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

[Beskar]

If you abolish workers' interest groups, then you should also abolish employers' interest groups, nature interest groups, gun interest groups, military interest groups, muslim interest groups, christian interest groups, jewish interest groups and any other lobby group there is, since they all work towards their own goals, every single one of them. And they all try to influence the government and get things done their way. I wouldn't be surprised if they have mob ties in many of them either, isn't the italian mafia kinda catholic anyway?
The problem is if you abolish the worker unions but not the labour laws, the employer unions will have more power to convince the government to abolish those labour laws in the long run, or at least erode them, so either you keep all your interest groups or none.

Why do you think America basically abolished unions? The Corporations run the government and didn't like it. It meant they had to possible pay people what they were worth.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm actually leaning more toward what CR has been saying about poor treatment being bad business. However, I think the reasons for this incentive of poor treatment=bad business have been from reasons other then purely free market interactions. I think that nowadays companies would not be interested in attempting to reduce wages back down to the Gilded Age style of pennies for hours. The reason for that is because nowadays the media is global, fast and most importantly interactive. A YouTube video can make the news, so people do have more inherent power in creating bad PR for companies then ever before. However, that doesn't stop the companies from attempting to keep wages as close the minimum wage as possible such as with Wal Mart.

Secondly, I agree that unions are no longer useful in their original role in protecting wages and jobs for their members through acting as representative for workers. Laws have been established that have cemented those protections in our country. However, I think we do still need unions which I will explain in my next point below.

Thirdly, the problem that seems to be arising in America stems from economic recession periods, where short sighted companies do attempt to save in the short run by drastically reducing wages and benefits to unacceptable levels for our standard of living (a modern western nation's standard of living just to clarify). The media factor doesn't come into play here, because in an economic downturn we often see the general attitude of Americans to be "don't complain at least you have a job". Technically, I guess you could call this what others have claimed (and CR has acknowledged) to be the "stupidity of humans who run companies". Theoretically, once the recession is over people should remember who treated their employers badly and who treated them right during the recession, so those who were attempting to save in the short run, fail in the long run. This would make it seem as if the companies that do survive would be the ones that treated their employers right. This would be free market capitalism solving our problems for us. However, you could argue that those that save in the short term are able to outlast the recession while those that keep wages up for their employers are likely to die in the recession, so those with the bad policies would survive.

In either case, if the good companies win the long run, we still need to be realistic here and see that those working for the short sighted companies still suffer from terrible wage cuts during a bad economic period, in which case asking your congress to react quickly by raising the minimum wage would be a somewhat ridiculous hope to bet on. So unions do help when those crisis moments hit, not by holding out for more money, but by serving as a lobby group to help push the bill through congress, speeding the process up faster then normally. Now if the bad companies win in the long run because their penny pinching lasted them through the recession when others didn't, then obviously we still have a need for unions to actively counter and reverse the companies hurtful policies.

I still haven't thought all this through I admit. But I will say, that there is a definite middle here. We don't need unions to holding out as greedy ********, (asking full dental and medical for grocery baggers when the company just cant afford it), anymore since we don't live in an age of blatant Rockefeller's and Carnegie's anymore. (To say that, would honestly be hyperbole.) But, workers need some sort of lobby group as do any other group in America. So I see unions to be more of a lobby group (or should be more of a lobby group) then anything else in this modern age, just as gun owners have the NRA, animal rights have PETA, workers have their unions.

Honestly, if it was up to me I would restructure/reclassify unions as an interest group and make it so that they only interact with the government and not be involved in company to worker contracts. If the company starts putting the hurt on workers, then give more union dues to the unions, the more fervent and wealthy the interest group is, the more successful it is, just ask the NRA.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Dear Pro-simian:

I would assert that two themes provide a lot of explanative power for the difference in efficacy between unions in the USA and unions in the rest of the G8 (let's set the rest of hte top 20 aside for the moment). First, unions in the USA have not adapted to changing conditions in the global marketplace either in a business sense or a political sense, and second, there has always been a basic disconnect between the classic culture of unionism and US culture.

Efficacy and change:

The globalized marketplace heightens competitive pressure on organizations. In a world with nearly instantaneous communication and fairly inexpensive world transport for many goods, virtually ALL manufacturing concerns have to be able to be competitive with all other companies in a given industry. Caterpillar competes with Komatsu etc. Assuming roughly similar quality of product, anything that drives Caterpillar's production cost higher than the combined cost of manufacture/transport for Komatsu loses them business. Sneakers manufactured to equivalent quality levels by intelligent and hard-working Vietnamese laborers -- where the average per capita income is roughly 1 USD per day -- often cost less, AFTER shipping and importation fees than would the same product manufactured by a US labor force at 90 USD per day. Companies can easily compensate a Vietnamese employee at double or triple the local wage, getting the best of the best of the local workforce, while paying less labor cost for their products. Even companies that would have preferred to stay in the USA and employ that workforce were under pressure to quit doing so. Despite which the Unions often flatly rejected the idea of reduction in compensation and criticized company leaders for their unwillingness to decrease shareholder profits in order to maintain workforce numbers and compensation levels. This last is a complete disconnect with the raison d'etre of most companies.

In addition, US unions have failed to adapt to the growth of the service/information economy. Solidarity and Organizing were (and in some ways still are) the critical elements of union power in a manufacturing environment, but they fail to address the role of the individual or the individuals knowledge/skills that are absolutely central in an info-serv economy. Rather than adapting to the centrality of individual development and adopting some of the vital components of professional associations (a code of ethics, self-regulation/policing via peer review, continued education and skill improvement, etc.) that would have allowed them to alter to their new context, unions have continued with the same old mantra. Having used their political leverage to allow the unionization of public sector employees so as to protect those employee's rights (rather surprising really, as even in the bad old days of the 1940s it was rather difficult to view public sector bureacrats as "threatened"...) WITHOUT changing the basic model of power through numbers and all employees being "the same" and requiring help against the self-serving owners who would readily discard any employee who annoyed them or wanted to improve working conditions. Public sector employees (teacher's and civil service) now represent mor than 2.5 million of the AFL-CIO's 11 million members. Throw in the 3.2 million members of the NEA, and of the roughly 15.3 million union members in the USA (12.3% of total workforce) more than 40% are public sector employees....who were covered by civil service work rules even prior to their unionization. By the way, put in the words "code of ethics" on the AFL-CIO website. You'll be rewarded with multiple hits, exactly NONE of which lay out a code of ethics expected of AFL-CIO individual or organizational members. Unions in the USA have not kept pace with the times.

Culture:

The USA has, and always has had, a relatively flexible society. If you were the son of a Welsh coal miner in 1880, the chances of you not ending up in a coal mine were slim and almost all of them involved taking the Queen's shilling. Even at the height of the "robber baron" era in the USA, when Catholic immigrants were spat upon and U.S.-born blacks were faced with virtual serfdom, there was STILL more social and economic mobility than almost anywhere else in Europe, Asia, or Africa. In the USA, the odds against you becoming one of the real "haves" were pretty steep. In Europe the chance was almost non-existent.

Absent that chance for significant social mobility, Unionism was more or less vital. Without it, who would speak for workers at all? Labor unionism quickly became THE means for social equality, or at least the improvement of the standard of living for anyone in Europe's working class. It is little wonder that unions and unionism became such an integral component of the socio-political culture in Europe. Japan's unions were, and are, uniquely suited to the Japanese culture as a whole, where emphasis on the collective and the community takes a decidedly different turn than it does in the "West."

In the USA, there was a real frontier open to all until into the early 20th. Even after that, unionism never really took hold anywhere where work conditions were reasonable for those employed (some of the health and safety stuff that formed our strongest unions was every bit as 'life and death' as the issues in Europe and numerous companies were grossly negligent -- and sometimes actively exploitative -- of their workforces). The "wobblies" never could get enough groundswell in the USA. US unions have "international" headquarters, but never really were part of the "internationale." US workers were and are US first and union second. In contrast, unionism in Europe has always had more of an international character as well as a much more inimical association with Marxism and its emphasis on power vested in the proletariat.

All in all, unions are a necessary component of the economic and political landscape. Without unions, there is a measurable segment of the business community that will exploit workforces in the name of profits. Collective bargainin, for all its abuses, is one of the better components of self protection available to a workforce. Unfortunately for unions however, if they continue to lag behind in adapting to the new "global" context of economics and politics, if they continue to devote themselves to defending the interchangeable "bean" worker being exploited by management as opposed to becoming the catalyst for a worker's own advancement and improvement, they will marginalize themselves even further and their influence will continue to erode.

[Beskar]

Well, there are otherways of handling the situation. Force companies to pay a 'fair wage' akin to the 'fair trade' movement. Also, while the world ends up developing, the same demands will be in those places as they are in the West, so the two companies internationally will be paying a similar wage bill. The answer is not to re-inforce wage-slavery arguing that you can pay some one in Timbuktoo with shiny beads.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, there are otherways of handling the situation. Force companies to pay a 'fair wage' akin to the 'fair trade' movement. Also, while the world ends up developing, the same demands will be in those places as they are in the West, so the two companies internationally will be paying a similar wage bill. The answer is not to re-inforce wage-slavery arguing that you can pay some one in Timbuktoo with shiny beads.

No, you just want us to equalize outcomes by law. Good luck with that.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, you just want us to equalize outcomes by law. Good luck with that.

That seems like a baseless accusation. Support that please. (I'm just trying to absorb as many view points here since I've never actually been in a union).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That seems like a baseless accusation. Support that please. (I'm just trying to absorb as many view points here since I've never actually been in a union).

Very well.

Prima facie, Beskar's point seems innocuous enough. Legislate to force companies to pay a "fair wage" akin to "fair trade."

He doesn't define "fair wage." Will he legislate to have workers payed a "living wage" in all jobs? Will he slap a tariff on foreign goods that are produced by companies with significantly lower wages in order to "even the playing field?"

EDIT: Later discussion allowed Beskar to clarify his point.

He then goes on to suggest that, as other parts of the world develop, these salary disparities will even themselves out. This is more of a "radiant future" state concept. Nothing in human history suggests that such a parity is in the offing or even likely.

EDIT: A universal minimum wage would be simply a soley a tool for wealth transfer. FORCE developed economies to pay much more for a given good or service so as to transfer wealth to the underdeveloped. The basic premise is that only equality of outcome is a worthwhile goal.

Taken together, he's advocating the classic mantra of "have the government decide what's fair and enforce it." However nice the intention, this sort of recipe never seems to work out.

I prefer the market as free and open as possible, with a minimum of regulations to prevent fraud and to promote public health and safety. NOT leaving the rest to sort itself out is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, there are otherways of handling the situation. Force companies to pay a 'fair wage' akin to the 'fair trade' movement. Also, while the world ends up developing, the same demands will be in those places as they are in the West, so the two companies internationally will be paying a similar wage bill. The answer is not to re-inforce wage-slavery arguing that you can pay some one in Timbuktoo with shiny beads.

Fair trade is hogwash. Forcing foreign companies to pay higher wages just takes away from the main economic advantage those foreign workers have; the willingness to work for lower wages. Using law to force those wages up to parity with western workers will just result in those foreign workers not being employed at all. It's got nothing to do with helping foreign workers from the union's viewpoint, and everything to do with helping themselves. (Note: by foreign workers I'm refering to third world workers as in China, Asia, etc.)

Seamus, as usual, makes very good and eloquent points. I'll expand a bit on the fact that unions, unlike engineering associations (for example), don't try to increase the skills of their members in order to respond and adapt to a changing world. They just try to prevent the world from changing.

Oh, and as a prime example of US unions being messed up; Here we have a vide detailing what choice various California unions made between more money and power and epeleptic schoolchildren in danger of dying. The unions chose money and power, of course:

Congress has passed a $26 billion aid package that is intended to save the jobs of thousands of teachers, nurses, and other public-sector employees. To critics who call the measure a "special interest" bill, President Barack Obama says, "I suppose if America's children and the safety of our communities are your special interest, then it is a special interest bill."

In politics everyone claims to be on the side of the children, but who really is? Pat DeLorenzo is a parent whose daughter suffers from epilepsy. Like roughly 10,000 other epileptic schoolchildren in California, eight-year-old Gianna suffers from the type of prolonged seizures that, without immediate attention, can result in brain damage or death. After witnessing the response of teachers and school nurses to one of his daughter's life-threatening seizures, Pat DeLorenzo now believes that teachers and nurses care more about protecting union jobs than saving epileptic children.

DeLorenzo feared the worst when he receive a call from his daughter's school, informing him that she had suffered a seizure. Gianna survived that day, but DeLorenzo was outraged that school administrators had not given his daughter Diastat, a drug that stops seizures before they do permanent harm and is FDA-approved for use by laypeople. Today many schoolchildren must wait until an ambulance brings them to a hospital before they receive Diastat. That's much too long, says DeLorenzo who supports, SB 1051, a California bill that would allow trained non-medical volunteers to administer Diastat at schools.

Epilepsy advocates like the Epilepsy Foundation and physicians groups like the California Medical Association have lined up to support the bill. Unions representing teachers, nurses, and other public employees have lined up in opposition, claiming the bill would put children in danger. Their solution: hire more school nurses.

"The unions are not on the side of the kids," says DeLorenzo who believes unions are more interested in expanding their ranks than protecting epileptic children.

"It's exactly the opposite," says Gayle McClean, southern section president of the California School Nurses Organization and a member of the California Teachers Association. "We care deeply for children and we want them to receive the most appropriate care and that means they need a licensed medical person caring for them."

Sacramento lawmakers sided with unions and have refused to bring the bill up for a vote. The bill will officially expire on August 31.

Stay classy scumbags.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Fair trade is hogwash. Forcing foreign companies to pay higher wages just takes away from the main economic advantage those foreign workers have; the willingness to work for lower wages. Using law to force those wages up to parity with western workers will just result in those foreign workers not being employed at all. It's got nothing to do with helping foreign workers from the union's viewpoint, and everything to do with helping themselves. (Note: by foreign workers I'm refering to third world workers as in China, Asia, etc.)

Seamus, as usual, makes very good and eloquent points. I'll expand a bit on the fact that unions, unlike engineering associations (for example), don't try to increase the skills of their members in order to respond and adapt to a changing world. They just try to prevent the world from changing.

Oh, and as a prime example of US unions being messed up; Here we have a vide detailing what choice various California unions made between more money and power and epeleptic schoolchildren in danger of dying. The unions chose money and power, of course:





Stay classy scumbags.

CR

It's stuff like that which makes lean toward your position CR. Out of all the unions, the teachers union is the worst, I have learned that from what little experience I have from talking with my high school teachers. Unions have become a business, and their business is workers so all they want is more union due paying workers.

EDIT: Also, I agree fair trade is backwards, don't ruin the free market by taking away what it does best, finding the best way to maximize capital gains through competitive advantages.

[Beskar]

Fair trade is hogwash. Forcing foreign companies to pay higher wages just takes away from the main economic advantage those foreign workers have; the willingness to work for lower wages. Using law to force those wages up to parity with western workers will just result in those foreign workers not being employed at all. It's got nothing to do with helping foreign workers from the union's viewpoint, and everything to do with helping themselves. (Note: by foreign workers I'm refering to third world workers as in China, Asia, etc.)

Yet, the vast majority of these workers are simply unethically exploited, mainly child labour working 12 hour shifts for $5 per week and you come in here talking about "competitive advantage" saying how Unions hate kids while you advocate exploitation and child labour? Because that is the reality of the situation, some one setting up a factory in an Indian slum, taking advantage of the people in desperate need there.

Nothing to do about "the willingness to work for lower wages.", it is unethical exploitation and wage-slavery of those in need.

Hilarious.


Oh, as for Fair Trade, it isn't counter-productive, since people are being paid far below the worth of those products for profit, and they don't have the choice in the matter, again, another place of unethical exploitation by Corporations.

Forcing an international minimum wage (doesn't have to be as high as the one in the UK or US), would greatly improve the situations of many.




Obviously, all part of "advantages of the free-market", ing people over and unethical exploitation.

[ajaxfetish]

Yet, the vast majority of these workers are simply unethically exploited, mainly child labour working 12 hour shifts for $5 per week

I admit I haven't studied this, so I'm open to correction, but I find this claim hard to believe without supporting evidence. Do you have any data to back this up?

Ajax

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yet, the vast majority of these workers are simply unethically exploited, mainly child labour working 12 hour shifts for $5 per week and you come in here talking about "competitive advantage" saying how Unions hate kids while you advocate exploitation and child labour?

Ah, how convenient. You ignore my deconstructing of your previous arguments and then jump back in with more wild accusations. An anecdote about one child be treated badly is not proof that the majority of foreign labor is child labor being paid a pittance for extremely long hours.

If you're angry about child labor, you should be scolding India for not banning it, or not enforcing said ban.

Because that is the reality of the situation, some one setting up a factory in an Indian slum, taking advantage of the people in desperate need there.

Nothing to do about "the willingness to work for lower wages.", it is unethical exploitation and wage-slavery of those in need.

So, better to not give those desperate people any job? Better they remain even more desperate and poor and hungry than they would be if they had even a terrible job? Just what do you think would happen if you managed to get some sort of international minimum wage? That the poor third world workers would cheer your name for making them lose their jobs?

Also; we're talking about the US here, and why unions went bad here. Don't you have any thoughts on the video I posted? Or would that put a wrinkle in your 'unions are perfect' world?

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yet, the vast majority of these workers are simply unethically exploited, mainly child labour working 12 hour shifts for $5 per week and you

Looking at the wages is a shallow point

http://www.independent.org/publicati...le.asp?id=1369

In 9 of 10 nations, average apparel industry income exceeds the national average at only 50 hours per week. Apparel workers in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua earn 3 to 7 times the national average.