Please educate me about unions.

[Playball40]

Admittedly I live in a "right to work" state and always have. I've never been in a union and the most I've been involved with them is through history books. My father, an airline pilot from the 50's through the 80's, was in a union. I vaguely remember a couple of strikes in the 70's and my Dad would go paint houses in the interem.

However, reading, studying and listening clearly shows me the intentional break down of the union seemingly beginning in the late 70's early 80's. I've heard all the arguments against unions and the also know of the parallel downhill trend of wages and unions (so I know the correlation). However, in my office for instance, I mentioned that trend and was me with very STAUNCH "the unions were too powerful" "the unions are just as bad" "the unions don't help business""the unions protect bad employees"..........on and on.

Am I the one with 'rose colored glasses' with respect to unions. IS there evidence of the BAD that unions did/do and is it prevelant? DID the unions kill industry in this country. From what I read I don't believe so, but maybe, coming from a non-union state, I'm missing something.

Why such a hatred of unions? Do we need them back but with modifications? I doubt it will happen, but again, people I always assumed were knowledgable looked at me like I had three heads when I said that we need union protection. I swear I think I'm the ONLY left-leaning dumb ass in my office of over 75. I think I just need to not speak.

 

[bigfield]

Corruption is the main problem with unions. They are not always democratic, they don't always operate within the law, and they don't always work for the benefits of their members. I can see how people would hate unions if they were affected by this corruption.

But when unions operate with integrity, they are indispensable. They negotiate work agreements that individual employees couldn't possibly hope to obtain, and they exert political influence through labour/worker's parties in government, which benefits non-union workers as well.

I've never been in a union (I work for a small business), but I have definitely benefitted from their political influence on industrial relations law.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Hi,
I am in a union now. Our dues are $15 per paycheck or 1% of our gross (which ever is the lesser). Before the union we had not had a raise in 10 years and sexual harassment/bullying and abuse was rampant with a "talk and get fired" procedure in place. Being in the union is no ticket to higher wages since most members are hired below market rates, but regular raises keep the jobs somewhat stable. (And shields us somewhat from massive knee-jerk staff layoffs. - Simply because we can complain to the press, where as a single non-union employee cannot.)

In recent years the union has worked closely with the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and state government to outline the trend of bloated administration, lack of student support, and unresponsiveness of the University to the state and it's soon to be disastrous "merit pay raises only" (no base or cost of living raises) for non-union which will pit employees against one another and build resentment. (Think Microsoft model in a public research university.)

We also held the University for the refund of the overpayments of our medical plans. They wanted to throw it in the general fund, the law says it must be returned to the employees.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason that unions have collapsed is that a union business is normally not able to compete with non-union business. Look around now, most unions are in fields where competition isn't a factor.

 

[ksen]

You mean like how german auto manufacturers can't compete with American auto manufacturers?

 

[Bronzeage]

A union is a special type of corporation. Like all corporations, it is defined by a set of laws. Also, like a corporation, it can only exist when laws make it easy and efficient to form the corporation. Since the 1970's, there has been a shift in the legal code to favor other corporations, to the disadvantage of union corporations.

In the late 1800's and into the early 20th century, corporations forced intolerable working conditions on so many people, it caused social unrest. Government recognized the fact that violence and oppression could not keep the working class calm and maintain order. This lead to the passing of labor laws which made union corporations a partner in the economy.

Of course, corporate management would like a docile and relatively weak work force, so they have always opposed unions. They have worked through the political process to weaken labor laws. At the same time, they moved manufacturing jobs to other countries to take advantage of the docile and powerless labor forces in non-union countries, and used the loss of manufacturing jobs as justification to say things like, "... union business is normally not able to compete with non-union business."

 

[braces_for_impact]

Admittedly I live in a "right to work" state and always have. I've never been in a union and the most I've been involved with them is through history books. My father, an airline pilot from the 50's through the 80's, was in a union. I vaguely remember a couple of strikes in the 70's and my Dad would go paint houses in the interem.

However, reading, studying and listening clearly shows me the intentional break down of the union seemingly beginning in the late 70's early 80's. I've heard all the arguments against unions and the also know of the parallel downhill trend of wages and unions (so I know the correlation). However, in my office for instance, I mentioned that trend and was me with very STAUNCH "the unions were too powerful" "the unions are just as bad" "the unions don't help business""the unions protect bad employees"..........on and on.

Am I the one with 'rose colored glasses' with respect to unions. IS there evidence of the BAD that unions did/do and is it prevelant? DID the unions kill industry in this country. From what I read I don't believe so, but maybe, coming from a non-union state, I'm missing something.

Why such a hatred of unions? Do we need them back but with modifications? I doubt it will happen, but again, people I always assumed were knowledgable looked at me like I had three heads when I said that we need union protection. I swear I think I'm the ONLY left-leaning dumb ass in my office of over 75. I think I just need to not speak.

I've often wondered this myself.

 

[ksen]

Am I the one with 'rose colored glasses' with respect to unions. IS there evidence of the BAD that unions did/do and is it prevelant?

From a capitalcentric viewpoint the bad the unions did was raise wages for workers and make it more expensive to have dangerous workplaces.

DID the unions kill industry in this country.

Yes, can't you tell that we're living in an industrial wasteland now? (j/k)

From what I read I don't believe so, but maybe, coming from a non-union state, I'm missing something.

Why such a hatred of unions? Do we need them back but with modifications? I doubt it will happen, but again, people I always assumed were knowledgable looked at me like I had three heads when I said that we need union protection. I swear I think I'm the ONLY left-leaning dumb ass in my office of over 75. I think I just need to not speak.

The hatred of unions comes from the successful adoption of the viewpoint that whatever is good for business (in this case "business" being defined as "capital") is good for the country. Since high wages are an expense to businesses, higher wages means a lower return on capital, it is always seen as good when they're kept in check. It's really quite impressive at how the capitalist class has so completely won the class war.

And scary too.

 

[coloradoatheist]

From a capitalcentric viewpoint the bad the unions did was raise wages for workers and make it more expensive to have dangerous workplaces.

DID the unions kill industry in this country.

Yes, can't you tell that we're living in an industrial wasteland now? (j/k)

From what I read I don't believe so, but maybe, coming from a non-union state, I'm missing something.

Why such a hatred of unions? Do we need them back but with modifications? I doubt it will happen, but again, people I always assumed were knowledgable looked at me like I had three heads when I said that we need union protection. I swear I think I'm the ONLY left-leaning dumb ass in my office of over 75. I think I just need to not speak.

The hatred of unions comes from the successful adoption of the viewpoint that whatever is good for business (in this case "business" being defined as "capital") is good for the country. Since high wages are an expense to businesses, higher wages means a lower return on capital, it is always seen as good when they're kept in check. It's really quite impressive at how the capitalist class has so completely won the class war.

And scary too.

While high pay is a reason, it's the inflexibility with unions that companies don't like dealing with them. To make major shifts, things don't work out well and there is no good way for companies to reward good workers in an union structure.

 

[laughing dog]

From a capitalcentric viewpoint the bad the unions did was raise wages for workers and make it more expensive to have dangerous workplaces.

DID the unions kill industry in this country.

Yes, can't you tell that we're living in an industrial wasteland now? (j/k)

From what I read I don't believe so, but maybe, coming from a non-union state, I'm missing something.

Why such a hatred of unions? Do we need them back but with modifications? I doubt it will happen, but again, people I always assumed were knowledgable looked at me like I had three heads when I said that we need union protection. I swear I think I'm the ONLY left-leaning dumb ass in my office of over 75. I think I just need to not speak.

The hatred of unions comes from the successful adoption of the viewpoint that whatever is good for business (in this case "business" being defined as "capital") is good for the country. Since high wages are an expense to businesses, higher wages means a lower return on capital, it is always seen as good when they're kept in check. It's really quite impressive at how the capitalist class has so completely won the class war.

And scary too.

While high pay is a reason, it's the inflexibility with unions that companies don't like dealing with them. To make major shifts, things don't work out well and there is no good way for companies to reward good workers in an union structure.

That must be news to movie producers and owners of sports teams in the US. Whether or not a company can reward good workers in an union structure depends on the negotiated contract. Hell, my father worked in a non-union environment in his last job for over 30 years and they could (or would) not figure out how to reward good workers.

 

[coloradoatheist]

From a capitalcentric viewpoint the bad the unions did was raise wages for workers and make it more expensive to have dangerous workplaces.

DID the unions kill industry in this country.

Yes, can't you tell that we're living in an industrial wasteland now? (j/k)

From what I read I don't believe so, but maybe, coming from a non-union state, I'm missing something.

Why such a hatred of unions? Do we need them back but with modifications? I doubt it will happen, but again, people I always assumed were knowledgable looked at me like I had three heads when I said that we need union protection. I swear I think I'm the ONLY left-leaning dumb ass in my office of over 75. I think I just need to not speak.

The hatred of unions comes from the successful adoption of the viewpoint that whatever is good for business (in this case "business" being defined as "capital") is good for the country. Since high wages are an expense to businesses, higher wages means a lower return on capital, it is always seen as good when they're kept in check. It's really quite impressive at how the capitalist class has so completely won the class war.

And scary too.

While high pay is a reason, it's the inflexibility with unions that companies don't like dealing with them. To make major shifts, things don't work out well and there is no good way for companies to reward good workers in an union structure.

That must be news to movie producers and owners of sports teams in the US. Whether or not a company can reward good workers in an union structure depends on the negotiated contract. Hell, my father worked in a non-union environment in his last job for over 30 years and they could (or would) not figure out how to reward good workers.

There are a few that are structured that way, but most aren't. And workers without unions can be compensated in that matter so individually it's up to them and not the whole group.

 

[laughing dog]

There are a few that are structured that way, but most aren't.

What does "most" mean to you? More importantly, contracts are negotiated. If it is important to an employee to have flexibility in rewarding good workers, then the employer should attempt to negotiate terms that the employer and union can live with.

And workers without unions can be compensated in that matter so individually it's up to them and not the whole group.

And yet, as I pointed out, there are employers that seem unable or unwilling to reward good workers.

In the end, I think an employer gets the union he/she deserves. Internationally, there are plenty of successful firms with unions.

 

[coloradoatheist]

What does "most" mean to you? More importantly, contracts are negotiated. If it is important to an employee to have flexibility in rewarding good workers, then the employer should attempt to negotiate terms that the employer and union can live with.

And those contracts become very inflexible and for most business they need the flexibility, not the once a year or once every 5 or 6 years to dictate the business.

And yet, as I pointed out, there are employers that seem unable or unwilling to reward good workers.

In the end, I think an employer gets the union he/she deserves. Internationally, there are plenty of successful firms with unions.

And how would you judge on a whole whether or not good workers got the rewards?

 

[ksen]

And those contracts become very inflexible and for most business they need the flexibility, not the once a year or once every 5 or 6 years to dictate the business.

Need the flexibility for what, exactly?

And you're seriously going to say once a year isn't enough of it? Would you say the same thing for vendor pricing contracts? Or lease agreements? Those things are routinely at least year and, in the case of lease agreements, can easily be 5 or 6 years in length.

What makes union contracts so special? I mean other than the fact that they affect real life people and their livelihoods?

And how would you judge on a whole whether or not good workers got the rewards?

Well, in the current economy they're not getting any rewards. Unless you consider just keeping their job as a reward. But if that's the case we have different definitions of the word "reward."

 

[laughing dog]

And those contracts become very inflexible and for most business they need the flexibility, not the once a year or once every 5 or 6 years to dictate the business.

And your empirical basis for these claims are...?

And how would you judge on a whole whether or not good workers got the rewards?

Depends on the situation. In the case of my father, apparently most of the employees in that area knew who carried the load of work and it was not proportionate to the rewards. In the case of my neighbor the builder who uses union labor, he chooses the carpenters and electricians who he knows produce the necessary quality faster. In that case, the good workers get more hours and more income.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Need the flexibility for what, exactly?

For a lot of things depending on the business. Hours, number of positions, work type, etc. Something that a business needs to be flexible.

And you're seriously going to say once a year isn't enough of it? Would you say the same thing for vendor pricing contracts? Or lease agreements? Those things are routinely at least year and, in the case of lease agreements, can easily be 5 or 6 years in length.

Yes. Business is always changing. And for the others, business will be mixed on those contracts, and they have to decide how important it is and how bad those contracts are and how easily it is to get out of them.

What makes union contracts so special? I mean other than the fact that they affect real life people and their livelihoods?

The largest expense of most businesses is labor so yes it very important to them.

Well, in the current economy they're not getting any rewards. Unless you consider just keeping their job as a reward. But if that's the case we have different definitions of the word "reward."

And I was talking about individuals and not specific groups.

 

[EricK]

Obviously the OP is talking about the US, but in the UK the unions certainly got too powerful in the 70's and early 80's and really did a lot of damage to many traditional industries.

You can learn a lot about history by looking at the satire of the era. Hopefully, therefore, you are able to view these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bq_abof4lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amZsdpLXcIo

 

[Nice Squirrel]

For a lot of things depending on the business. Hours, number of positions, work type, etc. Something that a business needs to be flexible.

Do you know anything about unions? I mean, really, because all these things are addressed in the average contract. Some contracts even specify who gets laid off in slow times. Some contracts include and benefit pay cuts.

And you're seriously going to say once a year isn't enough of it? Would you say the same thing for vendor pricing contracts? Or lease agreements? Those things are routinely at least year and, in the case of lease agreements, can easily be 5 or 6 years in length.

Yes. Business is always changing. And for the others, business will be mixed on those contracts, and they have to decide how important it is and how bad those contracts are and how easily it is to get out of them.

I'd hate to work for ColoradoAthiest Corp and its throngs of contract lawyers and paralegals that need to review all these changing contracts that are written up I assume weekly or daily.

Do you know how businesses work? I mean real businesses and not the theoretical kind.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It really depends on where you live and what union you are thinking of. There are both good and bad. EricK posted from the UK, where unions have gone too far. I post from Canada, where many unions have gone too far.

Unions here can often be a much bigger headache for an individual worker than the employer. You can be forced into a union against your will if a union vote goes against you as an individual, and a lot of underhanded tricks are played by unions to get into workplaces and do this, including salting (sending in members to vote and then immediately leave), calling votes without proper notice, while workers are on break, etc. Once a union has taken hold they are very often difficult for workers to get rid of (especially here in Ontario), even if the majority of workers want them gone.

Unions demand dues, which you are forced to pay, and which can be hefty, and can be spent directly against your interests, such as funding political candidates you personally oppose. Unions often enact seniority rules, which can mean lazy protected long term union members keeping down newer and more hard working or talented workers. Unions here in Ontario can take away your right to directly sue your employer, and you are forced to go through the union, who may refuse it, leaving you no option for justice.

Unions can also get very very big, so big that they can take over entire industries, locking new people out from entering the industry, unless they get into the union and subject themselves to the above.

And of course, unions can make demands to employers that wind up causing employers to close shop, which would mean you'd be out of a job, even if you disagree with what the union is demanding.

Essentially the problem with unions is that in gaining a collective voice you lose your individual voice. In gaining rights for the collective, you lose rights as an individual. That is why people oppose unions.

 

[ksen]

"Gaining rights for the collective" hasn't worked out too bad for management. I mean businesses are experiencing record profits because the collectives known as "corporations" are able to use collective power against individual workers when a union isn't present.

The only right you have as an individual when dealing with a collective of businessmen is to suck it if you don't like it.