Please educate me about unions.

[Nice Squirrel]

"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.

And this is what is going on here. The unionized workers get a raise and to continue on with their retirement plans. The non-unionized workers are all undergoing mandatory job reviews where their levels of pay will be "examined" - layoff and pay cuts to fund the bloated executive administration. They are also getting a benefit cut and their retirement benefits are being slashed in half.

I have an interview with a department next week. I am going to have turn them down because compensation will only be $2-3k more and I will need to work 10-20 hours more a week (in theory), will be giving up my accrued sick time (16 weeks a.k.a. short term disability at full pay) and five weeks of vacation time each year.

Oh and we have no budgetary shortfalls.

 

[Bronzeage]

...
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.

How much of a voice does an individual have when speaking to corporate management?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Even though people tell me how much I hate unions, I actually think that people have a right to unionize under the rights of freedom of association and freedom to refuse to conduct business. Part of the freedom to conduct business is the freedom to refuse to conduct business.

The only thing I really don't like about unions is all the special government favors and benefits that they seek, as a counter to the special government favors and benefits the businesses seek. Hm, perhaps it is the special government favors and benefits I have a hard time with, seeing as that is my complaint about both sides. Nah, it must be because I hate unions.

My problem with unions as they currently exist right now is that over 50% of the union membership in the US is government employee unions.

 

[Under the Rose]

I had always worked for independent business until going into retail grocery and I was not impressed to have to pay initiation fees and then monthly dues for the 'privilege' to work. As I began to understand what precisely the union does and how it protects both individuals and the collective work force, I became quite impressed. While most situations can be addressed through communications and alternate strategies and payroll issues are soon made right by an examination of the records, I have witnessed some very interesting outcomes over my nine years between two venues.

Our contract states that the rates negotiated are minimums and the employer is able to pay more (to worthy individuals). Seniority applies to vacation and lay-off entitlements but as far as advancement goes, seniority will get you into consideration but it does not guarantee you the job if there are others with a better skill set or more experience. My current workplace is also pretty unique in that we are rather like a self-policing family. We all expect that each worker should pull their weight and while we will close ranks for our co-workers over illness, injury or life crises, we will not long tolerate pure laziness or deceit.

In addition to working at a unionized grocery franchise, I am also the office administrator at our union office two mornings a week. We have been busy renegotiating collective agreements for a number of our represented businesses and it is both an interesting process and a fascinating perspective on the politics of the capitalist system.

 

[Toni]

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.

I'm less than 10 years away from retirement and in my life, I have never worked in any kind of union environment. I've also never worked anywhere that actually awarded 'merit' pay increases. Generally, an increase in pay was merited by the fact that one stuck around another year. I've worked for several different types of employers of different sizes and in different fields. My current employer is a large, nationally known employer who always makes the top 100 U.S. companies to work for. It's one of the largest--perhaps the second largest employer in the state where I live. It's well recognized as being a great employer: good job security, good benefits, good pay. There is a small number of employees in a certain job classification who are union but no one else is.

Raises are almost always awarded on an annual basis. Everyone in the same broad job category is given the same dollar amount of raise, although it works out to be a different percentage of pay increase, depending on how long you have worked for the company. Supervisors of individual work units have the option of withholding raises or giving only a portion of a raise if an employee is under corrective action but this is not mandatory. This same dollar amount pay raise is given regardless of how effective or productive an individual is. Within my work unit, it is well known who is very productive and who is not and also well known which are flexible, willing to go an extra mile or 10 when needed, who are good problem solvers and who are difficult or unproductive, although individuals do not always see themselves in negative lights and are not always willing to admit to themselves that they are not the best employee. We all get the same pay increase.

This is actually how it has been at every single place of employment with a couple of exceptions:
1. One employer kept 'forgetting' to give me the promised raise after I fulfilled the probationary period, although my supervisor told me (and the boss) that I was doing a stellar job. I didn't stay any longer than when I lined up the next job. Working for dishonest people is not agreeable when one has a choice.
2. One employer gave me the raise I asked for--and then promptly evaluated other employees and gave them similar/proportional raises. And then explained to me why they were giving others the same kind of raise. I didn't mind: heck, we all deserved and needed a pay increase. And yes, I would have walked without one because I didn't just deserve the raise, I needed it to make ends meet. They figured out quickly that I wasn't the only one who was likely in that situation and they liked us. And frankly, it was more advantageous to them to be proactive before others decided to start looking around at other jobs.
3. One employer awarded merit pay in the following manner: if you were one of their offspring, you merited a pay raise. All the rest of us could lump it. And pick up the shitty shifts.

So I don't know what 'most means to you, but as I count up my different employers for a total of 9--not one awarded 'merit pay.'

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Add featherbedding to that. Not to mention the widespread acceptance of sabotage as a labor action.

 

[bilby]

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.

Add featherbedding to that. Not to mention the widespread acceptance of sabotage as a labor action.

None of these problems are a necessary result of unionisation. There are plenty of unions that negotiate minimum wage levels, but allow for good workers to be paid more; most unions do not engage in feather-bedding or sabotage.

Arguing that we should abandon labour unions because some unions do things that are harmful is exactly equivalent to arguing that we should abandon corporations and governments because some of corporations and governments are corrupt. Or that we should stop eating food, because some food gives you salmonella poisoning.

If those are the best arguments you have, you have nothing.

Unions are intended to provide a counterbalance for the dramatic imbalance of power that usually exists between an individual employee, and the collective clout of his employer. When they do that job, they are well worth having. As with governments and corporations, on the rare occasions when things go wrong, those things need to be fixed, but there is no justification for throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Add featherbedding to that. Not to mention the widespread acceptance of sabotage as a labor action.

I realize this might be an example of hope over experience, but do you have any actual data on how "widespread" the problems of "featherbedding" and "sabotage as a labor action" are?

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

Add featherbedding to that. Not to mention the widespread acceptance of sabotage as a labor action.

I realize this might be an example of hope over experience, but do you have any actual data on how "widespread" the problems of "featherbedding" and "sabotage as a labor action" are?

Featherbedding and sabotage are two of the standard management stooge claims which come up in any union discussion. For some reason, the terms resonate more with the public than "unpaid overtime," or "disregard of safe handling of toxic materials."

Back in another life, a union organizer visited my shop. He asked permission to talk the the technicians and other crew. I gave him the same deal as a customer. He could stand outside and look in the bay doors, but could not step on the work floor. Anyone who wanted to talk to him was free to do so. He understood. He was a rep for the crane operator's union. I told him, "I've been trying to organize this place for three years. Good luck." I listened to his pitch and it took about 5 minutes to figure out the deal. He wasn't really organizing a union. He was selling a health insurance and retirement plan. Anyone who joined the union would be covered by union benefits, which was really the only benefit in the deal. No new car dealer in my city would ever negotiate a labor contract with a union.

This didn't stop them from going into a full blown panic. About a dozen of them met for dinner at Ruth's Chris to discuss the crisis. I wasn't there, but I bet not a single one of them paused to wonder what they were doing to their employees that would make a union appealing to them.

The American business model is based on the illusion of absolute power of management. Very few managers, at any level, see pay and compensation as a fair exchange, where both parties are satisfied with the transaction. The idea an employee might have an advantage, however small, is truly frightening. It's sort of like when a bully realizes his victim's big brother is on the varsity football team. They don't know how to deal with an equal and resent it very greatly.

When people bring up the problem of union wage demands driving businesses to other markets, I give the following scenario. If you went to your boss and politely requested a raise, but were told even though productivity and profits were up from when you were hired, you could be replaced by someone making the same pay, so no raise. Later the boss comes to you and says, "I've found someone who will work for less than you, so you can either leave or take a pay cut."

Of course, this kind of management technique is very counter productive. Very few people will take a paycut and not compensate by reducing the work they produce. The idea this does not happen is one of the illusions of management power.

 

[Underseer]

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.

Unions allow mere peasants to challenge the authority of their betters (rich people and large corporations), which is why unions make us all less free and inevitably lead to communist dictatorships. All America-haters support unions, while patriotic Real Americans(tm) know that they are a threat to our freedom. What is the point of having an aristocracy if we leave in place a mechanism that allows peasants a say in how things are done? [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

...
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.

How much of a voice does an individual have when speaking to corporate management?

How much of a voice? Not much. Which is why collective bargaining is a good idea. I support unions that do just that, without the taking away of the individual rights I listed in the post you quoted, for the "greater good".

 

[ksen]

Do you also put the term "greater good" in scarequotes when talking about collective management power over workers and the ability of businesses to artificially keep wages down?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Do you also put the term "greater good" in scarequotes when talking about collective management power over workers and the ability of businesses to artificially keep wages down?

I would indeed put it in scare quotes if I wrote about people saying it is for the "greater good" for corporations to take away the rights of workers. Individual rights should be protected from management and union alike. This thread is about unions.

How would you feel if a union sent temporary workers into your workplace, where you've worked for years, only to vote in a union against your wishes, and then promptly leave, and then be told you can't decertify the union until years later? This happens in Ontario.

How would you feel if the union made unreasonable demands the employer simply could not meet, and the shop closed down and you lost your job? This happens in Ontario.

How would you feel if you were then forced to pay part of your pay cheque for union dues, which were used to support a political party you oppose? A party that takes strong positions against your personal values, on social issues having nothing to do with your work? This happens in Ontario.

How would you feel if you were laid off from work before the other guy who does the same job very poorly and rarely shows up, just because he go the job before you? This happens in Ontario.

How would you feel if your employer wronged you, and you were told you have no right to sue them, and that you must turn to the union to do it for you, and then the union refused to do so? This happens in Ontario.

These are reasons why workers may oppose unions here in Ontario. Unions can be vital. Unions can and have been essential to protecting workers from abuse, and from artificially keeping wages down as you say. But they are not always white knights fighting for your rights. They can be just as bad, or worse, than employers. Perhaps unions where you live have not gained as much power as unions have here, but keep our situation in mind and be vigilant against both employer and union.

 

[laughing dog]

How would you feel if a union sent temporary workers int workplace, where you've worked for years, only to vote in a union against your wishes, and then promptly leave, and then be told you can't decertify the union until years later? This happens in Ontario.

Could you explain how an union sends "temporary workers" into a workplace? Really, they need to be hired by the employer. As to a vote going against the wishes of a particular worker (or set of them) that works both ways. It is called dealing with the reality of life.

How would you feel if the union made unreasonable demands the employer simply could not meet, and the shop closed down and you lost your job? This happens in Ontario.

"Unreasonable" is in the eye of the beholder, and is not an objective or useful descriptor. it might be helpful if you could provide a link from a disinterested source that describes a situation that you mean.

How would you feel if you were then forced to pay part of your pay cheque for union dues, which were used to support a political party you oppose? A party that takes strong positions against your personal values, on social issues having nothing to do with your work? This happens in Ontario.

I would feel no different than when my taxes go to support or do things I oppose. It is called being an adult and realizing the world does not revolve around my wishes and views.

How would you feel if you were laid off from work before the other guy who does the same job very poorly and rarely shows up, just because he go the job before you? This happens in Ontario.

How would you feel if your employer wronged you, and you were told you have no right to sue them, and that you must turn to the union to do it for you, and then the union refused to do so? This happens in Ontario.

In the USA, that would not be possible. The court system requires one exhaust any union actions before proceeding to court. Are you sure that is not the case in Canada?
Of course, just because an employee feels "wronged", that does not mean the employee has been wronged or that an union contract provision has been violated. Perhaps if you provided a link to an actual situation, your argument might be more convincing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Add featherbedding to that. Not to mention the widespread acceptance of sabotage as a labor action.

None of these problems are a necessary result of unionisation. There are plenty of unions that negotiate minimum wage levels, but allow for good workers to be paid more; most unions do not engage in feather-bedding or sabotage.

Arguing that we should abandon labour unions because some unions do things that are harmful is exactly equivalent to arguing that we should abandon corporations and governments because some of corporations and governments are corrupt. Or that we should stop eating food, because some food gives you salmonella poisoning.

If those are the best arguments you have, you have nothing.

Unions are intended to provide a counterbalance for the dramatic imbalance of power that usually exists between an individual employee, and the collective clout of his employer. When they do that job, they are well worth having. As with governments and corporations, on the rare occasions when things go wrong, those things need to be fixed, but there is no justification for throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Reality: Prepping for a trade show some time back: One of the papers from the exhibition talking about union rules: We were not allowed to do our own electrical work--which included the normal consumer activity of plugging in our computers.

In other words, we had to wait for--and pay exorbitant rates to (minimum billing time)--an electrician to do everyday tasks.

 

[Bronzeage]

...
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.

How much of a voice does an individual have when speaking to corporate management?

How much of a voice? Not much. Which is why collective bargaining is a good idea. I support unions that do just that, without the taking away of the individual rights I listed in the post you quoted, for the "greater good".

How would you feel if your employer wronged you, and you were told you have no right to sue them, and that you must turn to the union to do it for you, and then the union refused to do so? This happens in Ontario.

In this case, the worker has a grievance with his union and that is the party he/she sues.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Add featherbedding to that. Not to mention the widespread acceptance of sabotage as a labor action.

None of these problems are a necessary result of unionisation. There are plenty of unions that negotiate minimum wage levels, but allow for good workers to be paid more; most unions do not engage in feather-bedding or sabotage.

Arguing that we should abandon labour unions because some unions do things that are harmful is exactly equivalent to arguing that we should abandon corporations and governments because some of corporations and governments are corrupt. Or that we should stop eating food, because some food gives you salmonella poisoning.

If those are the best arguments you have, you have nothing.

Unions are intended to provide a counterbalance for the dramatic imbalance of power that usually exists between an individual employee, and the collective clout of his employer. When they do that job, they are well worth having. As with governments and corporations, on the rare occasions when things go wrong, those things need to be fixed, but there is no justification for throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Reality: Prepping for a trade show some time back: One of the papers from the exhibition talking about union rules: We were not allowed to do our own electrical work--which included the normal consumer activity of plugging in our computers.

In other words, we had to wait for--and pay exorbitant rates to (minimum billing time)--an electrician to do everyday tasks.

Sounds to me like your firm is not a very good consumer since it did not spend the effort to become full informed of the product/service it was purchasing. That was not an union problem at all.

 

[ksen]

Could you explain how an union sends "temporary workers" into a workplace? Really, they need to be hired by the employer. As to a vote going against the wishes of a particular worker (or set of them) that works both ways. It is called dealing with the reality of life.

How would you feel if the union made unreasonable demands the employer simply could not meet, and the shop closed down and you lost your job? This happens in Ontario.

"Unreasonable" is in the eye of the beholder, and is not an objective or useful descriptor. it might be helpful if you could provide a link from a disinterested source that describes a situation that you mean.

How would you feel if you were then forced to pay part of your pay cheque for union dues, which were used to support a political party you oppose? A party that takes strong positions against your personal values, on social issues having nothing to do with your work? This happens in Ontario.

I would feel no different than when my taxes go to support or do things I oppose. It is called being an adult and realizing the world does not revolve around my wishes and views.

How would you feel if you were laid off from work before the other guy who does the same job very poorly and rarely shows up, just because he go the job before you? This happens in Ontario.

How would you feel if your employer wronged you, and you were told you have no right to sue them, and that you must turn to the union to do it for you, and then the union refused to do so? This happens in Ontario.

In the USA, that would not be possible. The court system requires one exhaust any union actions before proceeding to court. Are you sure that is not the case in Canada?
Of course, just because an employee feels "wronged", that does not mean the employee has been wronged or that an union contract provision has been violated. Perhaps if you provided a link to an actual situation, your argument might be more convincing.

It seems to me that businesses do much of the same thing to employees that anti-unionists complain about unions doing to employees but the anti-unionists never really engage that part of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Reality: Prepping for a trade show some time back: One of the papers from the exhibition talking about union rules: We were not allowed to do our own electrical work--which included the normal consumer activity of plugging in our computers.

In other words, we had to wait for--and pay exorbitant rates to (minimum billing time)--an electrician to do everyday tasks.

Hey, if your firm didn't like it they could have just quit that trade show and gone to another one. I mean that's the advice you guys usually give employees who don't like the things their employer does to them, right?

 

[untermensche]

A union is nothing more than a method to increase the negotiating power of workers.

It is nothing more.

Owners don't like workers with power.

One either supports workers having increased power in the workplace or one supports them having less.

One either supports workers forming unions or opposes it.

It is as simple as that.

 

[bilby]

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.

Add featherbedding to that. Not to mention the widespread acceptance of sabotage as a labor action.

None of these problems are a necessary result of unionisation. There are plenty of unions that negotiate minimum wage levels, but allow for good workers to be paid more; most unions do not engage in feather-bedding or sabotage.

Arguing that we should abandon labour unions because some unions do things that are harmful is exactly equivalent to arguing that we should abandon corporations and governments because some of corporations and governments are corrupt. Or that we should stop eating food, because some food gives you salmonella poisoning.

If those are the best arguments you have, you have nothing.

Unions are intended to provide a counterbalance for the dramatic imbalance of power that usually exists between an individual employee, and the collective clout of his employer. When they do that job, they are well worth having. As with governments and corporations, on the rare occasions when things go wrong, those things need to be fixed, but there is no justification for throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Reality: Prepping for a trade show some time back: One of the papers from the exhibition talking about union rules: We were not allowed to do our own electrical work--which included the normal consumer activity of plugging in our computers.

In other words, we had to wait for--and pay exorbitant rates to (minimum billing time)--an electrician to do everyday tasks.

One unsourced and implausible anecdote is of no value in this discussion. Or any discussion. Even if it were true; and even if your audience were to accept it as true; it would still be irrelevant, absent evidence that this kind of silliness is a necessary and inevitable result of unionisation. I have seen equally stupid rules in non-union environments - usually due to managers misinterpreting the terms of their public liability insurance. If we need to get rid of unions, then we definitely also need to get rid of management. And insurance.

I hear the managers at Enron actually lied to gain financial advantage. Clearly we need to eradicate corporations.

There are rumours that Government forces in Sierra Leone once fired on a peaceful protest march. We should also eradicate governments (and armed police, and soldiers).

Or we could simply try to make sure that bad stuff happens as little as possible, but keep the frameworks that allow groups of people to act for the good of society as a whole, by tweaking the law to fit the circumstances.