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

[Lemur]

Prompted by a sub-topic in another thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police unions protect those dangerously incompetent or violent.

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

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

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

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

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

[Ice]

Prompted by a sub-topic in another thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5) In short, yes.

[jabarto]

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

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

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

[Lemur]

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

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

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

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

[jabarto]

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

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

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

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

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

[drone]

Do unions in Europe and Japan have mob ties?

[Ice]

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

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

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

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

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

Ever heard of the United Auto Workers Union?

[Skullheadhq]

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

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

[Ice]

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

Labor laws should not be abolished and no.

[jabarto]

Ever heard of the United Auto Workers Union?

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

[Goofball]

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

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

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

1. Because North American Unions operate more on the "protection racket" model than on the collective approach to a better deal.
2. It's just like your politics. No how matter how reasonable a policy may be, if it was proposed by the "other side" the opposition is required to say how crappy it is.
3. No and no.
4. Higher productivity; younger workers treated fairly out from under the thumb of seniority; merit-based reward; profit-sharing, etc...
5. They already have been. That's why unions have had to become so much more aggressive and unreasonable, making demands (in some cases) that any sane person can see will bankrupt the hand that feeds them and put them out of jobs.

You're absolutely right, jabarto. There is absolutely no "good" in unions.

[jabarto]

way to ignore 200 years of economic history there sport

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Somewhere betwixt the two of you is likely to be an accurate answer. Neither of your arguments is without merit.