Unions - the official discussion

[Cool Chris]

Seems like this is a topic lots of people have an opinion on, so let's discuss them here.

But please elaborate and don't be trite. If you think unions suck, say why. If you think society will crumble without them, explain.

I will carryover a bit of stuff from the WI thread.

I speak as someone who is entering the teaching profession in GA, one of the few states without teacher collective bargaining rights.  I don't know how unions work in other professions but Bosk is right about wrongfully accused teachers basically having no recourse but the Union.  Were such rights eliminated, how would individual teachers stand up for themselves? 

It seems like there has to be some recourse, but maybe I am wrong. Lots of employees are not part of a union and have to stand up for themselves in the face of management. They don't always win, but they aren't helpless.

Also, I find it interesting that in 1 post the most extreme straw man is set up:

The union makes it so you pretty much have to be caught smoking a joint, with a heroin needle in your arm, downloading some kiddie p0rn, while the entire jr high cheerleading squad takes turns giving you a hummer in the cafeteria before they can even consider firing you.

but then a personal anecdote says:

Long before we met my wife had some sort of problems with the principle during her first year of teaching. Of course I only get her side of the story, but she makes it sound fairly unprofessional at best, and ugly, at worst. She said she would have been lost without the union speaking on her behalf. Halfway through the year she left the school, with pay, and began the next year at a new school.

End result, the district paid her 4-5 months all while she wasn’t working, and still employs the principle she had problems with. So obviously this speaks to bigger issues that are going on within education, but whatever.

The union fought for her, which is their job, and for which she is thankful.

I just think that's interesting. 

That was from my personal bias from listening to my wife talk about what crap co-workers/assistants she has, and whenever she talks to her supervisor about them, all she gets is "well, they have a right to work." And I am talking people who take weeks off at a time for 'personal reasons.' Sure, it is unpaid leave, but there is no recourse to poor performance, and it hurts the other staff, who have to carry their dead weight, and most of all, the kids.

[rumborak]

I don't see an inherent problem with unions. There is an inherent imbalance between the leverage of a company and the leverage of a single employee, and unions level that playing field. They simply negotiate a reasonable sales price for the product they sell, human labor.
They become a problem when you have mandatory membership for example. That's why, in my opinion, the anti-trust law should be extended to unions too. It's just another monopoly, and employees need to have the opportunity to choose to negotiate their own employment terms.
To view it differently, it's a form of checks and balances. Companies have a tendency to exploit resources, including human resources, and it takes an independent entity to keep it in check. Union is one entity capable of doing it.

rumborak

[j]

I know there are people who get very emotional about labor unions, but I'm not sure which side I come down on.  I understand the need for leverage for workers, especially in certain industries.  The "labor market" is one dominated by the employers in many ways.

But the way I see it, there are a lot of supposed great advantages to unions in theory that don't necessarily come about in practice, or are diminished/offset by other failings.  And of course there are a few cases in which things are totally out of control, due in large part to historical circumstances, such as the UAW which is a fucking disaster.

I'll try to elaborate tomorrow if I have some time.

-J

[El Barto]

In principle, I agree with most of Rumborak's points.  "There is an inherent imbalance between the leverage of a company and the leverage of a single employee, and unions level that playing field."  Well stated.  The problem is that invariably the union becomes a separate entity.  If it were merely employees deciding what is fair, then it'd be fine.  It eventually becomes the union deciding what's best for the employees and the union, though, and that's bad for everybody (except the union, of course).

[bosk1]

...and unions level that playing field. They simply negotiate a reasonable sales price for the product they sell, human labor.

No, actually, they don't.  That's the problem.

It eventually becomes the union deciding what's best for the employees and the union, though, and that's bad for everybody (except the union, of course).

This.

If you want empirical evidence on how Unions fuck up your company, own one.

...Implying that Unions fuck up companies? I really don't understand. Being part of a Union is a helpful resource as far as I know. What the hell is so bad about them?

In a nutshell, they drive up the costs of business, which frequently drives businesses out of business.  They foster frivolous complaints.  And they lobby for laws that are unnecessary in today's society and are a further drain on business and the economy.  If you want to know what is so bad about them, just do a google search for "why are unions bad for business" or something along those lines and do some research.  Here's a decent summary of some high points (although it is just a guy spouting off, so there isn't any support for his points):  https://omegahrsolutions.com/2009/06/why-unions-are-bad-for-companies-employees-and-customers.html

[orcus116]

Unions served their purpose years ago when their existence was justified (bad working conditions, child labor, etc), but are essentially useless today. I mean the fact that they're essentially a business unto themselves is the biggest giveaway.

The only real good example I have that hits close to home is that my mom is a teacher. A few years ago her salary was up for contract, along with many other teachers. Since the Teacher's Union and her school district couldn't strike a deal on time none of the teachers got raises and they were at a standstill for two years or so. Since she had been at the district for 20+ years my mom was certain she could've argued her raise herself but since the union operates on an "all or nothing" basis if one person can't get a raise, no one can.

[William Wallace]

...they lobby for laws that are unnecessary in today's society and are a further drain on business and the economy.

This is my problem with unions, particularly the public employee unions. They aren't merely representing the interests of their members in negotiations with employers; they're using the law to create advantages for themselves. In fact, there's a good case to be made that unions are a major reason why states like California are on the verge of bankruptcy.

Not only do they defend policies that restrict the labor market, they help keep the Democrats in power, which influences dozens of other unrelated issues. Pro-union democrats also tend to favor sin taxes, harsh environmental regulations, "stimulus" spending and so on.

There's also a personal element to it, my version of angrily shaking fists at the oil industry. When everybody is struggling and the economy is sluggish, these union goons descend on state capitols and complain about having to contribute more to their own retirements. Not only do they have better deals than many people in the private sector, but their salaries and benefits come out of the public coffers. It's fucking infuriating.

I also see an element of hypocrisy. The politicians on the left wax poetic about the necessity of treating people fairly, and then comply with the unions' requests for special treatment because it often ensures their re-election.    

[Perpetual Change]

I surprisingly er on the side of bosk, Will Wallace, and the concurring El Barto here. As long as there are already fair, well-enforced labor regulations in place there really is no need for unions. The left's commitment to the worst-of-the-worst greed-infested  "teacher's unions" is absolutely bizarre in my opinion, and I agree with WW that it's nothing more than a vote grab.

[King Postwhore]

I'm a fence sitter.  I've seen the good they've done for my father over the years.  They helped with negotiations.  My dad's union gave up raise to have less to pay on their health.  Over time my dad's health insurance was fully covered.  Years later when the company was booming, the company asked the workers to start paying for a little bit again.  The union didn't budge because the top 500 execs got a whopping 85% raise, and with the unions help, the won

On the flip side.  I worked for a big comapny that made a product you all may know.  Polarfleece.  We had a hugh fire that too 4 of our production building down.  They had us move across town so the pproduction could be saved in our building.  They had moved some guys who's building burned down to help us set up with promises that they would not be in our department.  You could not jump, even with senority,from dept. to dept.  Well our union allowed it over time and I eventually got laid off.

So a union is not always works for it's employees.  A union is only as strong as the people in it.

[bosk1]

on the side of bosk, Will Wallace, and the concurring El Barto

An uneasy and unsavory alliance at best.   

[El Barto]

on the side of bosk, Will Wallace, and the concurring El Barto

An uneasy and unsavory alliance at best.   

Yeah, I had to read that part twice when I saw it.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

But without Unions what's to stop the companies themselves to just totally disregard their workers?

[bosk1]

1.  For the most part, unions don't don't protect the workers.
2.  We already have a runaway legal system that affords more rights and protections for workers than unions can.  Keep in mind that the vast majority of the workforce is NOT unionized, and yet the abuses that existed in the workplace that helped create unions are still mostly nonexistent largely because (1) there are more than enough laws to protect workers, and (2) while there are certainly exceptions, most companies "get it" and want to at least try to do right by their employees.

[j]

But without Unions what's to stop the companies themselves to just totally disregard their workers?

As long as there are already fair, well-enforced labor regulations in place there really is no need for unions.

There are plenty of industries that don't have unions and the majority of workers don't belong to a union.

-J

[Perpetual Change]

(1) there are more than enough laws to protect workers

This is the big one for me. If the laws are fair and clear and well enforced, what can the unions actually accomplish?

I'm guess here, though, is where our shaky alliance begins to fall apart 

[El Barto]

To a certain extent, they do improve many things for unskilled labor.  While there are many jobs that give a good employee a competitive edge, there's a huge and fairly important chunk of the American workforce that doesn't.  If a plant owner can replace any employee with little expense, then there's no real incentive to pay a decent wage or provide any other benefits.  This extends to non-union companies who now have to be competitive with their unionized counterparts.  As I've said, the problem is that they invariably go too far, but the initial benefit is important, IMO. 

[rumborak]

I think the American view of unions is overly negative, partly because the big ones have made themselves look bad, partly because there's a war on anything that could look "socialist".
Unions in the EU have a lot of positive influence. I don't need to mention that Germany is both competitive, and still has on average 5 weeks of vacation?

rumborak

[bosk1]

My sentiments toward unions are reserve completely for unions in the U.S.  I am fairly ignorant as to how they function in other countries, so I can't really speak to that.

[El Barto]

Unions in the EU have a lot of positive influence. I don't need to mention that Germany is both competitive, and still has on average 5 weeks of vacation?

rumborak

Is that more a result of unions or the legacy of Herr Krupp (fascinating guy)?

[rumborak]

Well, Krupp is/was big, but the unions definitely had a big influence too. And a government that doesn't shy away from curtailing businesses if it means improving workplaces.

rumborak

[j]

https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110225/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

This is such a joke.  The level of gross manipulation of the process on both sides is just ridiculous.  Reason has no place in politics in this country, it's like a bunch of dumb-ass kids trying to get their way at any cost.

-J

[El Barto]

https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110225/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

This is such a joke.  The level of gross manipulation of the process on both sides is just ridiculous.  Reason has no place in politics in this country, it's like a bunch of dumb-ass kids trying to get their way at any cost.

-J

Holy shit! 

Debate had gone on for 60 hours and 15 Democrats were still waiting to speak when the vote started around 1 a.m. Friday. Speaker Pro Tem Bill Kramer, R-Waukesha, opened the roll and closed it within seconds.  Democrats looked around, bewildered. Only 13 of the 38 Democratic members managed to vote in time.

Republicans immediately marched out of the chamber in single file. The Democrats rushed at them, pumping their fists and shouting "Shame!" and "Cowards!"

The thing that really disgusts me isn't the behavior of all of these scumbag politicians; they are what they are.  My problem is that if all of these douchebags had to run for re-election tomorrow, none of the voters would even care about this.  They'd still vote for pussy democrats or cheating republicans as the lesser of two evils.  These guys game the system to the best of their abilities because there really isn't anything to keep them accountable. 

I get tired of having to say this, but democracy just doesn't work. 

[bosk1]

I hereby nominate myself for King.

[King Postwhore]

I hereby nominate myself for King.

Eeeee....hheemmm!!  who has the moniler.

I am a bit like El Barto.  I'm sick and tired of political ploys and how thy react to each other.

[William Wallace]

https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110225/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

This is such a joke.  The level of gross manipulation of the process on both sides is just ridiculous.  Reason has no place in politics in this country, it's like a bunch of dumb-ass kids trying to get their way at any cost.

-J

It's definitely uncivilized, shouting at each other and such. But the fact that the state legislatures are actually willing to challenge public employee unions is encouraging. Perhaps people are starting to realize that we're broke and can't continue as we are.

EDIT:

And here's a sucker punch to get the weekend started:

[lordxizor]

If a plant owner can replace any employee with little expense, then there's no real incentive to pay a decent wage or provide any other benefits.

And why should they? If the labor is completely unskilled and virtually anyone off the street could do it with minimal training, the person doing it doesn't really deserve to get paid much more than minimum wage, do they?

[orcus116]

Unfortunately minimum wage grossly underestimates the cost of living.

[pogoowner]

Unfortunately minimum wage grossly underestimates the cost of living.

Why should all jobs be expected to cover the cost of living, though?

[orcus116]

Because that's the idea behind minimum wage?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Because that's the idea behind minimum wage?

Yeah that's my understanding too. I make slightly above PA minimum wage, and there's NO way I could completely cover the cost of living, assuming I work a full 40 hour week.

Congress gets a cost-of-living increase for their salary every so often. Why not us?

Yet another reason I want to be a Congressman. I'm in it for the money/perks

[pogoowner]

Because that's the idea behind minimum wage?

I just don't understand how that makes any sense, though. Jobs don't exist so people can earn a living. They exist because an employer wants some sort of work done. Some work just isn't very valuable, because there's a huge number of people in the market capable of doing it, or the demand for the product/service is very low.

[j]

^I agree, but there's something to be said for just the time you put into it.  Even if you just sit behind a desk and answer phones 40 hours a week, you're still there 40 hours a week.  Your work itself isn't valuable, but there has to be some minimum value assigned to your time.  Now whether that value should be determined by the government or the labor market is another issue.

I guess if you think the labor market would sort it out on its own (i.e. this job doesn't pay enough to live on, so nobody will take it and the employer will be forced to offer a higher wage), there'd be no need for a set "minimum wage", but I'm not convinced that would be the case.

-J

[rumborak]

Because that's the idea behind minimum wage?

I just don't understand how that makes any sense, though. Jobs don't exist so people can earn a living. They exist because an employer wants some sort of work done. Some work just isn't very valuable, because there's a huge number of people in the market capable of doing it, or the demand for the product/service is very low.

And you'd rather see a massive number of people dying in poverty to maintain this idealistic notion of market? That's what it really comes down to.

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

And you'd rather see a massive number of people dying in poverty to maintain this idealistic notion of market? That's what it really comes down to.

rumborak

I'd rather the government simply provide those things which keep us alive and then stay out of contracts between Employees and their Employers.

[rumborak]

If I saw this uber-free market system working well somewhere, to the benefit of the people involved, I would come around and support it.
But, if I'm supposed to sacrifice people's lives for the stretched notion of some people's economic freedom, err, no thanks. Gotta pass. I can't fathom either how any Christian would support something like this, with this question having been directly opposed by Jesus.

rumborak