Secret Ballots!?! Where do you think you are, America?

[rvg]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

"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]

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]

Or my favourite Union story of the past year.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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]

Or my favourite Union story of the past year.

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

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

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

[seireikhaan]

That's a good story, CA.

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]

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]

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]

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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/decenni...80a_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]

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.

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

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.

So essentially unions reduce employment by limiting how many people an employer can afford to hire.

And finally

the fact that [unions] protects workers wages from being determined by the random and chaotic ups and downs of the stock market.

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?

[a completely inoffensive name]

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]

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 ).

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]

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 ).

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]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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. I was beginning to wonder if us two would ever agree on anything (especially after that ESRB debate).

[Don Corleone]

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

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]

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]

MRD:

Nice post.

[lars573]

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]

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]

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]

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.

ORLY

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]

ORLY

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]

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