Secret Ballots!?! Where do you think you are, America? [Archive]

Don Corleone

03-13-2009, 01:34

Buonosera,

I, uh, have been troubled by your reluctance to knuckle under to my racquet, uh join organized unions, over these past few decades. You don't like paying membership fees to me, your Don, erh, I mean your local? Don't you know this money buys you protection, erh, I mean representation and security? I think I'm going to have Lucco Brazzi come by your house tonight, maybe around 3AM, to sit down and explain the benefits of union membership to you, your wife and your children. Make you an offer you can't refuse. After all, with this new legislation, I'll get your personal info, and I'll get a record of how you voted.

Now, are you really sure you want to continue to defy the don? After all that money I spent this past fall to get my union racquet going again, erh, encourage Democracy and liberty?

For those of you wondering what I'm on about, Democrats in the House & Senate, apparently with White House approval, have waited exactly 6 weeks to trot out card-check legislation (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aFbNOai_1QQk&refer=us), something I was told was a delusional fantasy of us paranoid fruitbat right-wing cranks. Is that free beer I smell? By the way, Wal-Mart, one of the few people hiring as we approach double-digit inflation, got downgraded from a buy to a hold, on this.

Major Robert Dump

03-13-2009, 02:12

I don't much care for unions, with the exception of some high-risk, poorly regulated industries. But take it from a former general manager of a Wal-Mart Supercenter that did 1.7 million in gross sales per week -- the anti union mantra of Wal-Mart borders on gestapo tactics equally as ridiculous as the union wackos who think they are jesus incarnate here to save us all. I'd be happy to go into detail later.

If people want to unionize they should be able to, their gain, their loss, live and learn whatever. But the crap that the left and Big Labor try to do to enable unions far reaching power is ridiculous. I mean seriously, get with the times. If a company treats its employees so poorly that they need to organize then by all means let them organize, but the key word is "organize", not have johnny-come-lately sign a card because people are pissed they have to work new years eve.

The fact of the matter is that the state and most companies adequately police themselves because it is good for business. So someone had to work some unpaid overtime or got a pat on the butt from the boss or got fired for being black. That really sucks, and there are ways to make it right that don't involve making everything union. God, no ballots, just a quick card check? Are you kidding me, the freaking paper boys would be union......

Out of curiousity, are the .orgs respective states right-to-work or pro-union shop. My state is not union shop, meaning if a business/sector is union then you are not required to join the union as a requirement for your hiring or continued employment. When this issue was being debated in oklahoma 10 years ago the pro-union shop folks went on and on about how rampant worker abuse would occur blah blah blh blah as if were making unions illegal or something. Well, the abuse hasn't changed and the economy has grown leaps and bounds, and not being pro-union shop has actually drawn companies here, and unions have not died out.

Hell, I even do my grocery shopping at a union supermarket because it's closest, but I must admit some of the service really sucks and the prices are slightly higher. Can you guess why?

Seamus Fermanagh

03-13-2009, 04:47

To Clarify MRD's request for information for our non-usa types:

Union Shop = To be employed at company X, you MUST be a member of the union (one of the unions) representating workers at company X.

Closed Shop = You cannot be forced to be part of the union in order to work at company X, but must abide by the terms of the union-negotiated contract and cannot enter into an independent contract of your own with company X. Some places make you pay dues as though you were a union member.

Right to Work = You cannot be forced to be part of the union in order to work at company X, nor are you required to abide by the terms of a union contract.

Unionization (organizing) is permitted in all states. Once a sufficient number of employees express an interest in forming a union at a particular company and/or facility, an establishment vote is conducted by secret ballot to determine if a majority of employees wish a union to be formed.

One aspect of the proposed legislation is to make this establishment vote (or disestablishment votes that are held to de-unionize a unionized workplace) a vote that does NOT require a secret ballot. As Don C's OP suggests, opponents believe this will lend itself to union thuggery and intimidation tactics.

CountArach

03-13-2009, 05:22

As Don C's OP suggests, opponents believe this will lend itself to union thuggery and intimidation tactics.
Alright, can this be clarified for me - How can the Union be thuggish and intimidatory if, by definition, it doesn't actually exist yet?

Further, why would the Union do this?

Two questions I just don't understand. I can see the Democratic argument against this (And I fully respect that position and even find it attractive myself, despite my own overtly pro-union views) but I'm not quite sure why these two points are used.

Thanks for clearing up the terminology as well Seamus, it was useful for us non-yanks.

Whacker

03-13-2009, 05:29

Unionization (organizing) is permitted in all states. Once a sufficient number of employees express an interest in forming a union at a particular company and/or facility, an establishment vote is conducted by secret ballot to determine if a majority of employees wish a union to be formed.

I am not 100% sure of this, BUT I believe my current state of residence (North Carolina) does not allow unions in any shape or form. There is no teacher's union here in the state for one.

Yoyoma1910

03-13-2009, 05:29

Well CA, to learn this first you should locate Jimmy Hoffa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa).

Crazed Rabbit

03-13-2009, 06:17

Alright, can this be clarified for me - How can the Union be thuggish and intimidatory if, by definition, it doesn't actually exist yet?

Further, why would the Union do this?

Union, in answer to your first question, means organizing arms of existing national union organizations. That's what this is about; the existing unions want to make it much easier to organize other groups of workers.

Why? For money and power - the new union members pay fees to the national organizations that organized them. The fees mean more money for the union leaders and more political power.

So we're not talking about oppressed groups of workers banding together, but outside groups agitating to form unions so those national union groups can make more money. That's the reason behind the unionizing drives; money and power, not looking for workers to help.

Now, in relation to card check;
With this law, a union can be organized if a organizers get 50%+1 of the workers to sign cards indicating they want to join a union. Previously an employer could request a secret election for the employees to decide. So with card check the union knows everyone who has and has not signed. And another way this is different from an election, besides the secrecy, is that you can't simply say no once. The union can and will just keep asking until they get the signatures they need. You could say 'no' for fifty times in a row but you'll still count as a 'yes' if you sign the card after that.

I'll assume you can see the potential for abuse and pressure. It simply isn't a fair way to decide an issue. Currently, more people sign cards than vote yes for unionization in secret elections. The national union organizations know this and try to get a super majority (I've seen a figure of 75%) of people to sign cards before they try to get the new union formed (as the employer almost always asks for a secret election).

CR

CountArach

03-13-2009, 07:26

Well CA, to learn this first you should locate Jimmy Hoffa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa).
Umm.... okay?

Union, in answer to your first question, means organizing arms of existing national union organizations. That's what this is about; the existing unions want to make it much easier to organize other groups of workers.
Ah, I thought that might be the case. Thanks for clearing that up. Now I at least understand that point.

Why? For money and power - the new union members pay fees to the national organizations that organized them. The fees mean more money for the union leaders and more political power.
I see no problem with unions having more political power - the only way that workers can get anything out of politics is if they organise and use their numbers to show their strength. United we stand, divided we fall, etc.

Have you got any statistics on union leader's pay? I can't find any myself (after a quick bought of googling).

So we're not talking about oppressed groups of workers banding together, but outside groups agitating to form unions so those national union groups can make more money. That's the reason behind the unionizing drives; money and power, not looking for workers to help.
But again, that power is to the benefit of those who are now entering into unions, not to the union leaders themselves. Further, if there is a problem with the union leader wielding the power irresponsibly, what is to stop the members from voting him out at their next election? Or are most unions not democratised in the US?

As I've said though (In the previous debates we have had on this issue) I don't like the card check system and I do prefer secret elections (Though then again I also support compulsory union agreements in many cases - I'm under one myself and I earn far more compared to other people in similar ununionised jobs). Then again I wouldn't exactly mourn the passing of this law - anything that gives rise to more unoins is fine in my book. The idea is good, I just don't like the methodology.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-13-2009, 07:37

JAG

03-13-2009, 11:25

The problem with the current secret ballot system is that the delay it forces gives companies time to fire pro-union workers and intimidate the rest. The proposed bill would change the system so that the card check would lead to unionization without the secret ballot unless evidence of harrassment was shown. If the workers wish to deunionize, that process is a secret ballot. It's not perfect but the rhetoric against it is greatly exaggerated.

They get a commision based on how many workers they force into joining up at gunpoint :rolleyes:

Exactly. What the companies and people here are worried about is that company abuse, intimidation and breaking of the law could be replaced by workers doing the same thing, could being the important word.

There is nothing wrong with any of this, all it will mean is more people being represented and not being walked over by their, large multinational, rich employers. Give the little man a fighting chance, but who could be opposed to that? Ah yes, those people who look down at, don't care about or worship big business. Republicans then I guess.

Don Corleone

03-13-2009, 12:39

If what Sasaki and Jag say is true, why is the legislation written in such a way as to specifically grant access to personal information for all workers to the organizer? Why do Johnny No-Nose Trombino and Sal "Icepick" Tomasio need my home address and phone number, if they already have my answer on "no card"?

This isn't about Wal-Mart or Home Depot. It's about organizing EVERYBODY. Semiconductor companies, insurance firms, everyone's going to be up for grabs. Our entire economy will go the way of the New York City waterfronts. And I'm going to pull a Tribesman on that one, go look up what happened there on your own.

To me, the following has always been the case, and always will be, at least within the United States: Organized Labor = Organized Crime. The unions have always been run by large crime families from Chicago, New York & Philly and always will be.

CountArach

03-13-2009, 13:34

To me, the following has always been the case, and always will be, at least within the United States: Organized Labor = Organized Crime. The unions have always been run by large crime families from Chicago, New York & Philly and always will be.
Then change the unions :idea:

New unions = more active participation = less crime.

Lemur

03-13-2009, 14:03

The unions have always been run by large crime families from Chicago, New York & Philly and always will be.
I'm gonna tell my neighbor about this! She's a member of the Police Union, and she's gonna be angry as anything to find out that she's part of a criminal conspiracy!

HoreTore

03-13-2009, 16:16

Sasaki Kojiro

03-13-2009, 18:48

I'm gonna tell my neighbor about this! She's a member of the Police Union, and she's gonna be angry as anything to find out that she's part of a criminal conspiracy!

:laugh4:

Yoyoma1910

03-13-2009, 18:58

I'm gonna tell my neighbor about this! She's a member of the Police Union, and she's gonna be angry as anything to find out that she's part of a criminal conspiracy!

Considering that the idea of "government" is theoretically the largest organised criminal/extortion racket...

rvg

03-13-2009, 19:01

Considering that the idea of "government" is theoretically the largest organised criminal/extortion racket...

Still, capitalist government is preferable, since they try to take as little as possible while the commies will rob you of everything.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-13-2009, 19:08

Unions :jumping::jumping::jumping:

The union fee is the easiest 3-400 dollars I pay every year. Without a doubt the best investment I make. If my employer tries to pull a dirty one on me, I get backing. Fast and hard. The times I've needed them, all I've had to do is make a short phone call, and the situations were sorted out almost instantly. And that's in addition to the big politics they're pushing for, of course.

The kind of union you allude to, my Norse friend, does not exist in the USA.

Whacker:

North Carolina is a Right-to-Work state, but does allow unions. The AFL-CIO lists more than 25 member uions present in the state with about 190 union locals.

Arach:

Don C's comment, while certainly too "complete" in its characterization, is relevant. For many years and in way too many places, Organized Crime has exerted a LOT of influence on unions and did, de facto, control the Longshoremen and Teamsters for decades. Many suggest that they still have quite a degree of control and influence in union locals and internationals. Removing that influence entirely would take a LOT of police effort and probably a fair degree of bloodshed.

The biggest problem with unionism in the USA is that union internationals are all too often more concerned with the goals at the international level and less so with taking care of the union locals and their members.

JAG:

That point's up the biggest flaw in your perspective. The last 30 years of unionism in the USA has shown the internationals to be far too unconcerned about their members and their locals and far too concerned with pattern bargaining, leverage, and constant increases in benefits. Many of the employers wouldn't qualify for sainthood, I acknowledge, but both sides have screwed up on numerous occasions.

HoreTore

03-13-2009, 19:12

The kind of union you allude to, my Norse friend, does not exist in the USA.

I know. So go create it. Gah!

Yoyoma1910

03-13-2009, 19:44

Still, capitalist government is preferable, since they try to take as little as possible while the commies will rob you of everything.

I'm not saying anything against the idea of government, nor supporting one over the other with this statement.

I'm simply stating the irony that Lemur's neighbor works as an enforcer for a societal construct that has been theorised to have arisen and function in a manner that would make it the largest example of an organisation that functions as highly structured criminal entities do.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Personally, I prefer mixed economic governmental models, as they offer a more flexible apporach to ever changing societal concerns. It is one thing for an individual to profit. It is another for an individual to suffer at the profit of another. I am proud to live in the U.S. and be a part of my nation. But I have also literally seen men in this nation starved to death in their bed, left with nothing but their pride and belief that they should not burden their state. You might say, "Well that is how they wish to go," as their eyes turn yellow and they shrivel to a fragment of a man. But if a man has paid into his society, then he deserves to at least not starve to death.

Bring back the unions. Bring back the pensions. Return money into the public health sector. And when the disease that is man's selfish heart has been cured, then you can take it all back to your pockets. A nation and its leaders, especially when democratically elected, are neither better nor moral tahn those who poulate it. Our leaders are citizens no greater than ourselves. We focus on their falures as humans, when we as a people falter as humans. We claim they do not understand what we as a people need, when we know as little as they do.

Well, what good are we as men, when there is any man amongst us who is thought us as less than another?

Is there a corporate entity out there who would give a thinning hair about their workers if they weren't required to? It's true, now in post industrialized nation sworkers are treated decently, but that is born on the back of longterm and thourough regulation. And it was brought forth by unions and labor organizations. Yes, some are corrupt, but so are many of the business enterprises that the workers are under or the civic entities that are there to protect the workers and the environment that surrounds them. If you're worried about some cancer, then use a sharpened scalpel to remove the mutated cells rather than a chainsaw to sever the limb.

I demand companies that give quality goods. I demand organisations to support the workers who create these goods for these companies, and I demand a government which insures that neither the company nor the work organisation take advantage of one another or the people they produce goods for. I want a government who actually does something when a company dumps tons of toxic sludge in the back yard of the people it employes, and I want those who are employed by that company not to fear for the loss of their employment when they raise concern against their employers.

Edit:

Anyway, every state has different laws regualting a union's power within those states. If you want to weaken the unions power in your area, why not work to have your state changed into a Right to Work State? Like Louisiana (http://www.nrtw.org/c/lartwlaw.htm).

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-13-2009, 20:07

I know. So go create it. Gah!

Yeah, but that's not really an argument for this piece of legislation. If it were to be enacted, it should wait until the unions get better.

(:laugh4:)

drone

03-13-2009, 20:29

LittleGrizzly

03-13-2009, 21:05

Really good post Yoyoma, a pleasure to read!

Yoyoma1910

03-13-2009, 22:25

Virginia is a Right-to-Work state, most of the south is.

My biggest problem with US unions is that they don't maintain standards. If you are going to protect your members from the evil employers and secure primo wages, you should also quality-control your employees, instead of protecting the incompetent. It only gives the union and it's profession a black eye.

Yes, I remember two summers right after high school of my primo wage as a janitorial member of the SEIU in California, railing against the Corporation, and being surrounded by a bunch of vulgar untrained half wits. Oh he horror... no toilet was cleaned! And the root canal I needed was completely free, too, I swear! Oh the perils against our society that the weekly Union pro morale BBQ brought.... Oh the horror.... the horror....

:drama2:

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-13-2009, 22:41

So you think criticisms of unions as protecting even incompetent workers from employment consequences are overblown? You ever read hear of tenure?

Yoyoma1910

03-13-2009, 22:43

So you think criticisms of unions as protecting even incompetent workers from employment consequences are overblown? You ever read hear of tenure?

Yes of course, as has everyone else who has had to endure time in the university.

Nothing is without its flaws. But, as a said, a scalpel not a chainsaw.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-13-2009, 22:44

So, the unions "don't care about protecting local union workers" but take great pains to protect incompetant workers? You can't have it both ways.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-14-2009, 00:47

For starters, tenure is a high-level policy, and not specifically protecting incompetant workers. It happens to do so, but not because of special attention from the local union boards. Furthermore, I'm not advocating chainsawing unions.

Strike For The South

03-14-2009, 01:05

The automakers have unions and that seems to be working out.

Major Robert Dump

03-14-2009, 01:53

The automakers have unions and that seems to be working out.

Yes, when 60% of the money GM spends on employees goes to retirees, I'd say the Union did too good a job. And the cars still suck.

rvg

03-14-2009, 02:00

The automakers have unions and that seems to be working out.

You were being sarcastic, right? Here in Michigan I have the misfortune of witnessing first hand how the unions and bleeding the big three dry and taking the rest of the state with them into the abyss. Unions are a cancer that requires aggressive treatment, which is why I hope to God that GM and Chrysler go bankrupt and thusly become able to shed the yoke of the UAW. Unions were useful 100 years ago, now they are nothing but a leech on the free enterprise.

CountArach

03-14-2009, 03:29

Unions were useful 100 years ago, now they are nothing but a leech on the free enterprise.
You've clearly never been under a union agreement, have you?

Yoyoma1910

03-14-2009, 14:50

The automakers have unions and that seems to be working out.

They also have research and development departments. Those seem to be doing a bang up job.

Maybe if the original slogan of auto making in the U.S. hadn't been: Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.

Edit:

U.S. automakers fail because they make products people don't want. (Although every vehicle I've owned has been domestic. My 1995 Jeep Cherokee went over 222,000 before it died, and I probably could have made it to 250,000 if I had replaced part of the fuel system).

seireikhaan

03-14-2009, 18:03

You've clearly never been under a union agreement, have you?
CA, there's a few things you need to realize about America- we really don't need unions in most industries. An example (http://ww2.abc7chicago.com/Global/story.asp?S=7011270) here. The few industries that really need a union are the real hard-labor type industries, such as mining(particularly coal) and heavier industrial factory jobs. However, these jobs are increasingly a smaller and smaller part of the American economy as we shift to more technological and service-oriented professions.

Frankly, the whole idea of class warfare does not particularly take hold over here. We aren't real big into the idea of defining a "fair wage" for a person's work, and instead tend to let it be fought over on an individual basis rather than a collective one.

CountArach

03-15-2009, 23:05

"In 2006, full-time wage and salary workers who were union members had median usual weekly earnings of $833, compared with a median of $642 for wage and salary workers who were not represented by unions. "

Yeah... I'd say you don't need Unions at all...

Sasaki Kojiro

03-15-2009, 23:10

Recently in kentucky the state gov't was going to fire some teachers for budget reasons. The teacher's union stepped in and got them to cut down on the detrimental standardized tests instead. Win-win, another good job by a union...

CountArach

03-16-2009, 07:48

Or my favourite Union story (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-04/2008-04-21-voa23.cfm?CFID=142375302&CFTOKEN=85827739&jsessionid=de302dbd14a53c72bc1849716c11a3340595) of the past year.

a completely inoffensive name

03-16-2009, 07:53

Unions are a big part of maintaining a good standard of living. If we didn't have unions everyone would probably be working for minimum wage. Imagine if we didn't have that, we would be payed the same as Chinese sweatshop workers, which is really how people in America worked before unions became accepted by the public and the government during the 1880s-1900s.

Yoyoma1910

03-16-2009, 16:40

Or my favourite Union story (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-04/2008-04-21-voa23.cfm?CFID=142375302&CFTOKEN=85827739&jsessionid=de302dbd14a53c72bc1849716c11a3340595) of the past year.

:2thumbsup:

Great article. Unions help to create a balance when companies and governments fail you.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-16-2009, 16:56

seireikhaan

03-16-2009, 17:02

That's a good story, CA. :yes:

Note that I didn't say that unions were horrible, terrible agencies out to replace "da man" as primary wielder of power. I merely stated that, generally, they aren't needed in America on a general basis. This doesn't mean they can't do good things. Nor does it mean they are incapable of some pretty lousy things too. Some unions are being run by good, caring, decent people. Others are headed by obscene, corrupt men who warp the meaning of their profession to suit their own needs. You quoted a figure stating Union employees had higher incomes- is this automatically a good thing? Undoubtedly, this is good for that person; however, what of the people who can no longer obtain a job with said person's employer because they are forced to pay employees above what they would ordinarily pay? Its one thing for an employer when they have to pay one person a much higher salary- its a whole other when they have to pay their entire workforce an extra 20%. Its an unsustainable business model. And, if we're being honest about it, an economy requires more than workers; it requires people to employ them, pay them, and hopefully provide a few other benefits like dental and the like.

Strike For The South

03-16-2009, 18:47

Private enterprises should hire and fire as they please. Unions are historically filled with thugs and the short sighted. They ran Detroit into the ground by placing a high cost on low skilled low expernice labor and the the same people who clamored for these bloated salaries and benefits then have the gall to complain when people are getting laid off.

This of course leads to the stagnintation of the R&D department and boom the Japs and the Germans come in and run us into the ground and good for them to. In an actual world Detroit would've imploded but since we have to save "TEH MIDDLEEEE CLASSSS" (which always seems to be auto working jobs that require very little of anything, are in the rust belt and have been passed from generation to generation.) they get bailouts.

So the moral of the story is. Get a company that did allot of subliminal advertising in the 50s and 60s so that the old people will feel like part of America is dying when these are just companies like anything else. I let go of tickle me Emo, you need to let go of GM.

It's not like workers and companies can't succeed without a middle man. The company I work for does and it has over 60,000 employees.

Lame.

a completely inoffensive name

03-17-2009, 02:53

Really? Everyone in America was on minimum wage before unions?

That is not at all what I said. If we had no more unions today we would probably be all paid minimum wage. And it would be terrible if even that was not around today because we would be paid the same as Chinese sweatshop workers which is the same as American workers in the late 1800s before either came around and established themselves firmly.

Yes, I know unions came around the beginning of the industrial revolution in America during the late 1800s and I know that the national minimum wage did not come around until the New Deal I believe.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-17-2009, 04:26

Could you offer some sources or evidence for your statement then?

a completely inoffensive name

03-17-2009, 05:25

Well I can't provide proof for the statement that I think that without unions, people today would be paid the minimum wage because that is just speculation on my part, founded on my belief that there had to be a reason for unions and minimum wage in the first place in order for them to be created in the hopes of improving workers wages and quality of life.

As for the Chinese sweatshop statement, probably exaggerated on my part but it was no joke that wages were way lower then they should have been because they were were determined solely by industry praying on a massive, unorganized work force by making their paycheck determined on how good or bad the economy was doing making the size of payments erratic and an unstable paycheck does do wonders to your quality of life.
Here is a section of the 1880 census taken from census.gov:
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1880a_v20-01.pdf

Throughout the pages there are tables showing the average prices of workers, but of notice is the statement in the last paragraph of page 16 under "Fluctuation in Rates of Wages"

"It will be observed in general, that from 1853 to 1857 there was an advance in wages, but after the latter year, which witness a financial convulsion, wages declined. From 1857 to 1863 was an era of low wages, with occasional slight advances, but from 1863 to 1867 currency wages rose considerably, to decline after the latter date, with a rise again in 1872-1873, to be followed by a decline in consequence of the commercial disaster in 1873."

Taking a look at that, wages rose during the very beginnings of the industrial revolution in America of the 1850s. But after the Panic of 1857 wages dropped. Ok nothing shady there, and wages then remained low due to the panic until the North began to fully mobilize their full industrial strength in the Civil War, understandable. After that the Civil War and the post war boom were making industry larger then ever. And then without any financial problems industry continued to thrive after 1867 but wages went down? Gee, I wonder if that was the industrial giants taking advantage of the large, unorganized work force. Hmm and then it says that in 1872-73 wages started to increase? Why thats just around the time union memberships began to grow to respectable and powerful levels in the hundreds of thousands of people such as the National Labor Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Union. Unfortunately, labor took a hard hit in membership as the Panic of 1873 came and people scrambled for job security in a time when being in a labor union could mean the difference between being hired or not.

Is this conclusive evidence? Absolutely not, but to say that American workers were being paid just fine without unions or that unions serve no purpose is false at least for the fact that it protects workers wages from being determined by the random and chaotic ups and downs of the stock market.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-17-2009, 05:54

a completely inoffensive name

03-17-2009, 06:04

I think it's naive to assume that things are created for one reason and then continue to function in that role after nearly a century. Furthermore
I think it is naive to think that just because technology has evolved the practice of operating a factory for maximum profits has somehow changed as well.

So essentially unions reduce employment by limiting how many people an employer can afford to hire.
No, back then those that were in labor unions were purposely discriminated against by employers, and they could not take that chance if the economy is tanking.

And finally

Isn't isolating employee pay from performance one of the things people are angry at execs for? If a business is doing poorly it may go out of business without cutting pay or employees. That's true whether the business is poorly run or if it is a victim of an economic downturn. If a union holding an employer hostage to a higher wage than the market can support, the employer will fail, and then where will the union be?
So you blame economic crisis's on the workers not working hard enough? Because it seems to me that the reason for this crisis is banks messing around where they shouldn't be, not a lack of productivity. They can still fire people for incompetence, it just that unions make sure that every workers no matter how hard they work doesn't suddenly see a 30% dip in their pay because the Dow dropped 300 points due to banks going bankrupt from bad loans they gave out.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-17-2009, 06:29

So you blame economic crisis's on the workers not working hard enough? Because it seems to me that the reason for this crisis is banks messing around where they shouldn't be, not a lack of productivity. They can still fire people for incompetence, it just that unions make sure that every workers no matter how hard they work doesn't suddenly see a 30% dip in their pay because the Dow dropped 300 points due to banks going bankrupt from bad loans they gave out.

Say I run a business that's not directly connected to the banks and their mess. However, the business profits are affected by the economy as a whole; people just aren't buying as many whats-its. I cut prices but that's not going to cover the losses I'm seeing. Now, what can I do if a strong union refuses to allow me to cut pay or employment? Just fold?

I don't blame the current crisis on the workers at all. I was pointing out that employers cannot ignore market realities and hope to stay in business (unless they have good lobbyists :angry:).

I don't mind workers organizing; I just don't feel the employer is obligated to employ anyone at all, frankly.

a completely inoffensive name

03-17-2009, 07:05

Say I run a business that's not directly connected to the banks and their mess. However, the business profits are affected by the economy as a whole; people just aren't buying as many whats-its. I cut prices but that's not going to cover the losses I'm seeing. Now, what can I do if a strong union refuses to allow me to cut pay or employment? Just fold?

I don't blame the current crisis on the workers at all. I was pointing out that employers cannot ignore market realities and hope to stay in business (unless they have good lobbyists :angry:).

I don't mind workers organizing; I just don't feel the employer is obligated to employ anyone at all, frankly.

As far as I am concerned, unions have every right to demand a steady wage needed for a good standard of living, refusing to allow anyone being fired is absurd in my opinion. I hope that in my arguments you see that I am arguing in favor of unions having influence over wages, nothing else. I am also sure that since any financial crisis puts everyone not just business owners in a bad spot, cooperation can be more fruitful in order to make arrangements for temporary wage decreases until the rough spot passes through.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-17-2009, 07:20

a completely inoffensive name

03-17-2009, 07:30

Oh I agree, unions have a right to demand a steady wage (or any wage indeed). The employer simply isn't required to comply. It may be in his best interest in some circumstances, in which case he likely will, and all is well. And I agree about the cooperation bit as well.

As long as the methods of the union are non-aggressive - ie, they use no aggressive force, then more power to them. On the same token, employers have the right to hire someone else.

I think we're essentially agreeing in theory, and merely disagree with how beneficial they are in practice.

Yes, aggression on either side in place of negotiating should not be tolerated by the public.

Sweet, it seems we have come to an agreeable conclusion. :2thumbsup: I was beginning to wonder if us two would ever agree on anything (especially after that ESRB debate).

Don Corleone

03-17-2009, 21:22

Well, let me toss a little wrench into the works then, break up all the glad-handing. :laugh4:

Unions are not the reason we all don't make minimum wage. If we had lived without labor unions for the past 150 years, it's difficult to predict the exact outcome on modern existence, but a broad-based underclass, all living on bare sustenance wages, while a rich uberclass continued to drive a global economy and steal all the value of the labor of their employees would not be likely.

If for no other reason, I say that because such a system is inherently unstable. Take modern China for example, to continue your comparison ACIN. The only reason their system thrives is that they can rely on consumerism of wealthier nations to fuel their economy. Take it away, as we've seen in the past 6 months, and they're in a lot worse shape than we are. What's more, they're one food shortage away from riots. The Chinese workforce has only tolerated current conditions because it has led to job growth and infrastructure development. When that ends, and the economy flattens, the people will lose their willingness to trade freedom for economic security, as they'll find they have neither.

I'm not making the argument that the entreprenurial class always has the foresight to 'do the right thing'. I think its pretty obvious from a quick scan of the headlines how foolish such a statement would be.

But given to such extremes, an entreprenurial class that cosolidated and consumed the wealth of such a society would stagnate rapidly. This is where Banana Republics come from.

The reason people in America don't make the minimum wage is that:

1) There is competition for the labor pool. Intelligent entrepreurs that want to compete on any vector beyond price who look for an advantage take risks to pay some employees more, to win them to their organization. Sometimes these risks pay off. You're not going to get somebody to cure cancer paying them minimum wage. By the way, labor unions seek to stifle this competition for wages in the marketplace of goods and services. They want all employees of a particular skill set universailzed and the entrepreneur has to pay that job grade at the dicated rate, regardless of the relative merit of the particular employee. Showing up drunk and sleeping through the day or working 80 hours to finish a time-sensitive project with expediency and excellence... they both net you the same pay in the union world.

2) The primary driver of our GDP in modern economies is the consumer sector. Government goes up or down as a percentage depending on who's in office, but it's never in a position to give the consumer demand a real run for its money (and thank God for that). Industrial has and always should be in third.
I think Unions tend to be value neutral on the C side of the equation, but they definitely favor a higher G, which typically comes at the expense of I.

3) The entreprenuers themselves are not in static positions. In a healthy functioning capitalistic system, GM and AIG WOULD go belly-up. Young hungry turks, willing to run their businesses more efficiently and provide advantage to the consumer would replace them. The rich make themselves, or at least they should.

None of the above three circumstances can be credited to Unions. I'd argue that in each of the three, they actually work against these trends.

And let's face it, maybe it's not that way in other countries, but in the USA, Unions are a front for organized crime. I can't do too much research on this at work, as a lot of the sites are banned from my IP list, but even Police Unions have been infiltrated. I'm not saying that anyone in a Union is a crook. I'm saying that anyone in a Union gives money to crooks.

Major Robert Dump

03-17-2009, 22:58

Unions got their big boost thanks to dirtbags like Henry Ford, who exploited his factory workers, made them live in crappy "factory towns" where the rent and groceries were overpriced which in turn meant they did not have enough money to save up and move on as their entire paycheck went to sustinence. Henry Ford had what could be called the largest private army in american history, his enforcers, who went around to his interests and cracked the skulls of people trying to organize, whistle blow or speak out. It's a fascinating little dark side of how Big Labor got started thanks to the abuses of Big Steel and Big Auto.

I think the country would have industrialized a lot slower, and at a greater cost of human life, were it not for the rise of labor unions in the early century. It's pathetic it takes a union to get companies to not keep the fire escapes locked and chained.

However, anymore they play a limited role that in my opinion is largely irrelevant today, more of a political money making machine than anything else. Most unions are for public sector jobs, not private sector, and we all know that public sector is paid for with tax money, not with customers who buy products and services. I think this says a whole lot about a unions effect on a business

Seamus Fermanagh

03-18-2009, 04:27

MRD:

Nice post.

lars573

03-18-2009, 04:42

However, anymore they play a limited role that in my opinion is largely irrelevant today, more of a political money making machine than anything else. Most unions are for public sector jobs, not private sector, and we all know that public sector is paid for with tax money, not with customers who buy products and services. I think this says a whole lot about a unions effect on a business
And if you think that those public sector worker don't need a union. Well your wrong.

Major Robert Dump

03-18-2009, 04:54

Look guy,
Thats not what I was getting at, people can organize if they want, although I will say the teachers union in my state is out of control.

But those jobs are funded by the taxes, and do not rely on profitability. In some cases they make it difficult for job cuts in the case of overstaffing, and sometimes public entities are overstaffed due to shrinking local populations or shift in workload to another agency, yet at the same time the unions protect from abuse from politicians looking to bloat the coffers and help get proper compensation the the case of injuries. The ball rolls both ways, and for the most part I got no problem with police, firefighter, utility unions etc

Applying the same principles of a public sector union to that of a commercial industry unit means the cost of doing business is going to go up, there's just no two-ways about it. The cost of business will go up, and not just because people are paid more and have better benefits. Theres all sorts of auxillary expenses that a union brings to an employer. It's up to the employer to balance it out and figure out a way to compensate through higher prices, effective reorganization or, in some cases, just going out of business.

A lot of unions are successful in the private sector, but anyone who thinks that unions didn't play a significant role in the failure of GM is living on another planet.

My point in the previous post was that there is a pretty significant reason more unions exist in the public sector than the private, and thats because the pulbic sector has a budget, not a profit margin

a completely inoffensive name

03-18-2009, 06:07

A lot of unions are successful in the private sector, but anyone who thinks that unions didn't play a significant role in the failure of GM is living on another planet.

My point in the previous post was that there is a pretty significant reason more unions exist in the public sector than the private, and thats because the pulbic sector has a budget, not a profit margin

Anyone who thinks that it was because of unions and not the greed of the high management giving themselves millions of dollars in bonuses (which they are still doing) that caused the failure of GM is living on another planet. Stop blaming unions for the actual owner's greed. It never fails to amaze me, how you see AIG giving our bailout money to themselves to the tune of 165 million and all you can say is unions make way too much money and are out of control.

And in regards to the whole crime argument I see popping up, it is mostly likely over hyped more then it really is. If you want to talk about reducing crime, lets work on ending the war on drugs first, so we don't have giant drug cartels waging a war against the Mexican government right on the other side of the border. From the posts, it makes it seem as if crime within unions is comparable to the Al Capone days, which it might have been in decades past, but not nowadays...especially with people trying to pin the blame on unions for companies going under.

Strike For The South

03-18-2009, 06:59

Anyone who thinks that it was because of unions and not the greed of the high management giving themselves millions of dollars in bonuses (which they are still doing) that caused the failure of GM is living on another planet. Stop blaming unions for the actual owner's greed. It never fails to amaze me, how you see AIG giving our bailout money to themselves to the tune of 165 million and all you can say is unions make way too much money and are out of control.
O (http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/34535714.html)R (http://newsbusters.org/node/7344)L (http://blogs.bnet.com/ceo/?p=1485)Y (http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11740)

The CEO's aren't the problem. It's the functional illiterate making 81$ an hour for pushing a button

And in regards to the whole crime argument I see popping up, it is mostly likely over hyped more then it really is. If you want to talk about reducing crime, lets work on ending the war on drugs first, so we don't have giant drug cartels waging a war against the Mexican government right on the other side of the border. From the posts, it makes it seem as if crime within unions is comparable to the Al Capone days, which it might have been in decades past, but not nowadays...especially with people trying to pin the blame on unions for companies going under.

Overhyped? Ever heard of the Maquiladoras? Drug money pales in comparison to the human trafficking money. The 5 families and Providence still have allot of clout on the seaboard. Simply because it isn't as flashy as the movies doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Organization leads to corruption just look at government.

a completely inoffensive name

03-18-2009, 07:29

O (http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/34535714.html)R (http://newsbusters.org/node/7344)L (http://blogs.bnet.com/ceo/?p=1485)Y (http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11740)

The CEO's aren't the problem. It's the functional illiterate making 81$ an hour for pushing a button

Holy crap, no offense but your point was lost on me because I am amazed by your ability to have each of those letters a different article. (it wasn't really lost but I am still amazed because I suck at linking) Seriously now, personally I think the blame rests on both with more on the CEO's because they should have made a batter plan or strategy to adapt to high wages or put more effort into making better cars that people want. Why was I still watching American car company commercials touting their super sized trucks and SUV's when gas prices kept rocketing to over $4 a gallon? They should have adapted to the market sooner, but lost out to the Japanese car companies who came out with cars such as the Prius, if they had a viable competitor to that when the Prius came out I am sure lots of people would have loved to buy American instead of Japanese. And I dislike the idea that we need to reduce our pay and quality of life in a race to the bottom so to speak in order to compete with others. Are workers being paid too much due to labor unions? Probably, but come on:

1. They failed to adapt.
2. CEO's are raking in the millions despite tough times for companies.
3. Thier business plan failed, they were hurting in good times and are now completely screwed when hard times are coming about.
You can't examine why businesses are failing and just point the finger and say: "Look at those high wages, how can these companies survive when the workers want to be paid as if they live in a 1st world country if not the most wealthiest nation on Earth."?

Overhyped? Ever heard of the Maquiladoras? Drug money pales in comparison to the human trafficking money. The 5 families and Providence still have allot of clout on the seaboard. Simply because it isn't as flashy as the movies doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Organization leads to corruption just look at government.

Well, I can't say I am deeply knowledgeable about crime organizations but I need to see some links that back that statement up that drug money is not as profitable as human trafficking because I am a bit hesitant to believe that, no offense to you.

And I wouldn't say organization leads to corruption but power.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-18-2009, 07:34

These kind of threads always make me wonder how many people here have degrees in economics & history. I certainly don't...

a completely inoffensive name

03-18-2009, 07:39

These kind of threads always make me wonder how many people here have degrees in economics & history. I certainly don't...

That's why I try to apply my own common sense with the knowledge I have in front of me (textbooks and credible .org/.gov sources on the internet) and leave it at that. Throwing out random numbers from an article and saying "That's unsustainable! Unions are killing companies!" does not necessarily make for a good argument in my opinion unless I know for a fact that that person arguing has such a degree. No offense to anyone.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-18-2009, 07:47

Yeah, common sense arguments is all we're going to get (which is the purpose of this forum for the most part, I don't think any of us are experts), so I was surprised at the amount of certainty people seem to have.

My common sense argument is that a business has an inherent advantage in paying its workers as little as they can get away with, while unions don't have an inherent advantage in driving the business into the ground. I also don't see the point in anecdotal accounts of union thugs when you can just as easily point to Enron, Walmart, or Madoff for examples of corruption on the business side.

I do think MRD has a good common sense type point here though:

However, anymore they play a limited role that in my opinion is largely irrelevant today, more of a political money making machine than anything else. Most unions are for public sector jobs, not private sector, and we all know that public sector is paid for with tax money, not with customers who buy products and services. I think this says a whole lot about a unions effect on a business

But it's not clear how much of this is a result of the difficulties behind starting a union...

a completely inoffensive name

03-18-2009, 07:53

I don't think you can write off public sector unions, because in a lot of cases some gov. employees are getting the shaft when they should not, while others do fine. I hear in California the problem is so bad that there is massive cuts to education (why is it always education that gets cut first and most?) enough for thousands of teachers and other school employees to be fired in a time when the public school system is already having troubles.

Major Robert Dump

03-18-2009, 14:25

It was never my intent to suggest that unions were solely responsible for the failure of GM. The failure can be attributed to many factors. My disdain for American auto manufacturers has been stated here on many, many occasions, and I will never, ever buy another GM/Ford/chrysler for as long as I live thanks to my own personal experience with those companies in the 80s and early 90s, before they had to wise up and stop making cars that were built to break down at 50k miles.

But when unskilled laborers are making 90% more than the average wage for the region how can I withhold my contempt? When the majority of company health expenditures are going to people who don't even work for the company anymore, how am I supposed to think that maybe, just maybe, the union did too good a job and got the company to make promises it did not have the ability to uphold, and everyone knew full well, because when the crap hits the fan daddy big :daisy: comes along and bails folk out.

I remember as a little kid when chrysler got all that money i was like so what, peoples jobs are at stake and the company will turn it around, now i see what all the :daisy: was about

and i dont know about your states, but even as my state is facing a budget shortfall the teachers unions as still pushing for higher pay and more benefits, and im not just talking small corn here. my state is very low in the midwest for teacher pay and loses a lot of degreed teachers due to brain drain, but even as budgets are being cut and public services are being trimmed this year alone they are asking for a 8% raise every year for the next 5 years and for the teacher insurance plan to cover everyone in the family at no extra cost to premiums...and it looks like this will be the main issue in the next governors race, i mean :daisy: man, have they no shame?

CountArach

03-18-2009, 15:00

and i dont know about your states, but even as my state is facing a budget shortfall the teachers unions as still pushing for higher pay and more benefits, and im not just talking small corn here. my state is very low in the midwest for teacher pay and loses a lot of degreed teachers due to brain drain, but even as budgets are being cut and public services are being trimmed this year alone they are asking for a 8% raise every year for the next 5 years and for the teacher insurance plan to cover everyone in the family at no extra cost to premiums...and it looks like this will be the main issue in the next governors race, i mean :daisy: man, have they no shame?
Are these wages in real terms, or doesn't that account for inflation? Inflation in Oklahoma ran at 3.8% in 2008, up from 2.9%. If that continues and those wages aren't in real terms, then I can see a real justification there. Also when you think about it, wouldn't putting more money into these people's pockets help to stimulate the economy, which seems like it should be a priority at this point?

Unions are all about negotiations, and a basic rule of negotiation is that you don't tell the other party exactly what it is you expect to get - I severely doubt the Union expects to get the 8%.

Major Robert Dump

03-18-2009, 15:23

Are these wages in real terms, or doesn't that account for inflation? Inflation in Oklahoma ran at 3.8% in 2008, up from 2.9%. If that continues and those wages aren't in real terms, then I can see a real justification there. Also when you think about it, wouldn't putting more money into these people's pockets help to stimulate the economy, which seems like it should be a priority at this point?

Unions are all about negotiations, and a basic rule of negotiation is that you don't tell the other party exactly what it is you expect to get - I severely doubt the Union expects to get the 8%.

Of course it would help stimulate the economy, but they are also a small and fiscally irrelevant sector of the entire workforce, and the raise in salary is honestly very small beans compared to a plan that lets you put your entire family on your insurance plan at no extra cost. I mean, that is inherently unfair to people who aren't Catholic, let alone single teachers.

We don't want to lose degreed, qualified teachers to Texas and Kansas, but the cost of living here is also less than either of those states, and a huge number of teachers in states adjacent counties live in oklahoma and commute across state lines to work because it is just cheaper to live here all around. And the Democrats vying for the next guvnah seat are all pushing for these changes even as county and city operational budgets are being trimmed to account for the 30% budget shortfall. For the last decade the teachers in Oklahoma have gotten a slow but steady and predictable increase in pay and benefits, they have made leaps and bounds, even to the point that my military comrades use their spouses teacher insurance rather than their military insurance. Hell, I was screwing a 22 year old not long ago who was still on her moms teachers insurance program. She was 22!!!! And now they want this at no extra cost?

Theres a time and a place for everything, and sometimes its best for the Unions to STFU and get in line like everyone else, and this is such a time.

anyway, all anecdotal evidence, ignore me, I'm just here for the chics

lars573

03-18-2009, 16:15

We don't want to lose degreed, qualified teachers to Texas and Kansas, but the cost of living here is also less than either of those states, and a huge number of teachers in states adjacent counties live in oklahoma and commute across state lines to work because it is just cheaper to live here all around. And the Democrats vying for the next guvnah seat are all pushing for these changes even as county and city operational budgets are being trimmed to account for the 30% budget shortfall. For the last decade the teachers in Oklahoma have gotten a slow but steady and predictable increase in pay and benefits, they have made leaps and bounds, even to the point that my military comrades use their spouses teacher insurance rather than their military insurance. Hell, I was screwing a 22 year old not long ago who was still on her moms teachers insurance program. She was 22!!!! And now they want this at no extra cost?
My mom is support staff for the local school system. The proper title is EPA. And her insurance (to cover what the government plan doesn't) covered all her children until they were out of school or 22, which ever came first. And my dad fo' life as long as they were married. So just check you indignation.

Papewaio

03-18-2009, 23:00

Of course it would help stimulate the economy, but they are also a small and fiscally irrelevant sector of the entire workforce, and the raise in salary is honestly very small beans compared to a plan that lets you put your entire family on your insurance plan at no extra cost. I mean, that is inherently unfair to people who aren't Catholic, let alone single teachers.

a) Which part of a modern economy isn't effected by education?
b) The insurance system there seems worse then ours.
c) Got to pay for those AIG bonuses some how.

Major Robert Dump

03-19-2009, 01:33

My mom is support staff for the local school system. The proper title is EPA. And her insurance (to cover what the government plan doesn't) covered all her children until they were out of school or 22, which ever came first. And my dad fo' life as long as they were married. So just check you indignation.

No indignation here. Teachers union fights for teachers, thats their job, they do it well. Problem is, teachers union also fights for more overall funding, more blank checks, money that teachers never see, money that doesn't go to better facilites, money that doesn't go to student activities, money that instead goes to bloat the superintendents office a little more or add a 7th assistant principle at a school with only 800 students. The administration staff in school districts grow at a faster rate than the actual student population does. More money does not mean better education unless the money is being used properly.

And I could care less who is covered by a teachers insurance plan. But to add the whole family at no extra cost? Thats seems a little unrealistic

lars573

03-19-2009, 18:03

Maybe you should ask that 22 yearold if she knows whether her mom pays a different rate for the family plan. I just asked my mom about hers. Appearantly it's better than the teachers plan. 100% coverage vs. Teachers 80% coverage. And her plans come in two flavours (single and family) with two rates for them.

Major Robert Dump

03-20-2009, 01:10

Her mom does pay more for the plan, I don't need to ask, I'm assuming this since the latest round of negotiations are asking for the entire family to be added to the plan at no extra cost. That means it does cost now.

That was where my omgz shock was coming from, not from a 22 year old being on moms insurance, but from a 22 year old being on moms insurance and the now the union wants that at no extra cost.

Like yours and mine, most insurance programs also offer single and family. It's not like people have to pay extra for every single child, although I must say the idea of paying the same rate for just me and wife as someone with 6 kids is a little disheartening.

While I understand the union fighting for the teachers, eliminating the family rate plan for teachers and making it one size fits all seems like overreaching. From the perspective of the insurance company, it may require big subsidies from the state because I simply don't see how any viable insurance business could afford to increase coverage without increasing premiums.

Which finally brings me around back to topic and that was: public service unions don't have to worry about the profitabilty of the company, just budgets and the whims of their state and federal appropriations, which in most cases boils down to politics.

Whereas private sector unions pit the business of the union vs the business of turning a profit, neither of which always have a rosey outcome. Sometimes theres not even a big, ugly manager or corporate boss the union is saving you from, as used to be the case union shop sector jobs that was made up of independent contractors: you were your own boss, but when you got paid there was a chunk missing for union dues, or in some cases, the union is sent the money and the unions pays you.

CountArach

03-20-2009, 01:40

Whereas private sector unions pit the business of the union vs the business of turning a profit, neither of which always have a rosey outcome. Sometimes theres not even a big, ugly manager or corporate boss the union is saving you from, as used to be the case union shop sector jobs that was made up of independent contractors: you were your own boss, but when you got paid there was a chunk missing for union dues, or in some cases, the union is sent the money and the unions pays you.
Alright I can sort of see your point here, but I would still argue that the government attempting to cut costs serves the same purpose as a business trying to cut wages to ensure greater profitability. The government is still going to want to balance the budget in whatever way possible - many conservative governments down here refuse pay increases despite the demands of Unions.