee's eye of course. The company wants to maximize its bang for the buck, we all get that. Just because they're not twirling their mustaches and grinning when they do it doesn't make it acceptable to those people who are being phased out.
And when I say fault, I mean those people did nothing wrong to deserve to be let go, other than misfortune. Now you could say, well that's tough luck, they were in a position that was easily replaced, but when you're already doing an unskilled job in a warehouse filled with unskilled jobs, I don't think its much to ask to relocate them to another position.
In regards to your hypothetical (which c'mon, self repairing robots? Someone has to maintain the damn things), I'm sure the UAW contracts have some kind of clause to retrain or relocate their members in the event of jobs being replaced. In which case, it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble to retrain them just to pay them a little less wages but still more than non union wages.
I would recommend being wary of trusting job security in the face of technological change to the existence of massive and highly diverse conglomerates. Not that the model doesn't necessarily work, but you make it politically attractive to keep shoring up the conglomerate just so the implicit corporate-run welfare scheme stays solvent.
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
it's a symptom of a labour market where some segments are unionized and some are not; preventing the stealthy substitution of unionized labour with non-unionized labour justifies such work condition rules. Observe that if the truck unloaders are 'just as expensive', so to speak, in terms of their surplus productivity captured by the employer, the employer should be indifferent between asking truck drivers to occasionally substitute for unloaders and unloaders to occasionally substitute as drivers when appropriate, and the union gains nothing by the rule.
Of course, once such rules exist, they start being used to featherbed too.
There are labour law frameworks where unions gain less via featherbedding - a simple example would be to force truck drivers and unloaders into the same union in order to access legally enforceable collective bargaining rights. Here featherbedding occurs less frequently.
But even in this example, they are still using rules to prevent outright work reductions. Even if we had every worker in America in a union, I assume unions would still have rules to try and keep companies from using two workers instead of 3 once technology improves, for example.
Trying to take the savings from technology upgrading is more likely, I daresay. It's not just "in a union", it requires being in the same union, where said One Big Union can give split Man #3's former work hours into extended vacation time for all three.
That is a good proposal, but in practice I think people will not be happy with a furlough in exchange for people staying employed. We faced this exact issue in NY recently. There was a proposal to furlough government workers one day a week instead of firing people, and it was met with bitter resistance.
Naturally. Furloughs entail lower total pay. But if the contention here is cost savings, there should be revenue to go around.
There is really no way you could keep person number 3 around and realize a cost savings. The robot would have to cost less than nothing for that to work out.
tinwhiskers on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
it's a symptom of a labour market where some segments are unionized and some are not; preventing the stealthy substitution of unionized labour with non-unionized labour justifies such work condition rules. Observe that if the truck unloaders are 'just as expensive', so to speak, in terms of their surplus productivity captured by the employer, the employer should be indifferent between asking truck drivers to occasionally substitute for unloaders and unloaders to occasionally substitute as drivers when appropriate, and the union gains nothing by the rule.
Of course, once such rules exist, they start being used to featherbed too.
There are labour law frameworks where unions gain less via featherbedding - a simple example would be to force truck drivers and unloaders into the same union in order to access legally enforceable collective bargaining rights. Here featherbedding occurs less frequently.
But even in this example, they are still using rules to prevent outright work reductions. Even if we had every worker in America in a union, I assume unions would still have rules to try and keep companies from using two workers instead of 3 once technology improves, for example.
Trying to take the savings from technology upgrading is more likely, I daresay. It's not just "in a union", it requires being in the same union, where said One Big Union can give split Man #3's former work hours into extended vacation time for all three.
That is a good proposal, but in practice I think people will not be happy with a furlough in exchange for people staying employed. We faced this exact issue in NY recently. There was a proposal to furlough government workers one day a week instead of firing people, and it was met with bitter resistance.
Naturally. Furloughs entail lower total pay. But if the contention here is cost savings, there should be revenue to go around.
I hadn't even considered this possibility, but it is a great suggestion. Greater profitability leading to an increased quality of life for workers. Are there any examples of countries where this actually happens?
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
it's a symptom of a labour market where some segments are unionized and some are not; preventing the stealthy substitution of unionized labour with non-unionized labour justifies such work condition rules. Observe that if the truck unloaders are 'just as expensive', so to speak, in terms of their surplus productivity captured by the employer, the employer should be indifferent between asking truck drivers to occasionally substitute for unloaders and unloaders to occasionally substitute as drivers when appropriate, and the union gains nothing by the rule.
Of course, once such rules exist, they start being used to featherbed too.
There are labour law frameworks where unions gain less via featherbedding - a simple example would be to force truck drivers and unloaders into the same union in order to access legally enforceable collective bargaining rights. Here featherbedding occurs less frequently.
But even in this example, they are still using rules to prevent outright work reductions. Even if we had every worker in America in a union, I assume unions would still have rules to try and keep companies from using two workers instead of 3 once technology improves, for example.
Trying to take the savings from technology upgrading is more likely, I daresay. It's not just "in a union", it requires being in the same union, where said One Big Union can give split Man #3's former work hours into extended vacation time for all three.
That is a good proposal, but in practice I think people will not be happy with a furlough in exchange for people staying employed. We faced this exact issue in NY recently. There was a proposal to furlough government workers one day a week instead of firing people, and it was met with bitter resistance.
Naturally. Furloughs entail lower total pay. But if the contention here is cost savings, there should be revenue to go around.
There is really no way you could keep person number 3 around and realize a cost savings. The robot would have to cost less than nothing for that to work out.
Making more stuff for the same cost of inputs - reduced unit cost - entails more revenue.
Although, yes, if you opted instead to the same amount of stuff with less inputs, someone's going to need to go. Still, labour there can still bargain away a chunk of the benefit, from consumers and employer both.
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
it's a symptom of a labour market where some segments are unionized and some are not; preventing the stealthy substitution of unionized labour with non-unionized labour justifies such work condition rules. Observe that if the truck unloaders are 'just as expensive', so to speak, in terms of their surplus productivity captured by the employer, the employer should be indifferent between asking truck drivers to occasionally substitute for unloaders and unloaders to occasionally substitute as drivers when appropriate, and the union gains nothing by the rule.
Of course, once such rules exist, they start being used to featherbed too.
There are labour law frameworks where unions gain less via featherbedding - a simple example would be to force truck drivers and unloaders into the same union in order to access legally enforceable collective bargaining rights. Here featherbedding occurs less frequently.
But even in this example, they are still using rules to prevent outright work reductions. Even if we had every worker in America in a union, I assume unions would still have rules to try and keep companies from using two workers instead of 3 once technology improves, for example.
Trying to take the savings from technology upgrading is more likely, I daresay. It's not just "in a union", it requires being in the same union, where said One Big Union can give split Man #3's former work hours into extended vacation time for all three.
That is a good proposal, but in practice I think people will not be happy with a furlough in exchange for people staying employed. We faced this exact issue in NY recently. There was a proposal to furlough government workers one day a week instead of firing people, and it was met with bitter resistance.
Naturally. Furloughs entail lower total pay. But if the contention here is cost savings, there should be revenue to go around.
I hadn't even considered this possibility, but it is a great suggestion. Greater profitability leading to an increased quality of life for workers. Are there any examples of countries where this actually happens?
Not when said companies are stamping out unions. That said, greater profitability to who? It's not the workers who are going home with six figure salaries and million dollar bonuses, it's the management.
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
it's a symptom of a labour market where some segments are unionized and some are not; preventing the stealthy substitution of unionized labour with non-unionized labour justifies such work condition rules. Observe that if the truck unloaders are 'just as expensive', so to speak, in terms of their surplus productivity captured by the employer, the employer should be indifferent between asking truck drivers to occasionally substitute for unloaders and unloaders to occasionally substitute as drivers when appropriate, and the union gains nothing by the rule.
Of course, once such rules exist, they start being used to featherbed too.
There are labour law frameworks where unions gain less via featherbedding - a simple example would be to force truck drivers and unloaders into the same union in order to access legally enforceable collective bargaining rights. Here featherbedding occurs less frequently.
But even in this example, they are still using rules to prevent outright work reductions. Even if we had every worker in America in a union, I assume unions would still have rules to try and keep companies from using two workers instead of 3 once technology improves, for example.
Trying to take the savings from technology upgrading is more likely, I daresay. It's not just "in a union", it requires being in the same union, where said One Big Union can give split Man #3's former work hours into extended vacation time for all three.
That is a good proposal, but in practice I think people will not be happy with a furlough in exchange for people staying employed. We faced this exact issue in NY recently. There was a proposal to furlough government workers one day a week instead of firing people, and it was met with bitter resistance.
Naturally. Furloughs entail lower total pay. But if the contention here is cost savings, there should be revenue to go around.
I hadn't even considered this possibility, but it is a great suggestion. Greater profitability leading to an increased quality of life for workers. Are there any examples of countries where this actually happens?
Not really. Whilst it's hypothetically possible to try to plan around technological obsolescence of labour, a lot of countries don't actually do this, even those with large organized unions. An obvious reason is global competition in the areas where technological improvements in productivity are key (manufacturing...). German, Dutch, etc. unions opt for wage restraint and so on. Instead, countries try to offset technological obsolescence via redistribution on a more or less national basis. At some point all those investors have to spend that pile of money and then the famous 20%+ VATs you may have heard of kick in.
Arguably US labour was effective at directly bargaining away a large chunk of the improvements in manufacturing across the 50s and 60s, but the model may be not be generalizable.
This is actually the first time I've seen any remark on these forums that people are entitled to protection from technological change (rather than, say, usual bargaining skulduggery by management). The left here is often more progressive than labour, really.
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
Because its not the employee's fault that their receptionist job (a poor example since that would be a non union job I'm guessing?) became obsolete. To give a UPS-Teamster example a few years ago, there was a number of Loss Prevention jobs that required people to scan a box as it came out of a truck. This job was replaced by an enormous mounted camera/laser system that does the same basic job, making their jobs obsolete. These employees, because they have a union, were then relocated to other positions in the building and retrained. In a non-union shop, I'm guessing those employees would just be let go. Having a union contract allowed them to be retrained and given a chance to keep their job. Now if they were having problems in their new positions, that may lead to their eventual dismissal but at least they've been given the choice.
And when you ask why doesn't the driver just leave to a position where he doesn't unload also? Truck driving (the UPS/FedEx delivery style) is an extremely limited market. People wait years to become drivers. They don't have the option to just pick up and go, especially when they've put a number of years into the position. In a position like yours, a lawyer that makes a good sum the option to move is always there, as you have money to fall back on correct? When you're doing lower-middle class work, that option isn't there typically, there isn't much money to fall back on. Plus those years they've put in, to accumulate vacations and seniority are hard earned, and not easily given up.
There's also the issue that the problem isn't so much that the driver is being asked to unload, but that he's being asked to unload without seeing a commesurate increase in pay, and the resulting profit from the increased productivity goes solely into the owner's pocket.
One of the main reasons for work rules to exist is to make sure that if the employer wants to increase profitability by adding duties or consolidating positions, they're going to also have to share the benefits as well.
That is a good proposal, but in practice I think people will not be happy with a furlough in exchange for people staying employed. We faced this exact issue in NY recently. There was a proposal to furlough government workers one day a week instead of firing people, and it was met with bitter resistance.
Because Cuomo had other options. But those options would have meant inconveniencing his (and yours, frankly) masters.
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
Because its not the employee's fault that their receptionist job (a poor example since that would be a non union job I'm guessing?) became obsolete. To give a UPS-Teamster example a few years ago, there was a number of Loss Prevention jobs that required people to scan a box as it came out of a truck. This job was replaced by an enormous mounted camera/laser system that does the same basic job, making their jobs obsolete. These employees, because they have a union, were then relocated to other positions in the building and retrained. In a non-union shop, I'm guessing those employees would just be let go. Having a union contract allowed them to be retrained and given a chance to keep their job. Now if they were having problems in their new positions, that may lead to their eventual dismissal but at least they've been given the choice.
And when you ask why doesn't the driver just leave to a position where he doesn't unload also? Truck driving (the UPS/FedEx delivery style) is an extremely limited market. People wait years to become drivers. They don't have the option to just pick up and go, especially when they've put a number of years into the position. In a position like yours, a lawyer that makes a good sum the option to move is always there, as you have money to fall back on correct? When you're doing lower-middle class work, that option isn't there typically, there isn't much money to fall back on. Plus those years they've put in, to accumulate vacations and seniority are hard earned, and not easily given up.
There's also the issue that the problem isn't so much that the driver is being asked to unload, but that he's being asked to unload without seeing a commesurate increase in pay, and the resulting profit from the increased productivity goes solely into the owner's pocket.
One of the main reasons for work rules to exist is to make sure that if the employer wants to increase profitability by adding duties or consolidating positions, they're going to also have to share the benefits as well.
Just want to mention two things really quickly. First, the reason that people wait for years to drive for LTL shippers is because the union does not allow them to hire drivers from outside the company. When a position opens up, it is offered to the warehouse workers in order of seniority. So rather than going out, getting some relevant experience and competing for the job, people have to spend years waiting in line in a non-driving position. As I said before, this is actually one of the reasons that independent drivers really dislike the union.
Second, I have never heard of a non-union OTR driver having to unload a truck without getting additional pay for it. In general that means hourly pay for the time spent unloading, though if the driver is expected to unload at every delivery (such as the guys pulling for Dollar General), they will probably get a higher per mile pay instead. Also whether or not the driver unloads is determined by the company receiving the delivery; usually, they have their own people to do it or staff available for the carrier to hire (the company pays, not the driver). In general, carriers don't like their drivers to unload, because it increases the chance of injury.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
it's a symptom of a labour market where some segments are unionized and some are not; preventing the stealthy substitution of unionized labour with non-unionized labour justifies such work condition rules. Observe that if the truck unloaders are 'just as expensive', so to speak, in terms of their surplus productivity captured by the employer, the employer should be indifferent between asking truck drivers to occasionally substitute for unloaders and unloaders to occasionally substitute as drivers when appropriate, and the union gains nothing by the rule.
Of course, once such rules exist, they start being used to featherbed too.
There are labour law frameworks where unions gain less via featherbedding - a simple example would be to force truck drivers and unloaders into the same union in order to access legally enforceable collective bargaining rights. Here featherbedding occurs less frequently.
But even in this example, they are still using rules to prevent outright work reductions. Even if we had every worker in America in a union, I assume unions would still have rules to try and keep companies from using two workers instead of 3 once technology improves, for example.
Trying to take the savings from technology upgrading is more likely, I daresay. It's not just "in a union", it requires being in the same union, where said One Big Union can give split Man #3's former work hours into extended vacation time for all three.
That is a good proposal, but in practice I think people will not be happy with a furlough in exchange for people staying employed. We faced this exact issue in NY recently. There was a proposal to furlough government workers one day a week instead of firing people, and it was met with bitter resistance.
Naturally. Furloughs entail lower total pay. But if the contention here is cost savings, there should be revenue to go around.
I hadn't even considered this possibility, but it is a great suggestion. Greater profitability leading to an increased quality of life for workers. Are there any examples of countries where this actually happens?
Who buys the products and services companies produce, overwhelmingly? Who is having less and less money and time to spend on products and services? Shrinking the middle class is not only bad for the middle class, it's bad for everyone. Apart from those who can milk enough before that they never have to worry about money again.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
it's a symptom of a labour market where some segments are unionized and some are not; preventing the stealthy substitution of unionized labour with non-unionized labour justifies such work condition rules. Observe that if the truck unloaders are 'just as expensive', so to speak, in terms of their surplus productivity captured by the employer, the employer should be indifferent between asking truck drivers to occasionally substitute for unloaders and unloaders to occasionally substitute as drivers when appropriate, and the union gains nothing by the rule.
Of course, once such rules exist, they start being used to featherbed too.
There are labour law frameworks where unions gain less via featherbedding - a simple example would be to force truck drivers and unloaders into the same union in order to access legally enforceable collective bargaining rights. Here featherbedding occurs less frequently.
But even in this example, they are still using rules to prevent outright work reductions. Even if we had every worker in America in a union, I assume unions would still have rules to try and keep companies from using two workers instead of 3 once technology improves, for example.
Trying to take the savings from technology upgrading is more likely, I daresay. It's not just "in a union", it requires being in the same union, where said One Big Union can give split Man #3's former work hours into extended vacation time for all three.
That is a good proposal, but in practice I think people will not be happy with a furlough in exchange for people staying employed. We faced this exact issue in NY recently. There was a proposal to furlough government workers one day a week instead of firing people, and it was met with bitter resistance.
Naturally. Furloughs entail lower total pay. But if the contention here is cost savings, there should be revenue to go around.
I hadn't even considered this possibility, but it is a great suggestion. Greater profitability leading to an increased quality of life for workers. Are there any examples of countries where this actually happens?
Not really. Whilst it's hypothetically possible to try to plan around technological obsolescence of labour, a lot of countries don't actually do this, even those with large organized unions. An obvious reason is global competition in the areas where technological improvements in productivity are key (manufacturing...). German, Dutch, etc. unions opt for wage restraint and so on. Instead, countries try to offset technological obsolescence via redistribution on a more or less national basis. At some point all those investors have to spend that pile of money and then the famous 20%+ VATs you may have heard of kick in.
Arguably US labour was effective at directly bargaining away a large chunk of the improvements in manufacturing across the 50s and 60s, but the model may be not be generalizable.
This is actually the first time I've seen any remark on these forums that people are entitled to protection from technological change (rather than, say, usual bargaining skulduggery by management). The left here is often more progressive than labour, really.
I don't really see why tech change is different from other types of labor shifts. In my GM example (which I hope more people will discuss, because I think there is an important point there) GM can save money and cut jobs with robots, or it can save more money and replace the union jobs with non union jobs. It seems strange to say that the former is fine, but the latter (which does not result in a net loss of jobs) is unacceptable.
As a related question, what do we do when jobs just disappear and are not replaced? We also face the specter of population growth outstripping job growth, even in our service based economy, in part because of technological advancements. We think of people as having a right to have a job in a lot of cases, but if there isn't demand, the jobs jus won't be there.
That is a good proposal, but in practice I think people will not be happy with a furlough in exchange for people staying employed. We faced this exact issue in NY recently. There was a proposal to furlough government workers one day a week instead of firing people, and it was met with bitter resistance.
Because Cuomo had other options. But those options would have meant inconveniencing his (and yours, frankly) masters.
Yeah mostly getting budgets out in time and maybe cutting some out of control and wasteful parts of it, at that.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
Because its not the employee's fault that their receptionist job (a poor example since that would be a non union job I'm guessing?) became obsolete. To give a UPS-Teamster example a few years ago, there was a number of Loss Prevention jobs that required people to scan a box as it came out of a truck. This job was replaced by an enormous mounted camera/laser system that does the same basic job, making their jobs obsolete. These employees, because they have a union, were then relocated to other positions in the building and retrained. In a non-union shop, I'm guessing those employees would just be let go. Having a union contract allowed them to be retrained and given a chance to keep their job. Now if they were having problems in their new positions, that may lead to their eventual dismissal but at least they've been given the choice.
And when you ask why doesn't the driver just leave to a position where he doesn't unload also? Truck driving (the UPS/FedEx delivery style) is an extremely limited market. People wait years to become drivers. They don't have the option to just pick up and go, especially when they've put a number of years into the position. In a position like yours, a lawyer that makes a good sum the option to move is always there, as you have money to fall back on correct? When you're doing lower-middle class work, that option isn't there typically, there isn't much money to fall back on. Plus those years they've put in, to accumulate vacations and seniority are hard earned, and not easily given up.
There's also the issue that the problem isn't so much that the driver is being asked to unload, but that he's being asked to unload without seeing a commesurate increase in pay, and the resulting profit from the increased productivity goes solely into the owner's pocket.
One of the main reasons for work rules to exist is to make sure that if the employer wants to increase profitability by adding duties or consolidating positions, they're going to also have to share the benefits as well.
Just want to mention two things really quickly. First, the reason that people wait for years to drive for LTL shippers is because the union does not allow them to hire drivers from outside the company. When a position opens up, it is offered to the warehouse workers in order of seniority. So rather than going out, getting some relevant experience and competing for the job, people have to spend years waiting in line in a non-driving position. As I said before, this is actually one of the reasons that independent drivers really dislike the union.
Second, I have never heard of a non-union OTR driver having to unload a truck without getting additional pay for it. In general that means hourly pay for the time spent unloading, though if the driver is expected to unload at every delivery (such as the guys pulling for Dollar General), they will probably get a higher per mile pay instead. Also whether or not the driver unloads is determined by the company receiving the delivery; usually, they have their own people to do it or staff available for the carrier to hire (the company pays, not the driver). In general, carriers don't like their drivers to unload, because it increases the chance of injury.
My dad was a truck driver (non union) and his company's policy on drivers unloading was "do it and you're fucking fired" so they had to hire guys to unload. I'm not sure if the company paid for that or if it came out of my dad's pay or not.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
it's a symptom of a labour market where some segments are unionized and some are not; preventing the stealthy substitution of unionized labour with non-unionized labour justifies such work condition rules. Observe that if the truck unloaders are 'just as expensive', so to speak, in terms of their surplus productivity captured by the employer, the employer should be indifferent between asking truck drivers to occasionally substitute for unloaders and unloaders to occasionally substitute as drivers when appropriate, and the union gains nothing by the rule.
Of course, once such rules exist, they start being used to featherbed too.
There are labour law frameworks where unions gain less via featherbedding - a simple example would be to force truck drivers and unloaders into the same union in order to access legally enforceable collective bargaining rights. Here featherbedding occurs less frequently.
But even in this example, they are still using rules to prevent outright work reductions. Even if we had every worker in America in a union, I assume unions would still have rules to try and keep companies from using two workers instead of 3 once technology improves, for example.
Trying to take the savings from technology upgrading is more likely, I daresay. It's not just "in a union", it requires being in the same union, where said One Big Union can give split Man #3's former work hours into extended vacation time for all three.
That is a good proposal, but in practice I think people will not be happy with a furlough in exchange for people staying employed. We faced this exact issue in NY recently. There was a proposal to furlough government workers one day a week instead of firing people, and it was met with bitter resistance.
Naturally. Furloughs entail lower total pay. But if the contention here is cost savings, there should be revenue to go around.
I hadn't even considered this possibility, but it is a great suggestion. Greater profitability leading to an increased quality of life for workers. Are there any examples of countries where this actually happens?
Not really. Whilst it's hypothetically possible to try to plan around technological obsolescence of labour, a lot of countries don't actually do this, even those with large organized unions. An obvious reason is global competition in the areas where technological improvements in productivity are key (manufacturing...). German, Dutch, etc. unions opt for wage restraint and so on. Instead, countries try to offset technological obsolescence via redistribution on a more or less national basis. At some point all those investors have to spend that pile of money and then the famous 20%+ VATs you may have heard of kick in.
Arguably US labour was effective at directly bargaining away a large chunk of the improvements in manufacturing across the 50s and 60s, but the model may be not be generalizable.
This is actually the first time I've seen any remark on these forums that people are entitled to protection from technological change (rather than, say, usual bargaining skulduggery by management). The left here is often more progressive than labour, really.
I don't really see why tech change is different from other types of labor shifts. In my GM example (which I hope more people will discuss, because I think there is an important point there) GM can save money and cut jobs with robots, or it can save more money and replace the union jobs with non union jobs. It seems strange to say that the former is fine, but the latter (which does not result in a net loss of jobs) is unacceptable.
As a related question, what do we do when jobs just disappear and are not replaced? We also face the specter of population growth outstripping job growth, even in our service based economy, in part because of technological advancements. We think of people as having a right to have a job in a lot of cases, but if there isn't demand, the jobs jus won't be there.
In a non recessive economy, there is generally sub-optimal market saturation, and mechnization leads to higher volume - IE they add automatic lanes at the grocery store, so one checker ends up loss prevention for four lanes, but they don't lay off checkers, they open more lanes.
So the employees at GM with the right aptitudes and the time left on their "career clock" to retrain, in a situation of growth, would be able to do more a piece via automation and GM would put more cars out the door and retain their headcount. But the notion that replacing union jobs with non union jobs is a reasonable economic measure is . . . kind of a joke. GM is the world's largest car company. It sells 2.5 million cars a year and employs 200,000 people. (and that's still a recession era volume) That means they sell six new cars a year per employee.
Even after the manipulation of loss, they saw a five billion dollar profit in 2011. That means AFTER raw materials for the vehicles and AFTER the comp they are getting now, there are about 25,000 usd left of white meat per employee. There are 1020 work hours in a year. Keep in mind, this is GM's domestic volume, which is still going back up every year and should peak at just below clinton era levels soon, unless some assholes elect mitt romney and he "saves" them by ruining the economy.
So does hourly pay hold GM back? Each hourly employee, which is about 170,000 people, treated as an individual profit center, could have a very meaningful 3-4 dollar an hour raise without overly burdening GM's current business model.
And in fact, GM did give 45,000 hourly workers profit sharing of 190 million - some 4000 a piece
but they also gave salaried workers - who average almost double what the line workers make - 229 million.
This sounds like a pretty big deal, but it was in theory meant to make up for years of pay freeze for most employees
Bottom line - domestic car companies are pretty goddamn profitable, when they don't see an overnight fall in volume of over 1/3. It is not, and never was, hourly wage driving them broke, it was shitty national fiscal policy and shitty actions on the part of insufficiently regulated bankers.
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
Because its not the employee's fault that their receptionist job (a poor example since that would be a non union job I'm guessing?) became obsolete. To give a UPS-Teamster example a few years ago, there was a number of Loss Prevention jobs that required people to scan a box as it came out of a truck. This job was replaced by an enormous mounted camera/laser system that does the same basic job, making their jobs obsolete. These employees, because they have a union, were then relocated to other positions in the building and retrained. In a non-union shop, I'm guessing those employees would just be let go. Having a union contract allowed them to be retrained and given a chance to keep their job. Now if they were having problems in their new positions, that may lead to their eventual dismissal but at least they've been given the choice.
And when you ask why doesn't the driver just leave to a position where he doesn't unload also? Truck driving (the UPS/FedEx delivery style) is an extremely limited market. People wait years to become drivers. They don't have the option to just pick up and go, especially when they've put a number of years into the position. In a position like yours, a lawyer that makes a good sum the option to move is always there, as you have money to fall back on correct? When you're doing lower-middle class work, that option isn't there typically, there isn't much money to fall back on. Plus those years they've put in, to accumulate vacations and seniority are hard earned, and not easily given up.
There's also the issue that the problem isn't so much that the driver is being asked to unload, but that he's being asked to unload without seeing a commesurate increase in pay, and the resulting profit from the increased productivity goes solely into the owner's pocket.
One of the main reasons for work rules to exist is to make sure that if the employer wants to increase profitability by adding duties or consolidating positions, they're going to also have to share the benefits as well.
Just want to mention two things really quickly. First, the reason that people wait for years to drive for LTL shippers is because the union does not allow them to hire drivers from outside the company. When a position opens up, it is offered to the warehouse workers in order of seniority. So rather than going out, getting some relevant experience and competing for the job, people have to spend years waiting in line in a non-driving position. As I said before, this is actually one of the reasons that independent drivers really dislike the union.
Second, I have never heard of a non-union OTR driver having to unload a truck without getting additional pay for it. In general that means hourly pay for the time spent unloading, though if the driver is expected to unload at every delivery (such as the guys pulling for Dollar General), they will probably get a higher per mile pay instead. Also whether or not the driver unloads is determined by the company receiving the delivery; usually, they have their own people to do it or staff available for the carrier to hire (the company pays, not the driver). In general, carriers don't like their drivers to unload, because it increases the chance of injury.
So, in short, independent drivers are unwilling to pay their dues (literally) and expect that their asses should be kissed. And I'm supposed to be sympathetic to this because?
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
Because its not the employee's fault that their receptionist job (a poor example since that would be a non union job I'm guessing?) became obsolete. To give a UPS-Teamster example a few years ago, there was a number of Loss Prevention jobs that required people to scan a box as it came out of a truck. This job was replaced by an enormous mounted camera/laser system that does the same basic job, making their jobs obsolete. These employees, because they have a union, were then relocated to other positions in the building and retrained. In a non-union shop, I'm guessing those employees would just be let go. Having a union contract allowed them to be retrained and given a chance to keep their job. Now if they were having problems in their new positions, that may lead to their eventual dismissal but at least they've been given the choice.
And when you ask why doesn't the driver just leave to a position where he doesn't unload also? Truck driving (the UPS/FedEx delivery style) is an extremely limited market. People wait years to become drivers. They don't have the option to just pick up and go, especially when they've put a number of years into the position. In a position like yours, a lawyer that makes a good sum the option to move is always there, as you have money to fall back on correct? When you're doing lower-middle class work, that option isn't there typically, there isn't much money to fall back on. Plus those years they've put in, to accumulate vacations and seniority are hard earned, and not easily given up.
There's also the issue that the problem isn't so much that the driver is being asked to unload, but that he's being asked to unload without seeing a commesurate increase in pay, and the resulting profit from the increased productivity goes solely into the owner's pocket.
One of the main reasons for work rules to exist is to make sure that if the employer wants to increase profitability by adding duties or consolidating positions, they're going to also have to share the benefits as well.
Just want to mention two things really quickly. First, the reason that people wait for years to drive for LTL shippers is because the union does not allow them to hire drivers from outside the company. When a position opens up, it is offered to the warehouse workers in order of seniority. So rather than going out, getting some relevant experience and competing for the job, people have to spend years waiting in line in a non-driving position. As I said before, this is actually one of the reasons that independent drivers really dislike the union.
Second, I have never heard of a non-union OTR driver having to unload a truck without getting additional pay for it. In general that means hourly pay for the time spent unloading, though if the driver is expected to unload at every delivery (such as the guys pulling for Dollar General), they will probably get a higher per mile pay instead. Also whether or not the driver unloads is determined by the company receiving the delivery; usually, they have their own people to do it or staff available for the carrier to hire (the company pays, not the driver). In general, carriers don't like their drivers to unload, because it increases the chance of injury.
So, in short, independent drivers are unwilling to pay their dues (literally) and expect that their asses should be kissed. And I'm supposed to be sympathetic to this because?
An OTR driver isn't exactly a UPS driver, either. Independent OTR drivers own a truck, and there are all sorts of issues with custody and liability and spheres of work when they load and unload that have to do with the dynamic involved in hiring a truck and driver as a subcontracted unit.
I'm not a truck driver, but my company has several fees that are effectively nuisance fees - they aren't seriously intended to be the going rate, they're high on purpose to induce clients to shunt that work off to hourly staff on their end, because it saves us BOTH time and money. I charge 100 dollars an hour do alterations to files or custom printing - it's not because I expect it, it's a tool to get the client to go "I'm having this skilled contractor do the charlie work"
This issue is like this. It's an issue of when you're using a truck drive as a roustabout and he could be driving, it doesn't really matter if you're paying him market rate for the labor - because you're charging him the difference between his driving rate and that rate and most of the time it's a wash.
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
Because its not the employee's fault that their receptionist job (a poor example since that would be a non union job I'm guessing?) became obsolete. To give a UPS-Teamster example a few years ago, there was a number of Loss Prevention jobs that required people to scan a box as it came out of a truck. This job was replaced by an enormous mounted camera/laser system that does the same basic job, making their jobs obsolete. These employees, because they have a union, were then relocated to other positions in the building and retrained. In a non-union shop, I'm guessing those employees would just be let go. Having a union contract allowed them to be retrained and given a chance to keep their job. Now if they were having problems in their new positions, that may lead to their eventual dismissal but at least they've been given the choice.
And when you ask why doesn't the driver just leave to a position where he doesn't unload also? Truck driving (the UPS/FedEx delivery style) is an extremely limited market. People wait years to become drivers. They don't have the option to just pick up and go, especially when they've put a number of years into the position. In a position like yours, a lawyer that makes a good sum the option to move is always there, as you have money to fall back on correct? When you're doing lower-middle class work, that option isn't there typically, there isn't much money to fall back on. Plus those years they've put in, to accumulate vacations and seniority are hard earned, and not easily given up.
There's also the issue that the problem isn't so much that the driver is being asked to unload, but that he's being asked to unload without seeing a commesurate increase in pay, and the resulting profit from the increased productivity goes solely into the owner's pocket.
One of the main reasons for work rules to exist is to make sure that if the employer wants to increase profitability by adding duties or consolidating positions, they're going to also have to share the benefits as well.
Just want to mention two things really quickly. First, the reason that people wait for years to drive for LTL shippers is because the union does not allow them to hire drivers from outside the company. When a position opens up, it is offered to the warehouse workers in order of seniority. So rather than going out, getting some relevant experience and competing for the job, people have to spend years waiting in line in a non-driving position. As I said before, this is actually one of the reasons that independent drivers really dislike the union.
Second, I have never heard of a non-union OTR driver having to unload a truck without getting additional pay for it. In general that means hourly pay for the time spent unloading, though if the driver is expected to unload at every delivery (such as the guys pulling for Dollar General), they will probably get a higher per mile pay instead. Also whether or not the driver unloads is determined by the company receiving the delivery; usually, they have their own people to do it or staff available for the carrier to hire (the company pays, not the driver). In general, carriers don't like their drivers to unload, because it increases the chance of injury.
So, in short, independent drivers are unwilling to pay their dues (literally) and expect that their asses should be kissed. And I'm supposed to be sympathetic to this because?
An OTR driver isn't exactly a UPS driver, either. Independent OTR drivers own a truck, and there are all sorts of issues with custody and liability and spheres of work when they load and unload that have to do with the dynamic involved in hiring a truck and driver as a subcontracted unit.
I'm not a truck driver, but my company has several fees that are effectively nuisance fees - they aren't seriously intended to be the going rate, they're high on purpose to induce clients to shunt that work off to hourly staff on their end, because it saves us BOTH time and money. I charge 100 dollars an hour do alterations to files or custom printing - it's not because I expect it, it's a tool to get the client to go "I'm having this skilled contractor do the charlie work"
This issue is like this. It's an issue of when you're using a truck drive as a roustabout and he could be driving, it doesn't really matter if you're paying him market rate for the labor - because you're charging him the difference between his driving rate and that rate and most of the time it's a wash.
I am always shocked when people are willing to pay my hourly fee to do things like draft 42 letters that are identical except for the addressee and some number on an appendix. . .
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
Because its not the employee's fault that their receptionist job (a poor example since that would be a non union job I'm guessing?) became obsolete. To give a UPS-Teamster example a few years ago, there was a number of Loss Prevention jobs that required people to scan a box as it came out of a truck. This job was replaced by an enormous mounted camera/laser system that does the same basic job, making their jobs obsolete. These employees, because they have a union, were then relocated to other positions in the building and retrained. In a non-union shop, I'm guessing those employees would just be let go. Having a union contract allowed them to be retrained and given a chance to keep their job. Now if they were having problems in their new positions, that may lead to their eventual dismissal but at least they've been given the choice.
And when you ask why doesn't the driver just leave to a position where he doesn't unload also? Truck driving (the UPS/FedEx delivery style) is an extremely limited market. People wait years to become drivers. They don't have the option to just pick up and go, especially when they've put a number of years into the position. In a position like yours, a lawyer that makes a good sum the option to move is always there, as you have money to fall back on correct? When you're doing lower-middle class work, that option isn't there typically, there isn't much money to fall back on. Plus those years they've put in, to accumulate vacations and seniority are hard earned, and not easily given up.
There's also the issue that the problem isn't so much that the driver is being asked to unload, but that he's being asked to unload without seeing a commesurate increase in pay, and the resulting profit from the increased productivity goes solely into the owner's pocket.
One of the main reasons for work rules to exist is to make sure that if the employer wants to increase profitability by adding duties or consolidating positions, they're going to also have to share the benefits as well.
Just want to mention two things really quickly. First, the reason that people wait for years to drive for LTL shippers is because the union does not allow them to hire drivers from outside the company. When a position opens up, it is offered to the warehouse workers in order of seniority. So rather than going out, getting some relevant experience and competing for the job, people have to spend years waiting in line in a non-driving position. As I said before, this is actually one of the reasons that independent drivers really dislike the union.
Second, I have never heard of a non-union OTR driver having to unload a truck without getting additional pay for it. In general that means hourly pay for the time spent unloading, though if the driver is expected to unload at every delivery (such as the guys pulling for Dollar General), they will probably get a higher per mile pay instead. Also whether or not the driver unloads is determined by the company receiving the delivery; usually, they have their own people to do it or staff available for the carrier to hire (the company pays, not the driver). In general, carriers don't like their drivers to unload, because it increases the chance of injury.
So, in short, independent drivers are unwilling to pay their dues (literally) and expect that their asses should be kissed. And I'm supposed to be sympathetic to this because?
"They didn't join the union so fuck them, let's treat them like shit"
Yeah, that's a good attitude. I have no idea why some people in the thread were convinced that there was a simplification going on in here.
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
Because its not the employee's fault that their receptionist job (a poor example since that would be a non union job I'm guessing?) became obsolete. To give a UPS-Teamster example a few years ago, there was a number of Loss Prevention jobs that required people to scan a box as it came out of a truck. This job was replaced by an enormous mounted camera/laser system that does the same basic job, making their jobs obsolete. These employees, because they have a union, were then relocated to other positions in the building and retrained. In a non-union shop, I'm guessing those employees would just be let go. Having a union contract allowed them to be retrained and given a chance to keep their job. Now if they were having problems in their new positions, that may lead to their eventual dismissal but at least they've been given the choice.
And when you ask why doesn't the driver just leave to a position where he doesn't unload also? Truck driving (the UPS/FedEx delivery style) is an extremely limited market. People wait years to become drivers. They don't have the option to just pick up and go, especially when they've put a number of years into the position. In a position like yours, a lawyer that makes a good sum the option to move is always there, as you have money to fall back on correct? When you're doing lower-middle class work, that option isn't there typically, there isn't much money to fall back on. Plus those years they've put in, to accumulate vacations and seniority are hard earned, and not easily given up.
There's also the issue that the problem isn't so much that the driver is being asked to unload, but that he's being asked to unload without seeing a commesurate increase in pay, and the resulting profit from the increased productivity goes solely into the owner's pocket.
One of the main reasons for work rules to exist is to make sure that if the employer wants to increase profitability by adding duties or consolidating positions, they're going to also have to share the benefits as well.
Just want to mention two things really quickly. First, the reason that people wait for years to drive for LTL shippers is because the union does not allow them to hire drivers from outside the company. When a position opens up, it is offered to the warehouse workers in order of seniority. So rather than going out, getting some relevant experience and competing for the job, people have to spend years waiting in line in a non-driving position. As I said before, this is actually one of the reasons that independent drivers really dislike the union.
Second, I have never heard of a non-union OTR driver having to unload a truck without getting additional pay for it. In general that means hourly pay for the time spent unloading, though if the driver is expected to unload at every delivery (such as the guys pulling for Dollar General), they will probably get a higher per mile pay instead. Also whether or not the driver unloads is determined by the company receiving the delivery; usually, they have their own people to do it or staff available for the carrier to hire (the company pays, not the driver). In general, carriers don't like their drivers to unload, because it increases the chance of injury.
So, in short, independent drivers are unwilling to pay their dues (literally) and expect that their asses should be kissed. And I'm supposed to be sympathetic to this because?
"They didn't join the union so fuck them, let's treat them like shit"
Yeah, that's a good attitude. I have no idea why some people in the thread were convinced that there was a simplification going on in here.
I would like to go in a bit of a different direction. So it was said before that union work rules are good because they make sure that (for example) a truck driver doesn't get forced to be a truck unloader too, for the same pay. Why isn't the answer to leave and go somewhere where you don't need to unload the truck? And if there isn't a place where you don't have to, then why wouldn't the reaction be that the world doesn't need driver who don't also unload trucks? Work rules generally seem to be aimed at preserving jobs the way they are, but that seems strange and archaic to me. As times change, the need for labor changes too, and, even conceding that everything else unions does is good and vital, I just can't see why unions should stop a company or industry from changing their workforce to meet their labor needs. Law firms used to have a lot more secretaries and typists than they do now, because their jobs were made obsolete by voicemail and computers. Should we keep a room full of typists on staff just because they always worked there, even though there is literally no use for them anymore?
Basically, I understand why workers should be respected and protected while they are needed as employees, but I can't understand why anyone should have a right to employment, and damn technology or efficiency. This is clearly a capital centric view, but what is the rational behind slaving capital to labor?
Because its not the employee's fault that their receptionist job (a poor example since that would be a non union job I'm guessing?) became obsolete. To give a UPS-Teamster example a few years ago, there was a number of Loss Prevention jobs that required people to scan a box as it came out of a truck. This job was replaced by an enormous mounted camera/laser system that does the same basic job, making their jobs obsolete. These employees, because they have a union, were then relocated to other positions in the building and retrained. In a non-union shop, I'm guessing those employees would just be let go. Having a union contract allowed them to be retrained and given a chance to keep their job. Now if they were having problems in their new positions, that may lead to their eventual dismissal but at least they've been given the choice.
And when you ask why doesn't the driver just leave to a position where he doesn't unload also? Truck driving (the UPS/FedEx delivery style) is an extremely limited market. People wait years to become drivers. They don't have the option to just pick up and go, especially when they've put a number of years into the position. In a position like yours, a lawyer that makes a good sum the option to move is always there, as you have money to fall back on correct? When you're doing lower-middle class work, that option isn't there typically, there isn't much money to fall back on. Plus those years they've put in, to accumulate vacations and seniority are hard earned, and not easily given up.
There's also the issue that the problem isn't so much that the driver is being asked to unload, but that he's being asked to unload without seeing a commesurate increase in pay, and the resulting profit from the increased productivity goes solely into the owner's pocket.
One of the main reasons for work rules to exist is to make sure that if the employer wants to increase profitability by adding duties or consolidating positions, they're going to also have to share the benefits as well.
Just want to mention two things really quickly. First, the reason that people wait for years to drive for LTL shippers is because the union does not allow them to hire drivers from outside the company. When a position opens up, it is offered to the warehouse workers in order of seniority. So rather than going out, getting some relevant experience and competing for the job, people have to spend years waiting in line in a non-driving position. As I said before, this is actually one of the reasons that independent drivers really dislike the union.
Second, I have never heard of a non-union OTR driver having to unload a truck without getting additional pay for it. In general that means hourly pay for the time spent unloading, though if the driver is expected to unload at every delivery (such as the guys pulling for Dollar General), they will probably get a higher per mile pay instead. Also whether or not the driver unloads is determined by the company receiving the delivery; usually, they have their own people to do it or staff available for the carrier to hire (the company pays, not the driver). In general, carriers don't like their drivers to unload, because it increases the chance of injury.
So, in short, independent drivers are unwilling to pay their dues (literally) and expect that their asses should be kissed. And I'm supposed to be sympathetic to this because?
"They didn't join the union so fuck them, let's treat them like shit"
Yeah, that's a good attitude. I have no idea why some people in the thread were convinced that there was a simplification going on in here.
Except that they aren't being treated like shit.
Well, you think they should be treated less well than a union driver.
So, why should the union place the welfare of non-members above members, and let people who never paid in any fashion benefit from their hard work? To give a more appropriate example for this venue, your complaint is like the game developers who cried unfair when the acting unions forced publishers to give better rates for VA work, despite not supporting the unions.
It usually boils down to "Are you doing my job for me, or the job of another union member? If yes, make a stink and prevent you from doing it, or give you a stand in, or charge you. If no, shake hands and work like rational and sane adults."
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
They shouldn't, but they shouldn't actively try to undermine protections or punish non members.
It's a messy thing, but I think we'd do well to not be so blythe about non union workers getting the shaft.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
A great way for non-union works to not get shafted is to join the union. Worked for me!
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
In all seriousness, though, if you work in a particular industry that has a strong union presence and you get the chance to join, do so. The difference, at least for me, was immeasurably noticeable. Union all the way, baby.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm sure it would be, I just didn't like the tone.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
I'm sure it would be, I just didn't like the tone.
They want you to join the union to work there
Their other legal methods to close or constrain the shop have been taken away, so sulky peer pressure is all they really have
Considering you were in their shop, you should probably join the union... for me this is a very clear decision, but i grew up in coal county so it's more like actual sides in a war to me
I'm sure it would be, I just didn't like the tone.
They want you to join the union to work there
Their other legal methods to close or constrain the shop have been taken away, so sulky peer pressure is all they really have
Considering you were in their shop, you should probably join the union... for me this is a very clear decision, but i grew up in coal county so it's more like actual sides in a war to me
Well yes, there was the literalHarlan County War. So in many ways, it really is a war.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well truck drivers aren't really in a shop if they're independent.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
i've had good and bad union experiences.
the bad was working for a food store in jersey. we were on strike for 2 months and then the union finally gave up and settled with the company.
the worst part of that experience was the stewards being dickheads and not understanding that i was a student.
the good was working for Verizon. Although I wasn't CWA, I was IBEW (some weird thing I dunno). My union was awesome, my stewards fantastic, and Verizon tried to get rid of all of us, the Union was right there, getting as many of us as they could new jobs in the company, new training, etc.
And I've worked in a non-union theatre, and while I was there pretty much voluntarily and was getting paid a decent wage for a Uni student, lemme tell you, I'd have loved to get my union card.
I guess I'm confused by the whole idea of a union for a grocery store or a movie theater. I mean those are jobs predominantly filled by HS/Uni students. Seems to me that any sort of union benefits would end up basically being a transfer of pay from the student workers to the lifers.
More over I don't understand the goal of the union there, in the sense that ticket taker shouldn't be someones end goal for a job. Trying to get pay/benefits to raise a family and retire with is non-nonsensical for those positions. These are jobs people should hold only until they can get jobs that a 15 year old can't be taught to do in a couple of weeks.
They're semi dangerous, not having a union might mean Jimmy Junior might burn his hands because his boss is cheap and wants him to try and repair the popcorn unit. Whoops Jimmy, you didn't know because you were a kid but now you can't use your hands for life.
Grocery stores it's usually heavy items. Sorry Jimmy, you hurt your back permanently because your boss kept pressuring you to carry the 180 lb box by yourself.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Yes, go to a Walmart. Most of those people are not teenagers.
This, and also: Why does this matter? Why is the labor of teenagers and college students worth less than the labor of someone else performing the same tasks?
Posts
And when I say fault, I mean those people did nothing wrong to deserve to be let go, other than misfortune. Now you could say, well that's tough luck, they were in a position that was easily replaced, but when you're already doing an unskilled job in a warehouse filled with unskilled jobs, I don't think its much to ask to relocate them to another position.
In regards to your hypothetical (which c'mon, self repairing robots? Someone has to maintain the damn things), I'm sure the UAW contracts have some kind of clause to retrain or relocate their members in the event of jobs being replaced. In which case, it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble to retrain them just to pay them a little less wages but still more than non union wages.
There is really no way you could keep person number 3 around and realize a cost savings. The robot would have to cost less than nothing for that to work out.
I hadn't even considered this possibility, but it is a great suggestion. Greater profitability leading to an increased quality of life for workers. Are there any examples of countries where this actually happens?
Making more stuff for the same cost of inputs - reduced unit cost - entails more revenue.
Although, yes, if you opted instead to the same amount of stuff with less inputs, someone's going to need to go. Still, labour there can still bargain away a chunk of the benefit, from consumers and employer both.
Not when said companies are stamping out unions. That said, greater profitability to who? It's not the workers who are going home with six figure salaries and million dollar bonuses, it's the management.
Not really. Whilst it's hypothetically possible to try to plan around technological obsolescence of labour, a lot of countries don't actually do this, even those with large organized unions. An obvious reason is global competition in the areas where technological improvements in productivity are key (manufacturing...). German, Dutch, etc. unions opt for wage restraint and so on. Instead, countries try to offset technological obsolescence via redistribution on a more or less national basis. At some point all those investors have to spend that pile of money and then the famous 20%+ VATs you may have heard of kick in.
Arguably US labour was effective at directly bargaining away a large chunk of the improvements in manufacturing across the 50s and 60s, but the model may be not be generalizable.
This is actually the first time I've seen any remark on these forums that people are entitled to protection from technological change (rather than, say, usual bargaining skulduggery by management). The left here is often more progressive than labour, really.
There's also the issue that the problem isn't so much that the driver is being asked to unload, but that he's being asked to unload without seeing a commesurate increase in pay, and the resulting profit from the increased productivity goes solely into the owner's pocket.
One of the main reasons for work rules to exist is to make sure that if the employer wants to increase profitability by adding duties or consolidating positions, they're going to also have to share the benefits as well.
Because Cuomo had other options. But those options would have meant inconveniencing his (and yours, frankly) masters.
Just want to mention two things really quickly. First, the reason that people wait for years to drive for LTL shippers is because the union does not allow them to hire drivers from outside the company. When a position opens up, it is offered to the warehouse workers in order of seniority. So rather than going out, getting some relevant experience and competing for the job, people have to spend years waiting in line in a non-driving position. As I said before, this is actually one of the reasons that independent drivers really dislike the union.
Second, I have never heard of a non-union OTR driver having to unload a truck without getting additional pay for it. In general that means hourly pay for the time spent unloading, though if the driver is expected to unload at every delivery (such as the guys pulling for Dollar General), they will probably get a higher per mile pay instead. Also whether or not the driver unloads is determined by the company receiving the delivery; usually, they have their own people to do it or staff available for the carrier to hire (the company pays, not the driver). In general, carriers don't like their drivers to unload, because it increases the chance of injury.
- John Stuart Mill
Germany?
I don't really see why tech change is different from other types of labor shifts. In my GM example (which I hope more people will discuss, because I think there is an important point there) GM can save money and cut jobs with robots, or it can save more money and replace the union jobs with non union jobs. It seems strange to say that the former is fine, but the latter (which does not result in a net loss of jobs) is unacceptable.
As a related question, what do we do when jobs just disappear and are not replaced? We also face the specter of population growth outstripping job growth, even in our service based economy, in part because of technological advancements. We think of people as having a right to have a job in a lot of cases, but if there isn't demand, the jobs jus won't be there.
Yeah mostly getting budgets out in time and maybe cutting some out of control and wasteful parts of it, at that.
My dad was a truck driver (non union) and his company's policy on drivers unloading was "do it and you're fucking fired" so they had to hire guys to unload. I'm not sure if the company paid for that or if it came out of my dad's pay or not.
In a non recessive economy, there is generally sub-optimal market saturation, and mechnization leads to higher volume - IE they add automatic lanes at the grocery store, so one checker ends up loss prevention for four lanes, but they don't lay off checkers, they open more lanes.
So the employees at GM with the right aptitudes and the time left on their "career clock" to retrain, in a situation of growth, would be able to do more a piece via automation and GM would put more cars out the door and retain their headcount. But the notion that replacing union jobs with non union jobs is a reasonable economic measure is . . . kind of a joke. GM is the world's largest car company. It sells 2.5 million cars a year and employs 200,000 people. (and that's still a recession era volume) That means they sell six new cars a year per employee.
Even after the manipulation of loss, they saw a five billion dollar profit in 2011. That means AFTER raw materials for the vehicles and AFTER the comp they are getting now, there are about 25,000 usd left of white meat per employee. There are 1020 work hours in a year. Keep in mind, this is GM's domestic volume, which is still going back up every year and should peak at just below clinton era levels soon, unless some assholes elect mitt romney and he "saves" them by ruining the economy.
So does hourly pay hold GM back? Each hourly employee, which is about 170,000 people, treated as an individual profit center, could have a very meaningful 3-4 dollar an hour raise without overly burdening GM's current business model.
And in fact, GM did give 45,000 hourly workers profit sharing of 190 million - some 4000 a piece
but they also gave salaried workers - who average almost double what the line workers make - 229 million.
This sounds like a pretty big deal, but it was in theory meant to make up for years of pay freeze for most employees
Bottom line - domestic car companies are pretty goddamn profitable, when they don't see an overnight fall in volume of over 1/3. It is not, and never was, hourly wage driving them broke, it was shitty national fiscal policy and shitty actions on the part of insufficiently regulated bankers.
I host a podcast about movies.
So, in short, independent drivers are unwilling to pay their dues (literally) and expect that their asses should be kissed. And I'm supposed to be sympathetic to this because?
An OTR driver isn't exactly a UPS driver, either. Independent OTR drivers own a truck, and there are all sorts of issues with custody and liability and spheres of work when they load and unload that have to do with the dynamic involved in hiring a truck and driver as a subcontracted unit.
I'm not a truck driver, but my company has several fees that are effectively nuisance fees - they aren't seriously intended to be the going rate, they're high on purpose to induce clients to shunt that work off to hourly staff on their end, because it saves us BOTH time and money. I charge 100 dollars an hour do alterations to files or custom printing - it's not because I expect it, it's a tool to get the client to go "I'm having this skilled contractor do the charlie work"
This issue is like this. It's an issue of when you're using a truck drive as a roustabout and he could be driving, it doesn't really matter if you're paying him market rate for the labor - because you're charging him the difference between his driving rate and that rate and most of the time it's a wash.
I host a podcast about movies.
I am always shocked when people are willing to pay my hourly fee to do things like draft 42 letters that are identical except for the addressee and some number on an appendix. . .
"They didn't join the union so fuck them, let's treat them like shit"
Yeah, that's a good attitude. I have no idea why some people in the thread were convinced that there was a simplification going on in here.
Except that they aren't being treated like shit.
Well, you think they should be treated less well than a union driver.
It usually boils down to "Are you doing my job for me, or the job of another union member? If yes, make a stink and prevent you from doing it, or give you a stand in, or charge you. If no, shake hands and work like rational and sane adults."
It's a messy thing, but I think we'd do well to not be so blythe about non union workers getting the shaft.
They want you to join the union to work there
Their other legal methods to close or constrain the shop have been taken away, so sulky peer pressure is all they really have
Considering you were in their shop, you should probably join the union... for me this is a very clear decision, but i grew up in coal county so it's more like actual sides in a war to me
I host a podcast about movies.
Well yes, there was the literal Harlan County War. So in many ways, it really is a war.
the bad was working for a food store in jersey. we were on strike for 2 months and then the union finally gave up and settled with the company.
the worst part of that experience was the stewards being dickheads and not understanding that i was a student.
the good was working for Verizon. Although I wasn't CWA, I was IBEW (some weird thing I dunno). My union was awesome, my stewards fantastic, and Verizon tried to get rid of all of us, the Union was right there, getting as many of us as they could new jobs in the company, new training, etc.
And I've worked in a non-union theatre, and while I was there pretty much voluntarily and was getting paid a decent wage for a Uni student, lemme tell you, I'd have loved to get my union card.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
More over I don't understand the goal of the union there, in the sense that ticket taker shouldn't be someones end goal for a job. Trying to get pay/benefits to raise a family and retire with is non-nonsensical for those positions. These are jobs people should hold only until they can get jobs that a 15 year old can't be taught to do in a couple of weeks.
Grocery stores it's usually heavy items. Sorry Jimmy, you hurt your back permanently because your boss kept pressuring you to carry the 180 lb box by yourself.
This, and also: Why does this matter? Why is the labor of teenagers and college students worth less than the labor of someone else performing the same tasks?