Unions: Where did the U.S.A. go wrong?

[Lemur]

Prompted by a sub-topic in another thread.

What's the hate against trade unions in America? Without it you'll probably be in the same working conditions as in the Industrial Revolution.

In fairness to Republicans, we Americans have really screwed the union thing up. I know, I know, it works fine in Japan and South Korea and Germany, but somehow we got the whole union concept upside down. I'm not sure how we did it.

Most of the things we thank unions for are now matters of law (no 90-hour workweeks, child labor, etc.), so maybe our unions just got lost once they won. Or something. I don't really know, and haven't studied the subject in depth. But I do know that other countries make the union thing work, and we don't.

Not quite. I know it's common for people to assume that unions just phased out because they weren't needed anymore, but the fact that productivity has skyrocketed over the last 40 years while wages have largely stagnated turns that theory on its head. The real reason unions don't hold much sway is because they've had their power forcibly stripped from them by conservative leglislation; i'ts not like America has some unique trait that stops unioins from being doable like they are everywhere else.

Bull jabarto. Unions have way to much power and its not good. Its a legitimate economic belief unions aren't needed when workers gain a voice and protection.

The reason unions are nigh on useless in the US is because they are greedy for power and money and influence. Workers left them because they realized unions protect useless people with seniority at the expense of those who are more competent.

Teacher's unions protect those who sexually harass students and make it impossible to fire them in some cases.

Police unions protect those dangerously incompetent or violent.

I don't know what is worse, working in a place with corrupt unionizing or working in a country without unions period.

Which was followed by some complex cross-quoting posts that I don't know how to reproduce.

Again, if we accept that unions are messed up in America, this raises some questions:

1. Why do unions seem to be so much less screwed-up in places such as Japan and Germany? What are they doing right that we are doing wrong?
2. How/why did American unions become so adversarial?
3. Are unions in the U.S.A. fixable? Should they be fixed?
4. If unions evaporate from the economic life of America, what will the net effect be?
5. Are unions replaceable by labor laws?

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has made a real study of the subject (which I have not). Skip the political talking points about how all unions are bad or how all unions are good, please. Clearly they can be a bit of both, and just as clearly we in the U.S.A. missed the boat somehow.

[Ice]

Prompted by a sub-topic in another thread.

Which was followed by some complex cross-quoting posts that I don't know how to reproduce.

Again, if we accept that unions are messed up in America, this raises some questions:

1. Why do unions seem to be so much less screwed-up in places such as Japan and Germany? What are they doing right that we are doing wrong?
2. How/why did American unions become so adversarial?
3. Are unions in the U.S.A. fixable? Should they be fixed?
4. If unions evaporate from the economic life of America, what will the net effect be?
5. Are unions replaceable by labor laws?

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has made a real study of the subject (which I have not). Skip the political talking points about how all unions are bad or how all unions are good, please. Clearly they can be a bit of both, and just as clearly we in the U.S.A. missed the boat somehow.

Lemur's quote was probably the best. Although it works fine in other countries, unions in the USA are a whole different breed. It is interesting that people who don't live in a heavily unionized state, let alone America , speak like they know what they are talking about it. (sorry for the political crap, I'll get to your questions now)

1) I'm not really qualified to answer the question since I'm not very knowledge, but I'll give it a crack. Work Ethic and culture would probably play into it. I'd imagine the union would be less about personal gain, but more about the good of all.

2) Greed. It's as simple as that. To use the auto companies in Michigan as an example, the unions kept asking for more, and the car companies, not wanting to upset earnings in the short term, gave it to them.

3) Unions are very fixable. Again, my home state of Michigan is a good example. Due the government bailouts and auto company reorganizations, many union benefits have been slashed, work hours increased, and starting salaries lowered. If you ask me, to screw a door on a car at an assembley plant is not rocekt science as evidence by the mass hiring of unskilled workers straight out of high school. The new salary/benefits better reflects this.

Should they be fixed? Sort of. They should be gradually phased out over time. Anyone a current union employee, should stay one. All new hires would be exempt.

4) You would see companies opening up more shop in the Northern States because they would be able to directly compete with the Southern Right to Work states. There was a gubernatorial candidate (who didn't win unforunately) who ran in an ad in the primaries which compared unioned states to right to work states via unemployment. Guess who was 5% lower?

5) In short, yes.

[jabarto]

I can't format my reply because of the forums downgrade that happened recently, so this will be a little disorganized.

1. Screwed up is a very vague term. What does it mean to you?
2. Because their emplyers won't stop exploiting them right to the edge of what society will bear.
3. Absolutely.
4. Short answer: the rich would flouirish to unimaginable levels and the poor would be stripped of what little protections they have at work.
5. No. Without unions those laws will be eroded.

Oh, and stop with the "unions are both good and bad" bunk. Life is not like South Park and the truth is not always in the middle. Thinking that it is shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

[Lemur]

Oh, and stop with the "unions are both good and bad" bunk. Life is not like South Park and the truth is not always in the middle. Thinking that it is shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

I don't see where I have made the argument that "truth is always in the middle." That would be a surprising thing for me to write or say, given that I don't believe it. Even more surprising to hear that from South Park, given how they've never made that argument, um, ever.

Rather, I understand how the need for unions arose, I understand the good unions did, and I have seen firsthand how messed-up they can be today. I can't go into too much detail, but I have done work for a manufacturer who has a strong union presence in-house. The union employees take an extremely adversarial attitude toward management, the company, and pretty much anybody who wanders by. To call their attitude "counterproductive" would be an epic understatement. Just go ahead and attempt to move a cable out of your way, and watch the guys freak out. You're gonna cost somebody his job if you touch that cable!

I've got a hazy outline of a theory, that the breakdown of unions is really a breakdown of management, that bad executives have allowed an us v. them attitude to fester in some industries, which led to a polarization between labor and management. But I haven't done deep reading or study on the subject, so I can't assert anything with confidence.

[jabarto]

I don't see where I have made the argument that "truth is always in the middle." That would be a surprising thing for me to write or say, given that I don't believe it. Even more surprising to hear that from South Park, given how they've never made that argument, um, ever.

Rather, I understand how the need for unions arose, I understand the good unions did, and I have seen firsthand how messed-up they can be today. I can't go into too much detail, but I have done work for a manufacturer who has a strong union presence in-house. The union employees take an extremely adversarial attitude toward management, the company, and pretty much anybody who wanders by. To call their attitude "counterproductive" would be an epic understatement. Just go ahead and attempt to move a cable out of your way, and watch the guys freak out. You're gonna cost somebody his job if you touch that cable!

I've got a hazy outline of a theory, that the breakdown of unions is really a breakdown of management, that bad executives have allowed an us v. them attitude to fester in some industries, which led to a polarization between labor and management. But I haven't done deep reading or study on the subject, so I can't assert anything with confidence.

ALright, I guess that was a little aggressive of me. I'm sorry.

My point still stands, though; by saying that "some unions are good, some are bad", you're ascribing to them this kind of moral ambiguity that simply doesn't exist. There are bad unions - the prison workers' union in CA comes to mind - but that's literally the only valid example of unions causing serious trouble that I've ever heard. The overwhelming mojaority are agents of good.

[Ice]

I can't format my reply because of the forums downgrade that happened recently, so this will be a little disorganized.

1. Screwed up is a very vague term. What does it mean to you?
2. Because their emplyers won't stop exploiting them right to the edge of what society will bear.
3. Absolutely.
4. Short answer: the rich would flouirish to unimaginable levels and the poor would be stripped of what little protections they have at work.
5. No. Without unions those laws will be eroded.

Oh, and stop with the "unions are both good and bad" bunk. Life is not like South Park and the truth is not always in the middle. Thinking that it is shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

Newflash: It isn't the beginning of the 20th century anymore.

My point still stands, though; by saying that "some unions are good, some are bad", you're ascribing to them this kind of moral ambiguity that simply doesn't exist. There are bad unions - the prison workers' union in CA comes to mind - but that's literally the only valid example of unions causing serious trouble that I've ever heard. The overwhelming mojaority are agents of good.

Ever heard of the United Auto Workers Union?

[drone]

Do unions in Europe and Japan have mob ties?

[Lemur]

Do unions in Europe and Japan have mob ties?

Dunno about Europe, but in Japan definitely. That said, the Yakuza have historically had ties to the extreme rightwing of Japanese politics, so the situation is a bit different from the U.S.A.

[Skullheadhq]

Newflash: It isn't the beginning of the 20th century anymore.

So, if unions and labour laws would be abolished overnight won't employees radically cut salaries and decrease working condition and hire childen because it isn't the beginning of the 20th century anymore?

[Ice]

So, if unions and labour laws would be abolished overnight won't employees radically cut salaries and decrease working condition and hire childen because it isn't the beginning of the 20th century anymore?

Labor laws should not be abolished and no.

[Skullheadhq]

Labor laws should not be abolished and no.

Ehm, you were implying that things like this could never happen today because companies are ethical now and therefore unions are unnecessary, this is total nonsense seeing as Nike and other companies are using child labor in Pakistan and paying them close to nothing.

NEWSFLASH: Companies didn't change a thing since the beginning of the 20th century, they are only doing it in countries with weak to outlawed unions without labour laws.

[jabarto]

Ever heard of the United Auto Workers Union?

The auto industries did not fail because of unionized labor. They fell because they produced terrible cars that nobody wanted. But go ahead and keep blaming unions for bad management decisions.

[seireikhaan]

Ehm, you were implying that things like this could never happen today because companies are ethical now and therefore unions are unnecessary, this is total nonsense seeing as Nike and other companies are using child labor in Pakistan and paying them close to nothing.

NEWSFLASH: Companies didn't change a thing since the beginning of the 20th century, they are only doing it in countries with weak to outlawed unions without labour laws.

In other news, just over 12% of US employees are in unions. Linky. And, lo and behold, we have not turned into Columbia. Imo, unions are only necessary for highly dangerous professions, such as mining. Otherwise, it seems they're pretty obsolete, given such a vast majority choose not to participate in them.

[jabarto]

In other news, just over 12% of US employees are in unions. Linky. And, lo and behold, we have not turned into Columbia. Imo, unions are only necessary for highly dangerous professions, such as mining. Otherwise, it seems they're pretty obsolete, given such a vast majority choose not to participate in them.

You are aware that even suggesting that a work force be unioniized can be grounds for the company firing every last employee and shutting down the workpace, right? It's happened before with WalMart. So while there probably are people who don't want to unionize, that's realy a moot point compared to how hard it is to actually do so if you want to.

Also, remember that unions exist to protect their employees from unfair practices, which are hardlyexclusive to dangerous professions. Anyone can be exploited, and everyone needs protection from it.

[Xiahou]

I'd say the fall of unions probably goes hand in hand with the growth of their incestuous relationship with government. The majority of union members are now government employees- the vicious circle that can lead to is dizzying.

Of course, that's in addition to some of the things that Lemur touched on such as early unions achieving much of their goals via labor laws.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You are aware that even suggesting that a work force be unioniized can be grounds for the company firing every last employee and shutting down the workpace, right? It's happened before with WalMart.

And WalMart, unlike the unionized auto makers, is not in danger of bankruptcy. Which means the employees there aren't getting laid off like at the auto plants.

Also, remember that unions exist to protect their employees from unfair practices, which are hardlyexclusive to dangerous professions. Anyone can be exploited, and everyone needs protection from it.

That's why we have laws. And people able to protect themselves.

Unions are, in the US, a permanent solution to a temporary problem. They fought for laws stopping mistreatment and exploitation and they got them. And now what?

It seems the big unions exist only to gouge more out of the business and expand membership. There's a very good reason they're shrinking in the private sector; people don't want to join them.

Unions aren't being judged worthless by some evil vast right wing conspiracy, but by the workers of the United States.

CR

[jabarto]

And WalMart, unlike the unionized auto makers, is not in danger of bankruptcy. Which means the employees there aren't getting laid off like at the auto plants.



That's why we have laws. And people able to protect themselves.

Unions are, in the US, a permanent solution to a temporary problem. They fought for laws stopping mistreatment and exploitation and they got them. And now what?

It seems the big unions exist only to gouge more out of the business and expand membership. There's a very good reason they're shrinking in the private sector; people don't want to join them.

Unions aren't being judged worthless by some evil vast right wing conspiracy, but by the workers of the United States.

CR

Why do you think it is that people don't want to join unions?

[Beskar]

You actually get fired from your job if you join a trade union, for example, if you are an Walmart employee. Many corporations and companies have this policy. In America, the corporations run government, not the people and thus the corporations want to pay their people as low as possible and in the worse conditions as possible, for maximum profitability.

[Ice]

Ehm, you were implying that things like this could never happen today because companies are ethical now and therefore unions are unnecessary,

I would say companies are more ethical today simply because of public perception and outside pressure. You can't exactly work someone in dangerous conditions, without a break, and 6 days a week for minimal pay without getting bad publicity.

this is total nonsense seeing as Nike and other companies are using child labor in Pakistan and paying them close to nothing.

See my above comment. I disagree with third world sweat shops. This discussion isn't about that though.

NEWSFLASH: Companies didn't change a thing since the beginning of the 20th century, they are only doing it in countries with weak to outlawed unions without labour laws.

Stop trying to be a smart***... you are failing miserably. Did I ever say we needed less labor laws? In fact, these laws can act as very good subsitutes for most unions.

The auto industries did not fail because of unionized labor. They fell because they produced terrible cars that nobody wanted. But go ahead and keep blaming unions for bad management decisions.

Keep trying to simply the problem. Reread my post... here I'll post the important part for you.

Greed. It's as simple as that. To use the auto companies in Michigan as an example, the unions kept asking for more, and the car companies, not wanting to upset earnings in the short term, gave it to them.

Does this sound like I'm soley blaming the unions? BAD MANAGEMENT DECISIONS empowered the unions.

[Xiahou]

You actually get fired from your job if you join a trade union, for example, if you are an Walmart employee. Many corporations and companies have this policy. In America, the corporations run government, not the people and thus the corporations want to pay their people as low as possible and in the worse conditions as possible, for maximum profitability.

And if you're unlucky enough (as I am) to work at a union shop in a state without right to work laws, you can be fired for not joining a union. I guess that's alot better though.....

[Crazed Rabbit]

You actually get fired from your job if you join a trade union, for example, if you are an Walmart employee. Many corporations and companies have this policy.

Any proof of this? Thought not.

In America, the corporations run government, not the people and thus the corporations want to pay their people as low as possible and in the worse conditions as possible, for maximum profitability.

Oh really? So that's why the minimum wage was raised recently.

Here's something else socialists and other economic illiterates don't seem to understand;
Treating Employees Terribly and having awful working conditions IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS.

Good grief, it's like you base how ideological opponents act on nightmarish strawman arguments.

Why do you think it is that people don't want to join unions?

Maybe they want to be promoted based on merit, and not have incompetent employees who've been there longer be promoted first. Maybe they don't want to be forced to donate to the political causes the union favors. Maybe they don't want incompetent and lazy employees to be protected by the union, which means they have to work harder to make up for it.

Oh, and from the other thread; what are those 'conservative anti-union laws' passed that caused unions to decrease?

CR

[Ice]

Treating Employees Terribly and having awful working conditions IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS.


CR

Yes...

This is why I'm probably going to go with the accounting firm that offers a good/work life balance, but doesn't abuse you like the large heavy hitters. So true

[jabarto]

Here's something else socialists and other economic illiterates don't seem to understand;
Treating Employees Terribly and having awful working conditions IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS.

This is so astonishingly naive it blows my mind. Corporations have killed to keep people from unionizing, for God's sake.

[Beskar]

Any proof of this? Thought not.

http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/antiworker.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/20...ord16feb04.htm
http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archive..._unionization/

Then there is first hand experience from working at Walmart, where they even try to con people into using their own special 'lawfirm' to take up law suits against them (lol?) opposed to real representation from a Union, and other measures. Then there are experiences from others, including Americans which have relayed stories of this happening to them, and the fact is it pretty much 'public knowledge' says a lot.

[jabarto]

Oh, and CR? Remember when I asked you about your economics background?

I did that because of statements like the one you just made. I did that because you clearly have no grasp of history.

I mean, come on. If you didn't know that it was less than a century ago that companies were literally gunning people down in the streets rather than pay them a living wage in this very country, then you really haven't examined the history behind my argument at all.

Mind you this says nothing of the third world, where things like this still happen on a regular basis. Look up what happened to Coca-Cola employess in Colombia when they tried to unionize; the only reason that doesn't happen here is because of the unions you want to dismantle.

[PanzerJaeger]

The idea that the United States is somehow singularly affected by union issues is a bit off. South Korea, France, and many other developed countries have far more militant unions than those in America. It was big news in South Korea when the major auto manufacturers managed to secure a deal with the unions that gave them a year (2010) with no strikes. 2011 is almost guaranteed to revert to the norm of highly disruptive strikes.

Japan and Germany have unusually cooperative relationships between management, unions, and government when it comes to manufacturing and export policy. I believe it is mostly due to a higher tendency towards collectivism in their respective cultures versus the United States.

[Xiahou]

Oh, and CR? Remember when I asked you about your economics background?

I did that because of statements like the one you just made. I did that because you clearly have no grasp of history.

I mean, come on. If you didn't know that it was less than a century ago that companies were literally gunning people down in the streets rather than pay them a living wage in this very country, then you really haven't examined the history behind my argument at all.

Mind you this says nothing of the third world, where things like this still happen on a regular basis. Look up what happened to Coca-Cola employess in Colombia when they tried to unionize; the only reason that doesn't happen here is because of the unions you want to dismantle.

The social, demographic, and regulatory structure of the US is worlds apart today than it was 100yrs ago. If the only difference you see is unions, then I'd be more worried about your own grasp on history.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We should promote unions, give women the right to vote, and end segregation. That's my belief.

[PanzerJaeger]

We should promote unions, give women the right to vote, and end segregation. That's my belief.

That's dangerous thinking, son.

[Crazed Rabbit]

http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/antiworker.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/20...ord16feb04.htm
http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archive..._unionization/

Then there is first hand experience from working at Walmart, where they even try to con people into using their own special 'lawfirm' to take up law suits against them (lol?) opposed to real representation from a Union, and other measures. Then there are experiences from others, including Americans which have relayed stories of this happening to them, and the fact is it pretty much 'public knowledge' says a lot.

First hand experience? I didn't read anything there.

You said;

You actually get fired from your job if you join a trade union, for example, if you are an Walmart employee. Many corporations and companies have this policy.

and did not provide any examples of that. The links showed only that WalMart closed one store after 51% of employees signed union cards - not even 51% of employees actually voting for a union - and ending a department after one place in Texas unionized. That's not being fired - that's the jobs not existing anymore. Walmart didn't hire anyone to take the place of the fired employees.

Nor did you provide one iota of evidence indicating any other corporation in the US did anything like what you allege.

removed; edited by Cleggy in original Thought not.

Have you been able to provide any evidence of what you claim? Do you have any real idea of the union situation in the US? Or do you just get neat little talking points and links from your favorite socialist blogs, then run and parrot them without any comprehension or experience in what you're talking about? Have you ever been able to competently respond to my arguments? Or do you just ignore the facts that invalidate your farcical arguments?

I did that because of statements like the one you just made. I did that because you clearly have no grasp of history.

You have no grasp of the debate.

Did I say business did not act cruelly 100 years ago?

This is so astonishingly naive it blows my mind. Corporations have killed to keep people from unionizing, for God's sake.

Do you think whatever a company does is good business? Companies are made of people, and can be just as stupid as them. Just because a company has done something DOES NOT MEAN IT'S SMART.

Maybe this is the socialists problem. They see a company be immoral, and they assume that what they do is more profitable, so they blame the evils of capitalism for incentivizing companies to do it instead of the human stupidity of the companies.

I mean, come on. If you didn't know that it was less than a century ago that companies were literally gunning people down in the streets rather than pay them a living wage in this very country, then you really haven't examined the history behind my argument at all.

I never said anything that contradicts this. Perhaps you should understand what I'm saying. Yes, companies were cruel, in terms of conditions, wages, and responses to strikes. THAT STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT GOOD BUSINESS.

Look at how Ford began paying $5 a day to employees, an unheard-of high wage at the time, and became more profitable.

And if you want to talk about what companies did 100 years ago, you should remember that unions aren't needed now for the reasons they were then.

CR