New evidence that strong unions reduce exploit inequality

[laughing dog]

Does not take any imagination - permitting competing unions means the first union can be undercut or the employer can play them off each other. That is not union "friendly". Still waiting for you to show how libertarians are union friendly.

Dopes "union-friendly" mean the same as "monopoly-supporter"?

No.

 

[Emily Lake]

Note that professional associations are not unions. My wife belongs to one--they discuss matters of interest to the profession and they arrange continuing education classes. They have no contact with anyone's employer.

Echoing this - professional associations aren't unions. I'm a member of the society of actuaries, which definitely controls entry into the field, works to further the scope and value of actuaries, and provides for standards of practice and precepts of behavior. They play a role in maintaining the credibility and reputation of actuaries... but they have nothing at all to do with my employer, my job title, my benefits, or my pay.

 

[bilby]

Note that professional associations are not unions. My wife belongs to one--they discuss matters of interest to the profession and they arrange continuing education classes. They have no contact with anyone's employer.

Echoing this - professional associations aren't unions. I'm a member of the society of actuaries, which definitely controls entry into the field, works to further the scope and value of actuaries, and provides for standards of practice and precepts of behavior. They play a role in maintaining the credibility and reputation of actuaries... but they have nothing at all to do with my employer, my job title, my benefits, or my pay.

This is nonsense.

If they "control entry into the field, work to further the scope and value of [people in your profession], and provide for standards of practice and precepts of behavior" then they very definitely have a LOT to do with your employer, your benefits and your pay. That you don't grasp that does not make it untrue.

Nobody sensible gives a shit about their job title. Which is not to say that most people don't, of course.

Your union clearly cares so much about what it is called that it has done an excellent job of fooling people into thinking it's not a union if it's not called a union. But a rose by any other name...

 

[DBT]

There's quite a range between your threshold and union jobs.

Simple test: If you need a college degree for the position you're most likely not in a union. That's a much lower bar than an exceptional skill, yet jobs requiring degrees tend to pay better than union jobs.

Jobs requiring a degree are more in the line of a profession than a job. This is not an example of an average job.

And you don't have jobs in your profession??

I made a distinction between a job and a profession, casual labour and a career, workers in comparison to management...of course there is a degree of overlap. However, I have yet to see evidence that non union workers on individual contracts are on a par with unionized workplaces.

There is also the issue of non unionized workers benefiting from decades of union gains.....which now appear to be eroding away (except for sectors where labour is in high demand)

 

[steve_bank]

Back in the 70s I had a conversation with an uncle on unions. He started as a construction laborer and became a carpenter and a fireman. I ended up with 4 relatives in the fire department. All union men. My father was a carpet and tile installer, AFL CIO affiliated union.


My uncle went on to say unions had changed. Used to be to move up as a bricklayer you had to lay a minimum of good brick a day. Now the union negotiated a max amount. Job preservation.

In the 70s I had a union job as an assembler at Pratt And Whitney Tool. I'd take a job ticket from a rack, get a parts kit, and do the work. One day the shop steward stopped me and told me to get coffee, I was working too fast. Later in a union shop in Mass as an engineer a group of us could set up a machine but not push the start button. I could not carry a part from stores to the machine, that required a union guy. It has gotten out of hand.

My father got our medical from the union along with his pension. The teacher's union is little more than a political action committee.

Unions were important, Jimmy Hoffa despite his corruption made major improvements for truckers. 'Bloody Harlan county' and the coal miners. Today unions have become corporate entities.

In Mass the govt union demanded the state, AKA taxes, pay for employee legal fees of any kind. What conservatives refer to as the govt nanny state. To some people that demeans people who in a sense progressively become wards of the state. To some degree I agree.

 

[DBT]

Any organization is only as good, or as bad as its participants, the people who run it, its members, etc. That includes Government, business, religion, etc, etc....so if something is not working properly or fairly, who is to blame?

 

[steve_bank]

Soviet and Chinese communist attempts to enforce an ideological equality failed in a big way. We can nad do have a degree iof laws and safeguards protecting labor to a degree, but our system is based on a high defree of personal fortitude and personal endurance.

Unions were never about any sort of personal equality in the workplace.. I remember Chavez organizing migrant workers, that is what unions were about. Major unions today are about political lobbying and revenue. Hard to argue otherwise.
The common workplace benefits came out of organized labor. 40 hour work week and overtime pay. Holidays and vacation. Not that there are no issues today, but unions are past their time. The industrial jobs are no longer there. Unions have been declining since the 70s.

With the OP, unions have gone from legitimate collective bargaining over conditions of employment to apparent social engineering? Do you really want that kind of socialism?

 

[DBT]

Business and management has one set of interests, workers another. Depending on the balance of power, the behaviour of either side can become excessive. Self interest rules. That is human nature.

As it currently stands, the balance of power is weighed heavily on the side of Business and management and the very rich and powerful....

 

[Emily Lake]

Note that professional associations are not unions. My wife belongs to one--they discuss matters of interest to the profession and they arrange continuing education classes. They have no contact with anyone's employer.

Echoing this - professional associations aren't unions. I'm a member of the society of actuaries, which definitely controls entry into the field, works to further the scope and value of actuaries, and provides for standards of practice and precepts of behavior. They play a role in maintaining the credibility and reputation of actuaries... but they have nothing at all to do with my employer, my job title, my benefits, or my pay.

This is nonsense.

If they "control entry into the field, work to further the scope and value of [people in your profession], and provide for standards of practice and precepts of behavior" then they very definitely have a LOT to do with your employer, your benefits and your pay. That you don't grasp that does not make it untrue.

Nobody sensible gives a shit about their job title. Which is not to say that most people don't, of course.

Your union clearly cares so much about what it is called that it has done an excellent job of fooling people into thinking it's not a union if it's not called a union. But a rose by any other name...

Unions Do:
Protect the safety of workers
Negotiate benefits and pay on behalf of their workers
Pressure employers to provide safe and reasonable working conditions

Unions do Not:
Define how types of work is done
Define standards of behavior and comportment for their members
Provide for testing, certification, or continuing education of their members

Professional Associations Do:
Define how types of work is done
Define standards of behavior and comportment for their members
Provide for testing, certification, or continuing education of their members

Professional Associations do Not:
Protect the safety of workers
Negotiate benefits and pay on behalf of their workers
Pressure employers to provide safe and reasonable working conditions

They both are interested in keeping their members happy and employed. That's where the similarity ends.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

This is nonsense.

If they "control entry into the field, work to further the scope and value of [people in your profession], and provide for standards of practice and precepts of behavior" then they very definitely have a LOT to do with your employer, your benefits and your pay. That you don't grasp that does not make it untrue.

Nobody sensible gives a shit about their job title. Which is not to say that most people don't, of course.

Your union clearly cares so much about what it is called that it has done an excellent job of fooling people into thinking it's not a union if it's not called a union. But a rose by any other name...

Unions Do:
Protect the safety of workers
Negotiate benefits and pay on behalf of their workers
Pressure employers to provide safe and reasonable working conditions

Unions do Not:
Define how types of work is done
Define standards of behavior and comportment for their members
Provide for testing, certification, or continuing education of their members

Professional Associations Do:
Define how types of work is done
Define standards of behavior and comportment for their members
Provide for testing, certification, or continuing education of their members

Professional Associations do Not:
Protect the safety of workers
Negotiate benefits and pay on behalf of their workers
Pressure employers to provide safe and reasonable working conditions

They both are interested in keeping their members happy and employed. That's where the similarity ends.

These are distinctions without a difference. I'm a member of the CAS and the AAA (I used to have an SOA membership, but why bother). They are functionally unions. So is the SOA.

aa

 

[Emily Lake]

This is nonsense.

If they "control entry into the field, work to further the scope and value of [people in your profession], and provide for standards of practice and precepts of behavior" then they very definitely have a LOT to do with your employer, your benefits and your pay. That you don't grasp that does not make it untrue.

Nobody sensible gives a shit about their job title. Which is not to say that most people don't, of course.

Your union clearly cares so much about what it is called that it has done an excellent job of fooling people into thinking it's not a union if it's not called a union. But a rose by any other name...

Unions Do:
Protect the safety of workers
Negotiate benefits and pay on behalf of their workers
Pressure employers to provide safe and reasonable working conditions

Unions do Not:
Define how types of work is done
Define standards of behavior and comportment for their members
Provide for testing, certification, or continuing education of their members

Professional Associations Do:
Define how types of work is done
Define standards of behavior and comportment for their members
Provide for testing, certification, or continuing education of their members

Professional Associations do Not:
Protect the safety of workers
Negotiate benefits and pay on behalf of their workers
Pressure employers to provide safe and reasonable working conditions

They both are interested in keeping their members happy and employed. That's where the similarity ends.

These are distinctions without a difference. I'm a member of the CAS and the AAA (I used to have an SOA membership, but why bother). They are functionally unions. So is the SOA.

aa

As soon as the associations start negotiating my compensation and benefit packages with my employer, I'll consider them to be functionally unions. Until then, I consider these distinctions to be material.

I keep thinking I should have switched over to CAS when I had the chance. I'm not sure my industry is going to survive until I'm ready to retire.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If they do it indirectly by limiting entry in the field instead of directly through strikes, are they doing it?

 

[laughing dog]

Unions do Not:
Define how types of work is done
Define standards of behavior and comportment for their members
Provide for testing, certification, or continuing education of their members

That is untrue. My union defines standards of behavior for its members.

The AMA and other professional organizations are really modern version of guilds which are very similar to unions. I strongly suspect the resistance of these professional organizations that limit entry, lobby for regulations, etc.... to be called unions is class-based: doctors, lawyers, accountants, actuaries do not (or did not) views themselves as on the same level as manual laborers.

 

[Emily Lake]

If they do it indirectly by limiting entry in the field instead of directly through strikes, are they doing it?

Only to the same extent that other certification or degree programs do the same thing - they make the certification/degree a requirement for working in that field. I don't see that requiring a pharmacist to have a PharmD degree is equivalent to a union. It's simply that actuarial certifications aren't acquired through a traditional university, but through a separate system.

 

[Emily Lake]

Unions do Not:
Define how types of work is done
Define standards of behavior and comportment for their members
Provide for testing, certification, or continuing education of their members

That is untrue. My union defines standards of behavior for its members.

The AMA and other professional organizations are really modern version of guilds which are very similar to unions. I strongly suspect the resistance of these professional organizations that limit entry, lobby for regulations, etc.... to be called unions is class-based: doctors, lawyers, accountants, actuaries do not (or did not) views themselves as on the same level as manual laborers.

I'd say guild is a reasonable term. I still contend that the direct negotiation of compensation by the group on behalf of it's members is a pretty significant aspect of what constitutes a union, and that's something that is conspicuously absent in the case of professional associations.

 

[RVonse]

This is nonsense.

If they "control entry into the field, work to further the scope and value of [people in your profession], and provide for standards of practice and precepts of behavior" then they very definitely have a LOT to do with your employer, your benefits and your pay. That you don't grasp that does not make it untrue.

Nobody sensible gives a shit about their job title. Which is not to say that most people don't, of course.

Your union clearly cares so much about what it is called that it has done an excellent job of fooling people into thinking it's not a union if it's not called a union. But a rose by any other name...

Unions Do:
Protect the safety of workers
Negotiate benefits and pay on behalf of their workers
Pressure employers to provide safe and reasonable working conditions

Unions do Not:
Define how types of work is done
Define standards of behavior and comportment for their members
Provide for testing, certification, or continuing education of their members

Professional Associations Do:
Define how types of work is done
Define standards of behavior and comportment for their members
Provide for testing, certification, or continuing education of their members

Professional Associations do Not:
Protect the safety of workers
Negotiate benefits and pay on behalf of their workers
Pressure employers to provide safe and reasonable working conditions

They both are interested in keeping their members happy and employed. That's where the similarity ends.

These are distinctions without a difference. I'm a member of the CAS and the AAA (I used to have an SOA membership, but why bother). They are functionally unions. So is the SOA.

aa

Exactly.

And so is the AMA (American Medical Association). The AMA is by far the biggest, baddest, and most powerful union going in the USA right now. By far. Even as long as 20 years ago, the AMA was used in my college level economics class as the perfect example of limiting membership for massive economic gain. The AMA makes the UAW or Jimmy Hoffa look like a sunday group of children trying to organize. Yet they only call it an association. Go figure.

They have obviously accomplished an extremely good job fooling people like Loren and Emily Lake, that is for sure.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

These are distinctions without a difference. I'm a member of the CAS and the AAA (I used to have an SOA membership, but why bother). They are functionally unions. So is the SOA.

aa

As soon as the associations start negotiating my compensation and benefit packages with my employer, I'll consider them to be functionally unions. Until then, I consider these distinctions to be material.

You get paid what you get paid because of the existence of the SOA. What difference does it make that they didn't negotiate directly with your employer? Or from the other side, why isn't the United Auto Workers union considered a professional association? Because they negotiate?

I keep thinking I should have switched over to CAS when I had the chance. I'm not sure my industry is going to survive until I'm ready to retire.

I started out on the life side working on public sector pension plans. I switched as soon as I could (back then it was exam 4). I think part of the struggle on the life side is that the SOA whored themselves out and started giving away credentials. Then there's the whole 'General Insurance' track fiasco.

Regardless, keep your head up. You'll be fine.

aa

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Unions do Not:
Define how types of work is done
Define standards of behavior and comportment for their members
Provide for testing, certification, or continuing education of their members

That is untrue. My union defines standards of behavior for its members.

The AMA and other professional organizations are really modern version of guilds which are very similar to unions. I strongly suspect the resistance of these professional organizations that limit entry, lobby for regulations, etc.... to be called unions is class-based: doctors, lawyers, accountants, actuaries do not (or did not) views themselves as on the same level as manual laborers.

hashtagnotallactuaries

aa

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

These are distinctions without a difference. I'm a member of the CAS and the AAA (I used to have an SOA membership, but why bother). They are functionally unions. So is the SOA.

aa

Exactly.

And so is the AMA (American Medical Association). The AMA is by far the biggest, baddest, and most powerful union going in the USA right now. By far. Even as long as 20 years ago, the AMA was used in my college level economics class as the perfect example of limiting membership for massive economic gain. The AMA makes the UAW or Jimmy Hoffa look like a sunday group of children trying to organize. Yet they only call it an association. Go figure.

They have obviously accomplished an extremely good job fooling people like Loren and Emily Lake, that is for sure.

Agreed. I think the AMA is the biggest obstacle to Medicare for all. Doctors hate medicare pricing.

aa

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If they do it indirectly by limiting entry in the field instead of directly through strikes, are they doing it?

Only to the same extent that other certification or degree programs do the same thing - they make the certification/degree a requirement for working in that field. I don't see that requiring a pharmacist to have a PharmD degree is equivalent to a union. It's simply that actuarial certifications aren't acquired through a traditional university, but through a separate system.

For most degree programs there is a theoretically unlimited number of people who can graduate with that degree (and before you say it I know about cost, field saturation, classroom size, qualification, population, etc.). But the AMA puts deliberate limits on the number of medical schools and the number of students a school can handle. Getting the degree is limited by the AMA.