Unions?
 

Are you with them against them or neutral? Why? What aspects of unionization don't get reported in the press?

I used to be pretty hard-core anti-union, but I've seen too much class warfare from the right in the name of (faux) free markets to maintain that universal opposition. Free markets are only free if large corporations and the rich can fail too.

I saw a brilliant recruitment advert for a union once. Let me see if I can find it on Youtube.

Before I do though: I am absolutely supportive of the labour and union movement. They are the only thing that shifts the balance of power and offers protection for workers.

That some unions are not fit for purpose is an unfortunate fact. That some unionists act for their own, rather than their members' interests is also an unfortunate fact. But every protection that is currently afforded to workers is there because of unions. They arose out of an extreme need for that protection. Want to see how employment would work if unions had never developed? Look back in history at what happens when they're illegal.

Here it is:




I read an interesting quote taken from a programme about the British workplace the other day:


The employers shouldn't be demonised. But nor should the workers. In recent decades the balance of power has shifted further from workers and towards employers than it has in the previous century. There is a class war. It's quiet and it's couched in unwarlike language, but do not doubt it is being fought. By them.



Here's another interesting little clip.

What have the Unions Ever Done for Us?

Exactly.

I hadn't seen the "What has the union movement ever done for us" ad. Thanks Dana.

At best, unions are a double edged sword. They only protect people who can't say NO.

I've seen too much damage caused by unions to think they can help. Like all power organizations they are susceptible and afflicted with corruption. I think they are essentially parasites.

For every point brought up in the video there is a corresponding negative point.

I'm for them, especially after reading up on Colorado State Law to see what the penalties are if someone turns Bill-the-motel-owner (also known as "yas-suh") into the DA for forcing his employees to work 3 back to back 14 hour shifts with a payCUT instead of OT as required by law.

Poor little Billy can get fined around $200 per employee and be forced to give us backpay amounting to double what we should have been paid. So in my instance that would come to a whopping $640.00 for one week. He MIGHT also have to go spend a few days playing poker with his buddies down at the County Jail. Maybe.

But that's only if we file an official complaint within 60 days. If we don't, he's off the hook. And although he's not supposed to retaliate against employees who report him, Colorado is an "at will" State, meaning the boss can come up with any reason he wants and fire you on the spot. It's a Mercenarian paradise. :mad:

So, the unions you favor have given you a toothless law purporting to offer you recourse. I'm guessing, despite this 'law', you will not report Billy.

Unions are not perfect - nothing is. There has to be something on the other end of the seesaw when employers are abusive. Individuals can't do it alone.

Why do you assume that the unions have given a law?

Not being sarcastic at all, am keen to hear your point of view...

Sure they can. They are not slaves. They can quit.

That's getting off the seesaw, not combatting abuse.

getting off the see saw ends the game, combating abuse perpetuates the game.

I started off with an anecdote, but thought a general comment was more appropriate.

If you've always known where your next meal is coming from and you've always had options, then that argument works. If you're in a situation when quitting or taking issue with the boss over unfair conditions to the point where you lose your job means that you can't feed yourself or pay your bills, then you're at the mercy of whoever is your employer. The worker isn't always necessarily right, but neither should the employer be able to call all the shots.

My support of unions is not blind. They have bene responsible for some pretty awful shit. As a woman and a historian I am painfully aware of the role unions have played in the past (and actually more recently in a few cases) in perpetuating and even exacerbating sexual discrimination. During the 1840s it was the Union movement that insisted that women should not be allowed to work in a variety of crafts and trades. It was the unions who perpetuated the notion of the 'male breadwinner ideal'.

Time and again the sisters of the movement have been ushered to the back of the room and told to stay quiet. Laughed at when they tried to address their brothers in arms, derided for their work. Though always expected to show their support in other womanly ways.

Even as recently as the 1970s the male dominated unions in my country argued vehemently against the relaxation of laws prohibiting women from working nights in many fields or from working underground.

Sometimes protection becomes protectionism, and the unions loyalty to their base membership leads them to engage in exclusionary tactics agains other, even less protected workers than their own.

None of this changes the fact that without worker protection the employer class (and it is a class) is able to call all the shots. More importantly, we can see from periods of low protection that this employer class cannot be trusted to take account of their workers' well-being without an element of compulsion.

The argument that workers have the ultimate sanction at their disposal, that of withdrawing their labour and going elsewhere only works if the opportunities for better working conditions exist. Without worker protection those conditions fall away across the board.

I grew up in a UAW family (dad was a steward for 20+ years). I've seen lockouts and strikes, the union defend employees that should have been fired years earlier, rules meant to protect the employees twisted to screw other employees.

I also worked for a company that was strongly anti-union but had union employees in some states. This company made public the details of every contract signed through collective bargaining side by side with the non-union employee plans. In every single category the company made a point of giving higher pay, better benefits, and greater incentives to the non-union employees. The company's point was "we have X amount of dollars sest asided for compensation, if we don't have to spend some of that screwing around with union leadership you will benefit".

I think generally the unions are beneficial in factories and labor oriented trades, but pointless in most other areas. Public sector unions, imo, are a scam. The large union leadership has lost touch with the employees they "protect". They are politicians intent on gathering more power to themselves.

We have no unions which cover the motel/hotel industry. In fact, we have almost no unions at all. The coal miners may still have a couple. I dunno.

Some interesting points. But I do wonder if that company didn't have the union paradigm with which to compare; if unions simply did not exist, would they still have offered better pay and set aside money for compensation?

I used to be pro-union. Then I learned to read. True. Soon after, I began learning how to do research. I listened to my mother (Bell Tel union) and my father (never union). I watched the news earlier than most of my peers. Then I entered the workforce. I saw firsthand. I learned faster. Now, I would outlaw unions if I could.

The day of the union is past. In the beginning, they were definitely needed. They have given us plenty to be thankful for. Unfortunately, they cannot be removed once installed. And they grow out of control. Eventually, the workers are being paid way more than they are worth and the union cannot win any more pay raises, so they go to shorter work weeks and better conditions. Eventually, the workers work in paradise and are paid triple their value to the company. Now what? They go for benefits too so they now have pensions ad health benefits that rival the US Congress. They get more days off than bankers. They do very little and what they do do is shoddy.

This I have seen myself. With mine own Mark I eyeballs. The day of the union is past. Long past. The unions made it possible and economic to ship jobs to China, Asia and Central/South America. They almost single-handedly destroyed the electronics industry, the textile industry, the Great American Manufacturing industry itself.

Not all the blame is on unions of course. Some falls on management and some on government interference. There is blame all around but I feel that a disproportionate amount falls on unions.

And don't get me started on the union itself, The bloated salaries, the confiscation of wealth to redistribute to political causes in violation of it's own charter. The total lack of any real productivity.

Here is another point of view from The American Thinker.

It sounds to me that the union helped not only themselves, but the compnay's non-union workers, too. If the union had not been there at all, the workers would have gotten minimal. Because the union negotiated X, the non-union workers got X+Y. If the union negotiated X+1, the non-union workers got X+1+Y.

There are all kinds of stories about a union worker who should have been fired. There are at least that number of stories about a worker who got screwed by the boss when s/he didn't earn it.

Lookout just had his own example (allegedly;))

My experience of unions is rather mixed.

True story:

Mum went into nursing in her mid-30s. She went through nursing college and was about a month away from her final exams when she was posted to a 'medium dependency' recovery ward. Whilst there she was instructed by the ward Sister to help a patient out of her bed. Mum asked for help in lifting the patient, who was very overweight and required a lot of lifting. The Sister told her she didn't need a second person for lifting, as the patient was not high dependency and theregfore should be able to do some of the moving herself, with some assistance.

Unfortunately, as became clear later on, this woman was only on the medium dependency recovery ward because the high dependency ward was full. The woman needed full on lifting. Mum tried asking the sister a second time for assistance and was basically told she was making a big deal out of nothing, stop making a fuss and go do her job.

In trying to lift the patient, mum injured her back very badly. She spent several moths in hospital, and a good deal of that in traction. She has suffered back pains ever since and for a long time her movement was restricted.

She was unable to complete her nursing training, and for many years was only able to manage part-time work. Though she continued to work in a hospital setting (as a phlebotomist) her nursing career was over and her earnings never amounted to what they would have had she been able to pursue the career she loved and had worked damned hard to enter.

She was advised by her union that she should try for compensation. Since the accident was to a large extent a result of mismanagement on the part of her immediate superior, she had a strong case. She could not have afforded the legal fees involved in taking such action without the union's assistance. They provided the solicitor.

Unfortunately, her case dragged on for years. Every so often a new solicitor wuold be put on her case and it would all start up again. The hospital conveniently mislaid records and reassigned the Sister. Each time the case moved forward the hospital would insist on further medicals to try and show that she was no longer suffering. Each set of medicals would show that she had permamently damaged her back.

The union mismanaged her case. It took 13 years before it was finally heard. he hospital engaged in underhand tactics. We are fairly sure that those of her colleagues who'd been nearby and overheard the Sister had been persuaded not to talk.

Eventually she was awarded £27,000 compensation, for her lost career after 13 years.

Now, on the one hand, i see here a failing of the union. It shouldn't have taken 13 years. They shouldn't have kept pushing her from one solicitor to another. They shouldn't have been so lax.

On the other hand, Mum would never have had any compensation had there been no union solicitor working on her behalf.

I don't know about hotels/motels. I found this list, though for Colorado.

I think unions seem like they would be good and would work for some industries but from what I have seen and heard, they seem to be another excuse/opportunity for corruption.

Any large organisation that has been around long enough to become an institution is going to have problems of that nature.

I actually think that unions are most necessary for the more fragmented workforces, as opposed to the larger factory workforces. It is precisely the kinds of workers who aren't all lumped together, such as hotel workers and shop assistants who need that protection most. In a factory with hundreds ior thousands of workers, a strike or withdrawal of labour is possible and might be effective in swaying management. Hard to replace a workforce of that size.

If it's just you and three others, then you have no weight at all.

Unions have become a recent self-inflicted casualty of their own early success.

They were instrumental in the passage of most workplace safety and employment discrimination laws and played a large role in creating the middle class. But then they got greedy and overreached, particularly in the area of non-wage benefits.

I dont think they are the only way to protect working people, but they still remain the best first line of defense against employer abuses and violations of employment law.

Well, the comp plan was in place before union negotiations began so I'd have to say yes. If it was just to combat unions the pay might be lower in non-union states but that isn't the case.

Are you really so insecure you feel the need to make lame digs in every thread? Relax man, I'm sure your wife will tell you it happens to every man occassionally.

Interesting. The closest union motel is 50 miles away in Farmington, New Mexico. They actually claim to pay overtime and have sick leave benefits. What a concept! I suspect that if Carmen reaches the point where she can no longer fulfill her duties here, Bill-the-Scum will either sell this place or allow it to degenerate into a third rate flop house.

Other than my genuine concern for Carmen, I couldn't care less what becomes of this place. I hope Bill goes bankrupt in his old age and ends up alone in a sleazy room in his former property. This situation here is a perfect example of why unions were created.

I have an appointment with voc-rehab on Wednesday, and you can bet that I'll tell them all about conditions here. In fact, I'm required to report the working conditions and pay I get from any job I'm attempting to work in order to move off disability. I'm certainly not going to jepordize any assistance I might qualify for just so Bill can keep cooking the books. :mad:

Unions have done a great job, increasing workplace safety, shortening the work week, and reining in first line management, usually by reporting their behavior to the people that actually own/run the company. I know there have been many cases of unions, usually the trade unions, keeping women and blacks out, but once they were let in, the unions made sure they were paid and treated equally by management.

The union's Achilles heel is that they are run by elected people. That sounds good until apathy settles into the membership, then the union leaders become nothing more than politicians. Democracy and unions are both great ideas, when the people are engaged and involved.

Unfortunately Americans, having it "too good for too long", have been so involved with "me", they've let control slip away. Now political & union elections have become, money talks, discourse walks. So the unions have declined parallel to the nation.

Blaming unions for driving manufacturing out of the country is ludicrous, how many Americans do you know that will work even eight hours, for a dollar a day? Same goes for quality, face it, skill level will vary, but every employee must work to the standards the company has set as acceptable, or they're gone, union or not.

If you cite a case of a substandard employee being protected by the union, it's because of lazy management not doing their job and blaming it on the union. Any union employee can be terminated for violating company standards, the union can only make sure the company documents those violations, so supervisors can't just fire somebody because they don't like their lifestyle, religion, or politics. No matter how good the contract, the law is the last word. Then if the company and union don't agree, the national labor relations board decides.

Right now, killing unions is the target of the Money-Class that's taken over politics. Not because of wages/benefits, but because they are organized groups that could hold political power. So they convince the non-union people that unions are bad, divide and conquer, stamping the last possible voting bloc they don't control.

Goodbye unions. Goodbye democracy. Welcome your new money-class overlords.

:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy

Bruce! Rarely seen these days, but well worth the wait. The best explanation of the union situation that I have read so far.

Yep. Well said Bruce.

Big Business, a Tea Partier and Organized Labor are sitting around a table. A dozen cookies arrive on a plate. Big Business takes 11 of them and says to the Tea Partier, "Pssst! That union guy is trying to steal your cookie!"

Oh that's fucking brilliant! I love it.

I have been a trade unionist all my working life, I have also been a local and branch rep although these days I'm only an active member.
I've worked in jobs that have had no union representation and jobs that have, and have been a member of three unions and can say any employment without there being union involvement has always been worse for terms and conditions and mangement attitude towards it's workforce.
A union is only as good as it's members, people talk about the union this and the union that but forget that it's not a seperate entity, it's a collective of members and to get the most out of any union you must participate to an extent.
It's no good paying your subs and then moaning "What has the Union done for me".
If you're not happy about something attend meetings,speak up get involved
People that say unions are dead are talking crap, there's more need now for unions than at any time in the last 30 years the way the powers that be have fucked up and governments and employers are looking to strip working people of gained rights in search of bigger and bigger profits.

"Goodbye unions. Goodbye democracy. Welcome your new money-class overlords".

Now that's a quote
__________________

Goodbye Unions! you should have died a long time ago.

Such a small percent of the work force should not get benefits that the rest of the country has to pay out the ass for... sorry. Pay up.

Oh that brought a tear to my eye. Love the Internationale.


Can't have a discussion on unions and not throw in a little Bragg though right?

Between the Wars a mid-80s song that seems truly prophetic now.



And of course: There is Power in a Union:

I was leary of the unions in the UK. I grew up with strikes left, right, and center that affected my everyday life when I had done nothing wrong. I never needed one, I felt they had too much power and made the mine situation worse. But they had made sure there was a minimum wage law which was easily enforced with no fear of reprisal from employees. Here in the US, I cannot believe the shit bosses get away with and the crap workers put up with in fear of losing their livelihood. There are laws, but because employment is at will, employers can fire anyone making a formal complaint for no reason and hope that they're too busy looking for another job and too broke to take it further. Which they usually are.

I would not be afraid to make a complaint. I would not be afraid because of my belief in basic worker's rights. That belief was indirectly put there by the unions. They certainly had a place and there was a need for them, I think maybe the day of the old style union is passed, but I think something is needed. Especially here in the US. In the UK, it's is so crowded, it's hard to break the rules without being reported. Here, if a worker is abused in BFE, do they make a noise?

I have seen too much damage caused by unions to think they can help. Like all power organizations they are susceptible and afflicted with corruption. I think they are essentially parasites.

Blame the R's start a thread and whine, but when the D's do a similar thing ...
nary a peep.

Link

Where is your outrage?

As are the business school graduates who make those unions necessary.

Just to be clear, as I understand it, the MA law is limited to bargaining rights for health care benefits unlike WI, which limits bargaining rights for health care, pensions, wages and also requires annual recertification as opposed to recertification each time the contract is renewed (3-5 years).

Given that it does it does not gut the unions to the same extent as WI, I'm disappointed but not outraged. I think I said earlier that unions have overreached and needed to reform and accept some benefit reductions.

To expand on the above.

The provision of the WI law that change the recertification process, and by the very nature of recertification, the voluntary check-off process for political contributions, was not fiscal, but purely political.

The Republican Senate leader said as much:

"If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin."

Yes, there is a difference between the MA and WI actions so No, I am not as outraged.

Fixed that for ya.

Big Labor has one besetting problem that leaves unionism as practiced in the United States suspect from a libertarian point of view -- its monopolistic features and powers, as arranged by the power of the State. Taft-Hartley (1947) and the National Labor Relations Act (1935) acted to limit some of these unions' powers and curb the resulting excesses -- but unions qua unions are not so very necessary to attaining good working conditions and recognizing and acting upon workers' rights vis-à-vis those of employers. Union true-believers won't tell you, for instance, that if the workforce is kept well enough and happy enough, they won't need a union, and I think this is a gathering trend. The other pan of the balance is that a company gets the union its management -- personnel or culture -- deserves.

The libertarian free-market paradigm would place unions in competition rather than in monopoly. You can see how that would shake out from the employer's point of view, absent backroom deals to fix the prices of labor. And you can see how that would shake out from the consumers' point of view also.

Now that I know about it, my outrage is right here.

No it isn't EXACTLY like the one in WI, but it is another affront on unions that was perpetrated by a D legislature. If there was an R after their name all hell would have broken loose. They would have bussed people in from out of state much like WI.... and so on.

It was also passed in the middle of the night (11:30pm) to pre-empt the planned protests for the next day. (another thing the R's in WI got attacked for) This got basically buried in the press. A few articles here and there. There was nothing, but a brief mention of it on TV that I saw.


I must have missed that post. My apologies, if so.

Not EXACTLY?

How about SIGNIFICANTLY different in both the terms and the intent.

The intent of the MA law is fiscal. I suspect that if the unions had offered concessions in the manner of the WI unions, this law probably would have been avoided.

By any measure, the intent of major provisions (certification) of the WI law was ideological and political, especially given the fact that the WI unions offered big concessions on health and pension benefits that the governor refused to accept.

Dismantlling or restructing 50+ years of basic rights of workers to organize and to make it more burdensome for union certification has no fiscal implications. The Republican Senator leader made it perfectly clear.

Thats more like the UN-fair&UN-balanced response I expected.

You think it is unfair to point out the difference between the fiscal intent of the limited MA law and the political intent of the more sweeping WI law?

OK :rolleyes:

nope - I think its your partisan attitude coming thru - I CLEARLY stated that they were not the same. Continued to discuss some of the other issues which were the point of my post.
You want to relive WI over and over, that is obvious.
You went off on your liberal slant. Instead of addressing the MA issue & other points I made, you simply keep going back to the WI issue. Whatever. Have fun.

Why don't you just change your sig line
"R = Bad & D= Good."
Then all you have to post is a "."

I pointed out how it is not a SIMILAR thing and more than just not EXACTLY like, unless you equate a fiscal solution to a political action.

You want to highlight the limited commonality of the two and I want to highlight the signficant differences.

So that makes me more partisan that you?

OK

very good - now we agree.

Sure thing. Ignore the fact that your initial complaint about the liberals here not beign "outraged" was flawed and focus only on what supports your agenda.

Feel better now?

Both of your posts that led up to this were comparing the MA and WI issues, so it's a bit peculiar to attack F&B for doing so.

Reread post #49 ... I maintain my position.
You can keep moving the target all you like.
My point has been made. I really don't see what else there is to say on the subject.

Is there a way to read post 49 that is not a comparison between WI and MA? There are two paragraphs (not counting the aside at the bottom), and both compare WI and MA.

Your conclusion is based on reading the two situations as the same (not EXACTLY the same, but...), and you treat a description of the differences as irrelevant partisanship.

The diference in scale of reaction can at least partially be attributed to the difference in scale of the action.

Apparently so.
I really don't see what else there is to say on the subject.
Perception is reality. <shrug>