Thanks a lot, unions

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, American Unions. Especially gov't unions (like the highest paid teacher's in WA state going on strike for more money.)

Some just add hugely to the cost of living.

The bus driver's union in Seattle is partially responsible for the death of a man.

Sandy Olosky, Metro Bus driver in Seattle. She has 25 complaints dating to 1997 for reckless driving, and an additional 24+ complaints for being rude to passengers.

She was actually fired in 2005, and had that stuck, another man would've been alive today. But her union and its arbitrator saved her job and she returned to driving buses. Then, this April, her bus struck and killed Michael Dahlquist in his car. One passenger said the bus was going to fast to avoid a collision.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/315441_busdriver12.html

Crazed Rabbit

[Lord Winter]

So your blaming all unions for one drivers mistake? Seems a little broad.

[Lemur]

So your blaming all unions for one drivers mistake? Seems a little broad.
In fairness to CR, he's blaming the transportation union for keeping an unsafe driver on the road. And then, yeah, he expands to curse all unions everywhere, but give the man some credit. At least he's basing his criticism on a concrete example. That alone makes his post above-average for our beloved Backroom.

[Xiahou]

In fairness to CR, he's blaming the transportation union for keeping an unsafe driver on the road. And then, yeah, he expands to curse all unions everywhere, but give the man some credit. At least he's basing his criticism on a concrete example. That alone makes his post above-average for our beloved Backroom.
He also mentioned teacher's unions. If you want to attack unions you don't need to go any further than those. Of course, the bus driver sounds as though she's another example of incompetent employees being protected by a union.

They served a purpose, but it seems like it's long since passed.

[Tribesman]

They served a purpose, but it seems like it's long since passed.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[ShadeHonestus]

They served a purpose, but it seems like it's long since passed.

Instead of their primary function, within the U.S., being a tool for the worker their only evolution has been to becoming a tool of the politicians. I've know a lot of local union leaders at different stages of my life and the protection of the worker is definately not their primary concern anymore. With exceptions the primary goal of the union leadership and those who gain their political favor has largely become the protection of their own station with little regard for the reality of the worker. I've personally seen instances and heard about others who when recognized as refusing political contribution to the union's campaign of choice were squeezed out of employment with high efficiency.

[Ice]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I'm glad you are laughing Tribesman. I've seen unions first hand contribute to the destruction of my state economy.

Unions are needed, to an extent. It's getting absolutely ridiculous.

[Whacker]

He also mentioned teacher's unions. If you want to attack unions you don't need to go any further than those.

Are you kidding? Seriously? Because teachers are some of the most underpaid people I can think off offhand. Disclaimer: My wife is a teacher. Further, we live in North Carolina, where unions are illegal. They do have this "organization" that's a pseudo-union, and it's done a lot of good for them so far. The state recently voted to increase teacher pay across the board by about 5%, and I can tell you it was much needed. The cost of living around here isn't too bad depending on where you are, but we still have some friends that she works with who still eat ramen on a regular basis and are under piles of debt for school loans.


They served a purpose, but it seems like it's long since passed.

Bah, I think there's still some validity to them. I think that there are some unions associated with certain industries that do generally deserve the reputation more than others, but by and large people tend to see a few instanes of "union abuse" and suddenly decry them all as useless and corrupt. Further I think those who think that their use "has long since passed" are wearing extremely rose tinted glasses if they don't think that (big) business would squeeze the life out of it's employees if it could. They already arguably do this. My best friend is a pilot, some of the stories he has told me absolutely chill my blood. Short version is just be extremely thankful for the FAA and pilot unions, because if they didn't exist and lay down those large number of requirements that governs pilot working hours and downtime, the airlines would be forcing (and have tried to make) pilots work insane hours that go far beyond what would be safe. Imagine how many truck accidents there are each year from truckers falling asleep... now apply this to commercial jets.

[HoreTore]

Unions are NOT obsolete in any way. The problem with the unions in the US is that they are extraordinarily weak. They are complete pushovers compared to what a union should be capable of.

[Slyspy]

And yet a strong union can be extremely destructive.

[lars573]

They served a purpose, but it seems like it's long since passed.
What a load. Unions are very nessisary. My mom is an EPA. Which is a fancy title for special needs child wrangler (and I do mean wrangler depending on the kid you get). And over the last few years the school board has tried to change her job from a mostly full time contracted salaried one to mostly part time casual one. To save money ofcourse. If an EPA is part time they can turf them easily and move them around. Her union is all that has stopped this from happening.


Here's another story about unions. From the local hippie rag (IE free news paper)
Your bosses are being jerks. You're feeling exploited, overworked and underpaid. You'd like to quit, but can't afford to and besides, you actually love your job and the city where you work. Your last resort? Join your fellow workers and hit the bricks to get a fair contract. That's what 600 IWK health care professionals did last week when they walked off the job seeking the same benefits as their counterparts at the QE II hospital down the street. Of course, as union president Joan Jessome points out, the IWK is a children's hospital while the QE II serves adults. "I've heard this so many times," Jessome says. "You work for children and that's a calling, so you should work for less."

The IWK strike lasted only one day. But it put pressure on the hospital and the provincial government to agree to the union's proposal for binding mediation, a process sometimes referred to as "baseball bargaining" because it's used to set major league players' salaries. If the two sides can't negotiate a contract, the mediator chooses one or the other of their final offers. That encourages both to compromise because the mediator will likely select the more reasonable offer. In this case, the health professionals got only part of what they wanted, but more than the IWK and the province had been willing to give. "I'm OK with the outcome," Jessome says. "But I'm not jumping for joy."

The outcome of the IWK dispute is obviously important to union members because they're getting more money, better benefits and moving a step closer to parity with their professional colleagues at other Halifax hospitals. But it's just as significant for the rest of us because it will help the IWK retain the highly-trained physiotherapists, lab technologists, social workers, biomedical engineers and respiratory therapists that every modern hospital depends on. It will also make it easier for the IWK to recruit professionals at a time when hospitals in other provinces and the US are competing for skilled staff.

Unfortunately though, the positive aspects of the settlement seemed to get lost in the media hysteria surrounding the one-day strike. Both Halifax papers condemned the workers after the hospital cancelled 59 surgeries and 474 outpatient appointments. The Daily News accused the union of using children as "bargaining chips," as though the IWK and the province bore no responsibility for the breakdown in talks. "For me, this is the bottom line," DN columnist David Rodenhiser huffed, "making children endure discomfort, fear and pain as a way to achieve contract concessions is unconscionable." Rodenhiser called on the province to ban health care strikes, a call echoed by the Herald's Marilla Stephenson. She predicted that Tories and Liberals will join forces in the legislature this fall to "make it so." Maybe, maybe not. When premier John Hamm tried it six years ago, nurses and other health workers threatened to resign en masse, the public supported the nurses and the government had to back down. It's hard to see why Rodney MacDonald would want to follow in Hamm's faltering footsteps, especially when last week's strike quickly led to a contract that's fair to workers and taxpayers and that helps protect the IWK's competitive position and quality of care. Besides, MacDonald's government already has plenty of power without banning the right to strike. For one thing, it can bring in back-to-work legislation to end any strike that seems to endanger people's lives.

Perhaps it's too much to expect newspaper commentators to write about Canada's labour relations system in a fair and balanced way. As in the IWK strike, they usually side with employers and condemn workers for going on strike to fight for fair wages and benefits. But who would you rather support, front-line health professionals who provide care for hundreds of sick children every day or the administrators and politicians who sit in their offices courting the media and counting loonies?


http://www.thecoast.ca/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-05-10&-token.story=150506.113118&-token.subpub=

[Tribesman]

I'm glad you are laughing Tribesman.
Good, I'm happy I made you glad .
you gotta admit it though , this......They served a purpose, but it seems like it's long since passed.
...is a very funny statement .

[Ice]

Unions are NOT obsolete in any way. The problem with the unions in the US is that they are extraordinarily weak. They are complete pushovers compared to what a union should be capable of.

Ah the ignorance is amazing here. Again, unions pretty much run the state in which I live in. Our main industry here is auto manufacturing. Guess who controls the auto manufacturers?

When times were good, the auto manufacturers pretty much gave in to all the union demands so they could stay open and keep reaping enormous profits. When times are bad here though, the unions still want the same benefits and as a result the auto manufacturers are suffering, which means layoffs, which means nothing good for our economy.

[Watchman]

Guess who controls the auto manufacturers?Shareholders.

Duh.

[Goofball]

Hmmm. Unions. Tough call.

There are two unions that I sympathize with where I live: the nurses and the teachers. I sympathize with them mainly because I believe that the people who choose those two professions do so largely because they want to help and give back to society, even though it will never make them rich. For that reason, I think they would get completely walked on by the government if they didn't have a union to be their mouthpiece.

OTOH, I think most other unions are nothing more than a refuge and shield for the untalented, unmotivated, or uneducated to try to demand more money than their services are actually worth, thereby artificially inflating prices for the rest of us.

Good first post, CR.

[Ice]

Shareholders.

Duh.

That's exactly what I meant watchman. ~:rolleyes:

[PanzerJaeger]

They served a purpose, but it seems like it's long since passed.

:yes:

These days, if your chosen career is welding part A to part B, your poor planning should be rewarded with low wages.

Although, as Goof said, some unions such as the nurse's and teacher's have validity. However, teacher's unions are notoriously corrupt.

[Watchman]

That's exactly what I meant watchman. ~:rolleyes:You do know how chains-of-command work in the private sector these days, right ?

[Tribesman]

These days, if your chosen career is welding part A to part B, your poor planning should be rewarded with low wages.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
And when the 4x4 that daddy bought you falls apart because the person who welded part A to part B wasn't actually a welder you get the reward for low wages and an absence of unionised demarcation .

[HoreTore]

Ah the ignorance is amazing here. Again, unions pretty much run the state in which I live in. Our main industry here is auto manufacturing. Guess who controls the auto manufacturers?

When times were good, the auto manufacturers pretty much gave in to all the union demands so they could stay open and keep reaping enormous profits. When times are bad here though, the unions still want the same benefits and as a result the auto manufacturers are suffering, which means layoffs, which means nothing good for our economy.

Uhm, no, unions in the US are incredibly weak. Come to Europe, and you'll see what a union should be like. Take Norway, for example. Last fall during the national budget talks, the leader of our biggest union basically told our prime minister to sit down, shut up and do as she said(and he did, with barely any struggle). That's a strong union.

I really can't see president bush being told what to do by a union leader in the US....

[Watchman]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
And when the 4x4 that daddy bought you falls apart because the person who welded part A to part B wasn't actually a welder you get the reward for low wages and an absence of unionised demarcation .
...and when the Red Guards then hang us bourgeoise exploiters from traffic lights, I'm so going to go "told you so!" on you social-darwinists before the curtains close... :beam:


Last fall during the national budget talks, the leader of our biggest union basically told our prime minister to sit down, shut up and do as she said(and he did, with barely any struggle). That's a strong union.Sounds like home.

[drone]

Uhm, no, unions in the US are incredibly weak. Come to Europe, and you'll see what a union should be like. Take Norway, for example. Last fall during the national budget talks, the leader of our biggest union basically told our prime minister to sit down, shut up and do as she said(and he did, with barely any struggle). That's a strong union.
So a union should be able to order around the elected officials of a country? Um, no, thank you though.

[Goofball]

Uhm, no, unions in the US are incredibly weak. Come to Europe, and you'll see what a union should be like. Take Norway, for example. Last fall during the national budget talks, the leader of our biggest union basically told our prime minister to sit down, shut up and do as she said(and he did, with barely any struggle). That's a strong union.

So you think it's a good thing that the leader of a special interest group has the power to dictate policy to your elected leaders?

I guess I really don't understand Europeans after all.

[Watchman]

It's worked pretty brilliantly for pretty much the whole Scandinavia for decades.

And whose society and unions was it that don't suck, now ? :beam:

[Goofball]

It's worked pretty brilliantly for pretty much the whole Scandinavia for decades.

Sounds pretty bent to me.


And whose society and unions was it that don't suck, now ? :beam:

I don't understand that comment.

[Watchman]

*shrug* It works. Quite well too, although it's been hiccuping lately what with all this globalisation business and all. Sorta difficult to play hardball at the negotiation table if the other side is moving the factory to China anyway.


I don't understand that comment.Who're the ones whining about corrupt and useless unions here ?

[HoreTore]

So you think it's a good thing that the leader of a special interest group has the power to dictate policy to your elected leaders?

I guess I really don't understand Europeans after all.

A special interest group would be "The union of foot doctors". The union I'm talking about here, LO, basically represents the entire workforce. So yes, I want them to hold our PM by the ears every time he forgets he's a socialist and is seduced by the dark side of market liberalism...

As Watchman says, the unions here are something of a 4th power of government, along with the media. They've become one of those institutions our entire society rests on.

[Goofball]

A special interest group would be "The union of foot doctors". The union I'm talking about here, LO, basically represents the entire workforce.

How can a single union represent an entire country's workforce? Does it represent public sector workers? Private sector workers? Police? Truckers? Teachers? Construction workers? Farm workers? Fishermen? Computer techs? Carpenters?

Sorry, but I smell hyperbole.


So yes, I want them to hold our PM by the ears every time he forgets he's a socialist and is seduced by the dark side of market liberalism...

Yes, God forbid market demand should actually dictate the price we pay for things. We should have the unions and government tell us what we have to pay.


As Watchman says, the unions here are something of a 4th power of government, along with the media. They've become one of those institutions our entire society rests on.

Scary and sad.

[Watchman]

If you don't actually know about it, don't slam it so readily. This stuff was given some serious thought back when it got started, and leaving aside the bluff and bluster between the wage-payer and -earner reps in the yearly negotiations has more or less worked like a charm for, oh, depends a bit on the country, but many decades in all cases.

But if you now really want I can go get my PolSci textbook and see if I can enlighten you about the intricacies.


How can a single union represent an entire country's workforce? Does it represent public sector workers? Private sector workers? Police? Truckers? Teachers? Construction workers? Farm workers? Fishermen? Computer techs? Carpenters?Would the terms "umbrella organisation" or "designated representative" help ?


Yes, God forbid market demand should actually dictate the price we pay for things. We should have the unions and government tell us what we have to pay.Pay, nothing. What ours in any case negotiate is stuff like pay hikes to keep pace with the inflation and turns of economy and so on, all the little sundry details of the worker/employer interface that need constant tweaking.


Scary and sad.That very much sums up the general opinion on the US situation here, you know.
Pot, kettle.

Anyway, I don't really quite understand what you have against population segments' chosen representative organizations working things out with their peers and the governement at the negotiation table.

[PanzerJaeger]

A special interest group would be "The union of foot doctors". The union I'm talking about here, LO, basically represents the entire workforce. So yes, I want them to hold our PM by the ears every time he forgets he's a socialist and is seduced by the dark side of market liberalism...

As Watchman says, the unions here are something of a 4th power of government, along with the media. They've become one of those institutions our entire society rests on.

Is the Union leadership democratically chosen?

[Watchman]

Aren't they all, in working democracies ? :dizzy2:

[PanzerJaeger]

Aren't they all, in working democracies ? :dizzy2:



Simple question required a simple answer. If I was sure of how things worked in Scandinavia, I wouldn't have asked it. :2thumbsup:

[Goofball]

If you don't actually know about it, don't slam it so readily. This stuff was given some serious thought back when it got started, and leaving aside the bluff and bluster between the wage-payer and -earner reps in the yearly negotiations has more or less worked like a charm for, oh, depends a bit on the country, but many decades in all cases.

Doesn't France get shut down and held hostage by paralyzing strikes every few years or so?

Is that what you call "working like a charm?"


But if you now really want I can go get my PolSci textbook and see if I can enlighten you about the intricacies.
How can a single union represent an entire country's workforce? Does it represent public sector workers? Private sector workers? Police? Truckers? Teachers? Construction workers? Farm workers? Fishermen? Computer techs? Carpenters?Would the terms "umbrella organisation" or "designated representative" help ?

Maybe you should simply answer my question instead of resorting to crypticisms. Is it one single union, or a confederation of unions led by some sort of a council? Are they negotiating all contracts for all workers both government and private sector?

If you want me to understand your system, try to explain it rather than just being smug about how superior it is.

I'll try to keep up, I promise. I was a PolySci major before switching to Commerce, so I just might be able to follow what you're saying.



Scary and sad.That very much sums up the general opinion on the US situation here, you know.
Pot, kettle.

Fortunately, I think we Canadians have struck a much better balance than both of you. To paint with broad strokes, the U.S. is ruled by corporations, and Europe is ruled by Big Labour. Canada, I think, has managed to find a bit of middleground.

There, my turn to be smug.

:beam:

[Watchman]

Are you [....] in real life?

Simple question required a simple answer. If I was sure of how things worked in Scandinavia, I wouldn't have asked it. :2thumbsup:
Depends on the context. But I can blame both nature and nurture for having grown up an acerbic smartass. :2thumbsup:

Why would the union members put up with a leadership they didn't choose anyway ?

[Watchman]

Doesn't France get shut down and held hostage by paralyzing strikes every few years or so?

Is that what you call "working like a charm?"Seems to work fine for them. Do recall that they have institutionalized civil disobedience as well.

But you'd really have to ask a Frenchman or someone otherwise more closely aquainted with the system there. They do things differently from us Scandinavians.


Maybe you should simply answer my question instead of resorting to crypticisms. Is it one single union, or a confederation of unions led by some sort of a council? Are they negotiating all contracts for all workers both government and private sector?

If you want me to understand your system, try to explain it rather than just being smug about how superior it is.

I'll try to keep up, I promise. I was a PolySci major before switching to Commerce, so I just might be able to follow what you're saying.Note that the Finnish and Norwegian systems aren't identical. Off the top of my head I can't recall anything specific about how they do things, but around here basically the representatives of main branch labour union associations and the employer equivalents get together every year and wrangle up a consensus framework contract that basically sets out the wage developements and suchlike for the next year, with the governement acting as a sort of referee and quarantor. As might be imagined those negotiations can go on for a while, as many of the two main parties' interests are almost diametrically opposed (eg. the employees would prefer as high wages as possible, the employers as low as possible by default) and major strikes and all that jazz occasionally spiced up the proceedings in the past. I understand the threats of such labour fights are still occasionally flashed as part of the negotiation tactics, and sometimes followed through as well although that level of confrontationalism has gotten rarer these days.

Makes for some good serial drama too, since they redo it every year, and obviously a lot of the audience have their own stakes in the game.


Fortunately, I think we Canadians have struck a much better balance than both of you. To paint with broad strokes, the U.S. is ruled by corporations, and Europe is ruled by Big Labour. Canada, I think, has managed to find a bit of middleground.

There, my turn to be smug.

:beam:People tend to sort of forget that you guys even exist, though. ~;p

[Strike For The South]

If people just treated each other fairly there'd be no need to unionize. The only time people ask for some outragoues benifts is when some populist demagouge tells them they deserve it. If employeers paid a fair salary and worked with there employees unions wouldnt exist. Trust me it can be done with big compaines I work for one that doesnt have a single unionzed guy in it and everyone thinks they have the best job for there skill set.

[Watchman]

Good for you. Doesn't work out that way most of the time though, which is why the unions came into being. In spite of being for a while illegal and all, and in some places having to deal with honest-to-God hitmen the irate employer side sent (elements of the Spanish Left learned to be pretty good at urban combat this way; this was of some use in the Civil War).

But since the choice was ultimately between labor unionization and labor militancy most governements figured out the better bet eventually and brought the more recalcitrant among the employer side to heel.

[Ice]

Uhm, no, unions in the US are incredibly weak.

Maybe weak by your standards, but when they contribute to a state recession like we are having in Michigan, I don't see them as weak at all. I'm sure you would know more about this than I would though, correct?



Come to Europe, and you'll see what a union should be like. Take Norway, for example. Last fall during the national budget talks, the leader of our biggest union basically told our prime minister to sit down, shut up and do as she said(and he did, with barely any struggle). That's a strong union.

That's just stupid of so many levels.


I'm glad President Bush isn't dictated by from the unions. Like Goofball has said, God forbid we let supply and demand and the free market do their job.

[Watchman]

Well, they usually do some pretty nasty things.

Why do you think people and states go to all the trouble and effort involved in reining them in ?

[HoreTore]

Some answers:

1. Our union, LO, is a coalition of just about every union in the country. So yes, it DOES represent almost the entire workforce.
2. The leader is democratically chosen, and that leader also holds a place in the labour party's sentral committee by default(a very powerful position).
3. The organisation of LO is pretty much like this:

1. Sentral committee(the highest)
2. Leader
3. All the various profession leaders

4. The early wage negotiations work like Watchman said, except that the "referee" isn't the government, it's an independent guy(Riksmeglingsmannen/Countrynegotiationsman) with no interest other than getting the two parties to agree.
5. Strikes are an uncommon sight nowadays. This years negotiation was settled within the first couple of days...
6. One of the reasons stated why our model is working great for us, is that both employers and employees are working together here. There aren't any outrageous demands, especially not when the economy is hot. Like in this year, we have to hold back a little on consumption to avoid a crash, and so the union didn't ask for a raise for anyone else than groups who are very underpaid(like our nurses). The demands are usually very reasonable, so if there are any strikes, it's usually some random groups who feel they've been overlooked.
7. As for turning to the dark side of market liberalism, I was referring to our PM who sometimes has an urge to privatize stuff best left in the hands of the government. Like our electricity, in the 5(?) years since that sector was privatized, we've had 3 energy crashes... The price has gone up by 300% or so... We're "constantly short on water in our reservoirs"(water energy is our primary source), yet we are exporting like there's no freakin' tomorrow... And then importing back at twice the cost.... Does that sound clever to you? Anyway, it's not what we, as voters, expect from a social democrat. I blame Blair.

[Xiahou]

Hmmm. Unions. Tough call.

There are two unions that I sympathize with where I live: the nurses and the teachers. I sympathize with them mainly because I believe that the people who choose those two professions do so largely because they want to help and give back to society, even though it will never make them rich. For that reason, I think they would get completely walked on by the government if they didn't have a union to be their mouthpiece.

OTOH, I think most other unions are nothing more than a refuge and shield for the untalented, unmotivated, or uneducated to try to demand more money than their services are actually worth, thereby artificially inflating prices for the rest of us.

Good first post, CR.
I can't speak for the country as a whole, but where I come from, most teachers with more than a few years experience make well above the median income and most get 3 months off out of the year too- not a bad deal in my book. I'm not trying to say that they don't work hard or that there aren't good teachers- there are. But there are also incompetent and just plain bad one's too that are more often than not sheltered and protected by unions. Unions also prevent people who excel from getting ahead- their payscales are all carefully negotiated by seniority. You can be a terrible teacher yet make more than a brilliant one by virtue of the fact that you've been at it longer- that's not right.

The NYC schools apparently have a good union- let's see what it takes for the district to fire an incompetent teacher: clicky (http://cgood.org/burdenquestion-6.html)
They have an entire office building to warehouse bad teachers in. Some have had inappropriate relationships with students- but it's easier to keep them out of the classroom and on the public payroll than it is to dismiss them.

On unions in general, they are useful for workers when there are many workers vying for few(especially low-skill) jobs. In those situations employers can easily fire and replace employees who aren't satisfied with their work/pay. However, the US currently has a fairly tight labor market- companies are willing to pay to get good employees.

Taking this back to the schools... In a situation like this, good teachers should be paid good money. School boards are elected and therefore should be motivated to get results. If they won't pay for quality teachers, the quality of education would suffer accordingly. However, in the situation imposed by the unions good teachers are paid the same as the worst teachers. :dizzy2:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The European definition of "union" and that of the USA are substantially different.

The Euro "strong" union tradition has a much more specifically marxist origin -- ALL workers unite to control the means of production -- than do unions on this side of the pond. Our last effort along those lines was the Wobblies, and they took it on the chin. The AFL-CIO, by contrast, is an umbrella organization that seeks to imitate this one big union power bloc, but simply can't accomplish the level of needed solidarity -- the voices are too disparate and the agendas too independent among its constituent elements. In the USA, it is all too often the case that a union's International headquarters is quite a bit out of touch with its union locals, and for reasons surprisingly paralell to the reasons our elected representatives in DC can become out of phase with their own constituencies.

Union organizing in the USA, as in Europe, went through a period of out-and-out violence as well. Violence was a common component of strikes here well into the 1970s and still occurs on occasion. However, no union in the USA has ever been quite big enough, complete enough, or had the degree of solidarity necessary to actually de-stabilize the country or otherwise demonstrate a critical degree of power. In contrast, there are a number of instances in European history where large (at least relative to the country in question) unions have effectively paralyzed the whole nation until their issue was addressed.

Unions in the USA today focus most of their effort on: political lobbying and extracting the greatest possible amount of money from employers. Workplace Safety and Fairness issues feature in every contract, but for the most part the Unions are content to let OSHA dictate safety standards and to let 3rd party arbitrators keep worker grievances out of court. They really fight to take as much money as they can, with their favorite tactic -- pattern bargaining -- having become so important that some strikes appear to have been called by the International HQ more to preserve that tactic's power than to benefit the local union branches directly affected by the strike and the subsequently negotiated contract.

Sadly, this style of bargaining is not always done in an intelligent fashion. Unions in the USA have fought for and won contracts that have made the company decidely less competitive and contributed to the company's downfall. Their negotiating teams rarely have individuals who are truly knowledgeable about industry competition norms and standards or about the actual cost of manufacture/service in those industries (I've been led to understand that such expertise is often available in European union negotiation teams). To be fair, both the Unions and Management often take highly antagonistic attitudes into the negotiations -- rarely the most positive framework to start with -- so that part of the mess is shared all around.

Anyway....unions in the USA and Europe do not mean the same thing. Evaluating them using the same rubric would be difficult at best.

[HoreTore]

A question about the wage system you have, Seamus... Do you have a standard nationwide rate for each profession, or do you negotiate wages at a company level?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A question about the wage system you have, Seamus... Do you have a standard nationwide rate for each profession, or do you negotiate wages at a company level?

The latter.

However, "pattern bargaining" is a tool that attempts to use this company-level approach against the employers during bargaining.

Step 1 = determine which company in an industry (say automotive) is "weakest" and can most easily be forced to accept an agreement including substantial increases in wage/benefit.

Step 2 = negotiate a relatively favorable contract with that company, using a strike if necessary (remember, you picked the weakest link) to force the agreement.

Step 3 = announce that this agreement has set the "pattern" for all future agreements expected because you (the union international) want to help all of your workers equally and create an "even playing field" for all companies in that industry. Prima Facie this appears quite reasonable of course (as it can be most of the time if the initial agreement is wisely constructed).

Step 4 = use this added leverage to force other comapnies to accept the new "standards" for wages and benefits.


While trying to establish reasonable "living wage" norms for an industry is not an inherently bad concept for unions, regrettably, the pattern bargaining tactic has been too frequently used in an extortionate manner. We really do have situations now, especially in automotive, where companies are carrying workers to do virtually nothing -- pure waste cost -- and this leaves the companies less competitive. Too many of our union leaders implicitly believe that the jobs are a right that will and must always be maintained -- regardless of economic realities and have NOT done a lot with their unions to make their workers better/stronger/smarter. The answer always seems to be "force the company to give us more" without also paying attention to "how do we aid our workers in becoming more valuable as workers" (and therefore less prone to being let go).

[HoreTore]

Changing from negotiations from company to nationwide(or perhaps statewide would be better suited for the US?) would do a world of good.

Both employer and employee suddenly get a lot more weight, and it becomes impossible to pick on the weak, as you say they are doing. It also means that every company in the industry has the same terms.

[Ja'chyra]

I think the idea of unions is sound although the values they once sttod for is sadly lacking these days.

In my view unions are there to protect individual workers by showing a common front for everyone in the companies employ, this should include fair pay/conditions/pension etc. These days though I think more and more unions are increasingly concerned with governmental policy and dictating terms to companies and have lost sight of what they should be doing.

For example I am a civil servant and lifelong union member, although granted more out of custom than choice. The MoD is currently going through a major cost cutting exercise which involves losing 10,000 posts, we have also just been through our annual pay talks and are in the process of being relocated from scattered sites to one or two main sites. The unions view of this is that the job cuts are wrong, the pay deal is too low and we shouldn't have to relocate, all of this sounds reasonable at first glance until you realise that once you get past a certain grade your contract includes a mobility clause where you agree to be a mobile grade, affectively agreeing to work where you're sent. Now the union is focusing not on the below inflation pay rise or the job cuts but on the relocation and trying to influence the members on which political party to support.

Anyway, I think the unions need to get back to basics which is to stop individual members being steam rollered by big companies and leave the running of the companies to the people who know how to do it.

[doc_bean]

These days, if your chosen career is welding part A to part B, your poor planning should be rewarded with low wages.



Welding is one of the best possible career choices over here. A good welder can make a fortune in a couple of years. Same thing with plumbers, hard to top what they make with a desk job, and they're not even in a union.

Personally I feel trans-company unions tend to be a bad thing since they undermine competition. A lot of unions do act irresponsible, I wish we'd evolve more to a system where the union (the workers actually) controls part of the shares of the company, that way their might be more incentive to keep the company profitable.

I'm not saying they should eb given the shares BTW, they should buy 'em like everybody else.

[Goofball]

If people just treated each other fairly there'd be no need to unionize. The only time people ask for some outragoues benifts is when some populist demagouge tells them they deserve it. If employeers paid a fair salary and worked with there employees unions wouldnt exist. Trust me it can be done with big compaines I work for one that doesnt have a single unionzed guy in it and everyone thinks they have the best job for there skill set.

I agree. In Canada, if your business unionizes, then you have failed as a manager.

Management typically gets the union they deserve. In most cases, if they had paid a bit more attention to the well-being and happiness of their employees, there would be no union.

[Ice]

While trying to establish reasonable "living wage" norms for an industry is not an inherently bad concept for unions, regrettably, the pattern bargaining tactic has been too frequently used in an extortionate manner. We really do have situations now, especially in automotive, where companies are carrying workers to do virtually nothing -- pure waste cost -- and this leaves the companies less competitive. Too many of our union leaders implicitly believe that the jobs are a right that will and must always be maintained -- regardless of economic realities and have NOT done a lot with their unions to make their workers better/stronger/smarter. The answer always seems to be "force the company to give us more" without also paying attention to "how do we aid our workers in becoming more valuable as workers" (and therefore less prone to being let go).

:applause: :applause:

Very good. My friend's dad a couple days ago was telling me how they were paying people 60 dollars an hour to cut the grass.

[Tribesman]

Welding is one of the best possible career choices over here. A good welder can make a fortune in a couple of years. Same thing with plumbers
doc don't confuse Panzer with tales of the real world .

What I find funny about some of this topic is that many of the Americans berating unions are the same people who complain about illegals .
The main reason I tell lads heading over to the States to go over legally is because if their paperwork is not in order they cannot join the union over there . Outside of the union you are going to get screwed come wintertime , and really really screwed when you have an accident .

[drone]

One question for the Euros here: How do unions and their contracts mesh with the social security and health care systems of the nation? Unions here negotiate for pensions, health plans, and other benefits, as well as salary. Do European unions add to existing national health care benefits, or do they mainly negotiate salary? The most publicized complaint from the auto industry is the burden of the retirement/health care costs that manufacturers in other nations don't have to worry about. Are they just blowing smoke, or do they have a point?

[ShadeHonestus]

:applause: :applause:

Very good. My friend's dad a couple days ago was telling me how they were paying people 60 dollars an hour to cut the grass.



*Tearing up educational credentials*

Alright, get me a lawn mower and a union card!



I make more than that atm, but would rather be outside cutting grass.

[Lemur]

$60 per hour translates into $124,800 per year, if you believe a wage calculator (http://www.oesc.state.ok.us/ES/wagecalc.htm). You're doing better than that? good on ya! When I was doing computer work for an investment bank in NYC, I was quite happy to be earning the equivalent of $48 per hour. $125k per year must go a long way in Iowa.

[ShadeHonestus]

$60 per hour translates into $124,800 per year, if you believe a wage calculator (http://www.oesc.state.ok.us/ES/wagecalc.htm). You're doing better than that? good on ya! When I was doing computer work for an investment bank in NYC, I was quite happy to be earning the equivalent of $48 per hour. $125k per year must go a long way in Iowa.


They are billable hours and yes what I make does go a long way in Iowa especially since I'm not limited to 40 hours a week or pay union dues, but I am incorporated.

[Watchman]

One question for the Euros here: How do unions and their contracts mesh with the social security and health care systems of the nation? Unions here negotiate for pensions, health plans, and other benefits, as well as salary. Do European unions add to existing national health care benefits, or do they mainly negotiate salary? The most publicized complaint from the auto industry is the burden of the retirement/health care costs that manufacturers in other nations don't have to worry about. Are they just blowing smoke, or do they have a point?I'm pretty sure we use standardized rates for that stuff here in Finland. Sorta like the tax on goods really. Not sure though, haven't had a reason to find out.

'Course, different countries have different systems. Remember that the EU alone has 27 member states already, and not all European states are in it either... We got a lot of countries in a fairly small geographical area here. :beam:

[Ice]

*Tearing up educational credentials*

Alright, get me a lawn mower and a union card!



I make more than that atm, but would rather be outside cutting grass.

Oh I know. I was laughing pretty pretty hard when I heard that.

[Goofball]

doc don't confuse Panzer with tales of the real world .

What I find funny about some of this topic is that many of the Americans berating unions are the same people who complain about illegals .
The main reason I tell lads heading over to the States to go over legally is because if their paperwork is not in order they cannot join the union over there . Outside of the union you are going to get screwed come wintertime , and really really screwed when you have an accident .

For somebody who has been chiding others for their lack of understanding of the real world, you've just demonstrated a serious lack of understanding yourself.

Health and dental benefits, salary, and accident coverage do not have to hinge on being in a union, they hinge on who you work for. Good employers will offer all of those benefits to their people. I have worked in non-union positions for the last 17 years, and my benefit package would shame those available to most people through their unions.

[ShadeHonestus]

Health and dental benefits, salary, and accident coverage do not have to hinge on being in a union, they hinge on who you work for. Good employers will offer all of those benefits to their people. I have worked in non-union positions for the last 17 years, and my benefit package would shame those available to most people through their unions.

I can attest to that stateside as well. My pre-college post USMC careers found me in a few manufacturing positions.

1. Benefits were almost always better when not under union.
2. Benefits were more stable. Benefit packages under unions are used constantly as a bargaining tool and while one year you may have great benefits, the next year's negotiations will bring you a horrible benefits package as the unions overreached the previous year or negotiated for some other benefit this year etc etc etc.
3. Depending on the size of the Union and their affiliation you will be subject to group insurance which as you know will fluctuate in cost to you by the respective health of that group. At one position an aging group had the pay in cost for our benefits substantially larger than if we purchased our own policies privately.

[Tribesman]

For somebody who has been chiding others for their lack of understanding of the real world, you've just demonstrated a serious lack of understanding yourself.

Health and dental benefits, salary, and accident coverage do not have to hinge on being in a union
If you read what I wrote you may see that it is about a specific job and the union for that job , non union workers in that job get screwed in America(northern) every winter just as non union workers in that job get screwed in Ireland Britian Germany Holland .......every winter

[ajaxfetish]

doc don't confuse Panzer with tales of the real world .

What I find funny about some of this topic is that many of the Americans berating unions are the same people who complain about illegals .
The main reason I tell lads heading over to the States to go over legally is because if their paperwork is not in order they cannot join the union over there . Outside of the union you are going to get screwed come wintertime , and really really screwed when you have an accident .
I can understand Goof's confusion. Here's your post and I'm still not sure what job and union you're referring to. 'Lad' is a fairly nonspecific job description. Doc's post which you quote mentions welders and plumbers, but I'm not sure if you're referring to one of them, or which one.

Ajax

[Redleg]

For those that think unions are weak in the United States do a little checking into the craft unions for the railroad. The union efforts are not as weak as you would like to think.

Now the interesting part is that the unions are working together with the carrier companies to insure profitablity of the company. This is probably one of the most important aspects of the union environment. Negotations with the company to insure not only the worker is taken care of, but that the company remains in existance so that the worker can continue working, and that the pension funds for the Union continue to grow so that the craft members can draw a decent retirement income.

A labor union has no business telling the elected government to sit down and shut up. Even if its an elected collective - primarily because its not an representive collective. That is a labor union that has gotten out of control and has lost its most important function - that of collective bargaining. It also forgets the main principle of keeping their members employed - that the government must have tax revenues to collect which requires companies to have a profit marigin of some sort to re-invest into capital to maintain the company.

While strong unions are an execellent benefit to the wage earner - one must be careful of allowing the labor union's collective bargaining to circumvent the ability for the company or the government to survive. Because with out the income source the labor union does not have anything to bargain for.

[HoreTore]

One question for the Euros here: How do unions and their contracts mesh with the social security and health care systems of the nation? Unions here negotiate for pensions, health plans, and other benefits, as well as salary. Do European unions add to existing national health care benefits, or do they mainly negotiate salary? The most publicized complaint from the auto industry is the burden of the retirement/health care costs that manufacturers in other nations don't have to worry about. Are they just blowing smoke, or do they have a point?

We have our oil to pay for pensions. :laugh4: Oh, and the cash we've used as toilet paper....

Seriously though, pensions, health care and most other benefits are free here, and paid by the state and handled politically. The unions, and the employee unions, like to stick their nose in it though. Last fall for example, our government thought about tinkering with some health-related thingy of some sort(I just can't remember it now...), and both the workers union and the employee union forged an alliance to whack our work-minister. It worked brilliantly, btw. We've managed to turn him away from the dark side of market liberalism too...

[Tribesman]

For those that think unions are weak in the United States do a little checking into the craft unions for the railroad. The union efforts are not as weak as you would like to think.

Woohoo:2thumbsup:
But of course the craft unions must keep it real in their negotiations , no profit=no jobs .
The silly Limerick idiot we have down here forgot about that an screwed the union , but the developers (those that went for the short term fix)in screwing the union have irreconcialably screwed themselves .:2thumbsup:
Unionsare a funny ting , you need a strong leadership , but youndon't want a leadership that thinks its strength can push anything throuigh .
Sensibkle compromise is the key on both soides

[Ice]

. We've managed to turn him away from the dark side of market liberalism too...

Luke, the dark side calls...

https://img523.imageshack.us/img523/9971/welcometothedarksideag2.th.jpg (https://img523.imageshack.us/my.php?image=welcometothedarksideag2.jpg)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Woohoo:2thumbsup:
But of course the craft unions must keep it real in their negotiations , no profit=no jobs...

You'd think that would be pretty basic to the whole thing wouldn't you.

While a number of unions in the USA do function as Redleg outlines (hopefully a majority), we also have others who negotiate while almost completely clueless as to the specifics of cost/profit margins of the company with whom they are negotiating. They look at the raw profit number and say we want more -- and sadly don't have any expertise beyond that to bring to the table.

[Tribesman]

You'd think that would be pretty basic to the whole thing wouldn't you.


yeah thats what strikes me about Goofs post .he talks of the union getting a worse deal than he gets .....the union deal sets the minimum deal ,after that it is up to the individual and the emplyer . I am getting at the moment 4X union rate