Thanks a lot, unions

[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.

[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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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.

[Tribesman]

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

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 .

[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.

[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
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.

[Ice]

Shareholders.

Duh.

That's exactly what I meant watchman.

[Watchman]

That's exactly what I meant watchman.

You do know how chains-of-command work in the private sector these days, right ?

[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....

[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.

[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 ?

[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 ?

I don't understand that comment.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.