Mass defection from the AFL-CIO

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
Teamsters, Service Employees bolt from AFL-CIO in U.S. labour split.


The AFL-CIO – the main U.S. labour group – suffered a setback on Monday when two large unions quit.

The Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union announced they were withdrawing their 3.2 million members from the AFL-CIO in a dispute on the future direction of the labour movement. The move will withdraw about a quarter of the AFL-CIO's 13 million members.

The Teamsters and the SEIU have joined with five other unions to form a new labour group, dubbed the Change to Win coalition, with a stated goal of reversing the decline in union membership.


[/ QUOTE ]

The splinter group believes that organizing, trying to increase the numbers, will save US labor. Fundamentally, the dispute is over money forwarded to the AFL-CIO that was used for political, social, and activist causes. As I described in the previous post, this idea to reach out to traditionally non-union groups to generate interest is more in line with how labour movements in other countries have been more successful. The splinter group, of a whopping 3 million members (US/Canada basically), thinks this idea either hasn't worked or the money should have been spent on organizing.

This could be the beginning of revitalized labor movement intent on bringing into the fold, as I mentioned previously, the large low wage service sector through mass organizing. Or it could mean the death knell of the US labor movement as the two factions cannibalize each other. That is, the two groups, instead of organizing new bargaining units or becoming a more socially active widespread movement, end up raiding each other to bits. Unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO normally have to have a very good reason to be allowed to invade anothers turf. We could see some very nasty interunion battles.

[Zeno]

Full Article on AFL-CIO Blow Up (http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/07/25/186795.html)

'Spooking some Democrats' /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

-Zeno

[SheetWise]

Divide and conquer. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Divide and conquer. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

jaxmike, please go bother someone else for a while. The adults are trying to have a conversation here.


q/q

[lehighguy]

It really is for the best. If you think Unions in America are good then you obviously know little about how they work.

[Broken Glass Can]

Big labor has always fundamentally disrespected its own membership. They take their money and use it to promote liberal causes and liberal political candidates against the will of most of their members.

Teachers unions are a major impediment to the improvement of the education system in this country because they put issues like seniority and rapid pay increases over ensuring a good education for students.

The current situation should have a long term positive impact, if only because it will allow the smaller organization a chance to get back to its original job of being a labor union, rather than being a special interest lobbying group.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
Big labor has always fundamentally disrespected its own membership. They take their money and use it to promote liberal causes and liberal political candidates against the will of most of their members.

[/ QUOTE ]

The unions remaining within the AFL-CIO are from traditional manufacturing and newer public service sectors. The manufacturing unions, and their members, WANT political lobbying in an attempt to protect jobs against free trade flight. The public service unions, and their members, WANT political lobbying to maintain state level collective bargaining arrangements which have recently taken a beating. The breakaway group mainly represent private service sector workers who have expressed less interest in these activities.

Be careful to distinguish the difference between this kind of sector specific lobbying and political support given by unions to the Democratic party and its full slate of causes. Millions of union members voted for Republicans in the last elections and of course resent having dues spent on Democratic issues. However, to call unions a "special-interest" group would be incorrect. The support of unions has been the bedrock of the Democratic party that allowed some of the more debatable liberal causes to evolve. Without as much union support the Democrats begin to resemble themselves a collection of fringe special-interest groups.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

You are right. The split is really for the best. Now there will be a lot more money for organizing. Be prepared to have me come to your workplace and unionize it. Although you don't think we are good you will just have to live with the higher wages, benefits and better working conditions. The process will be democratic. If a majority of your fellow oppressed workers vote to make the workplace unionized, we are in and will begin emancipating the downtrodden. Don't worry, your vote will count. Then, your dues will finance my poker playing and my frequent jaunts to drunken union conventions, thanks. But don't worry, son, we will definitely take your fringe minority opinion into account come bargaining time.

[SheetWise]

I y'all thought I was disagreeing with you, you need to brush up on Sun Tzu.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Teachers unions are a major impediment to the improvement of the education system in this country because they put issues like seniority and rapid pay increases over ensuring a good education for students.

[/ QUOTE ]

A teachers' union was almost entirely responsible for Georgia's first Republican governer since the Civil War, and he [censored] them in the ass. It's no wonder the majority of them are Democrats.

[lehighguy]

My whole family has been union. My grandfather traveled the country organizing unions. My mother was union shop steward for her local. My Dad's a teamster.

None of them are involved with the union much anymore. At some point they realized it has nothing to do with fair compensation. The union started representing the laziest and stupidest of its memebers. It also forgot that companies pay those wages, and that they need to remain competitive. Increases in wages need to be accompanied by productivity increases. However, instead of working in this win-win framework the unions choose class warfare and win-lose. Well win-lose became lose-lose for American industry and workers.

Being involved in actual union negotiations, rather then some bitchy complaining worker, makes you have to deal witht eh real problems companies face. My guess is most non-corrupt union leaders, like my mom, quit a long time ago because the institution was bankrupt.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

I negotiate collective agreements every week. I have not encountered a situation where it would be to my advantage to put the company out of business.

[ QUOTE ]
Being involved in actual union negotiations, rather then some bitchy complaining worker, makes you have to deal witht eh real problems companies face.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, aren't you better off at least BEING at the table, discussing the problems, than not having any say at all?

[ QUOTE ]
The union started representing the laziest and stupidest of its memebers

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the union wasn't representing the lazy and stupid people previously? Not allowed. Most of the time the so-called lazy and stupid people are there before the union gets there, in fact, that may be the reason they formed a union. They need protection because they are all lazy and stupid. But more likely this is just a very judgemental remark on your part. Anyway, how is it the company allowed all these lazy and stupid people into their business in the first place and didn't do anything about it? This usually comes down to either management incompetence or due process. I have to represent the guy who stole from his workplace even though everyone knows he's guilty and that he will lose his job. You can't begrudge him a fair hearing. Can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If management does their job lazy workers should have an ironclad case built against them. I've never encountered a union that wants its members working around a bunch of lazy and dim people.

It is too bad your Mom quit. But the institution is not bankrupt, there were, most likely, simply problems within that particular small local.

[lehighguy]

My mom works a government job. So by definition management is incompetent.

Nevertheless, the demands that the workers made were rediculous. They wanted 10 minute smoking breaks every hour on the hour. The demands were so rediculous my mom didn't even want to represent them anymore.

They never did any work. Sometimes management would try to fire them. Either because they were stealing, showed up late for an entire month, or weren't cometent at thier work. The union would always threaten strike or action or something. Everyone knew they deserved to be fired, but the union wouldn't allow it.

The real losers in this situation were the better employees. They ended up doing the work the lazier ones didn't do. And they had no hope of getting extra pay for extra work. Pay was based on senoirity only.

The enviorment the union has created has made business impossible. It has sapped any incentive employees might have had to do a good job. And if it was a private business rather then a government agency it would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

Well, this is a different scenario altogether. Even as a strong union man I am not altogether in support of public service unionism. I have seen what you described and sympathize.

I represent employees in both private and public sectors. When I go to the bargaining table at a private firm and pound the table demanding this and that, the usual dog and pony show, someone is there to say "#&amp;$&amp; you" or "maybe there's some room there". (I've actually had an owner say he'd rather the place burn to the ground than give me another dime in wages, but this guy was great to deal with) So, I know where everyone's coming from and usually I know right away where the settlement range is going to be.

When I go into bargaining at a public service establishment it always gives me a headache. First of all, there is rarely anyone on the management side who can give me a yes or no answer. As well, the budget is coming from down from the mountain. The money needed for any contract settlement is so ethereal it is very hard to pinpoint. But the bottom line it is tax payers money we are dealing with. It is tough for me to say, "OK, that's it, we're hitting the bricks", when essentially the employees would be going out on strike against the public.

The problem you describe can arise when it is a union like the Postal Workers. Totally insular and perhaps, dare I say it, in need of being decertified. But again, don't throw it all out because of this experience. There is a difference between the guy who needs a union working in some sweatshop and the guy who sits around, doesn't do a lick of work, is the first to fire in grievances, and gets paid 20 or more dollars an hour, virtually untouchable. It doesn't normally work that way.

[lehighguy]

Maybe it doesn't work that way in a lot of unions. But it certainly seems to be the case for large swaths of unionism in the US. Hence the decline.

I think if unions really want to do good by thier employees they would spend less time fighting with management and more time making sure thier workers developed the skills they need to succeed in todays marketplace. They should also be more open to layoffs, expecially in industries that are in decline.

If unions started to work with management, acknowledging that business needs to be profitable in order for people to get paid, then they would be much more effective. From what I understand some European countries have been more successful in this regard (Ireland). However, in America, France, Germany, and elsewhere union leaders still try to wrap themselves around class warfare and totally outdated ideas.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

At the end of the day, yes, I believe that there is a fundamental irreconcilable difference between employees and employers. We are not on the same team. Working with companies to remain competitive is fine. Becoming a kicked-around toady sweating his b#lls off, so that someone else can make record profits, for years before getting booted out the door without recourse because you had to take your daughter to the doctor? I'll pass. Unions should be open to layoffs? That is not a union's business. Their function is to protect those jobs. Anyway, no lay-off clauses are almost non-existent nowadays.

No, not everyone can be said to be exploited just because they work for someone else but anyone who believes that there is no place at all for labor unions has given up on any sense of fair play.

[lehighguy]

Don't get me wrong. My Dad's in a union, and my mom is still part of the union. They were very upset when Reagen broke the aircraft controller strike. They just think that the way unions are managed today is hurting the American worker alot more then its helping him. If the union got its act togethor they would support it.

However, I think that will take a century.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

You sound interested enough to join this new umbrella organization. SEIU or HERE is trying like crazy to get new organizers. I did it, and it is a heroes job. You should look into it, the whole business is truly a blast, I'd rather die than go to the other side. Not because of the ideology, but because human resource people and labor relations managers are doing a god awful boring job. I think a lot of posters here should get involved as well. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
Becoming a kicked-around toady sweating his b#lls off, so that someone else can make record profits, for years before getting booted out the door without recourse because you had to take your daughter to the doctor?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, what? It sounds to me like more people want these jobs than there are jobs available, and the union is there to ensure that those that get there first are guaranteed continued employment, regardless of the value that they bring to the company.

It's unfortunate that some people try to raise children without the financial resources to do so safely, but luckily people still have the right to appropriate funds from other individuals to pay for these things, and that individuals are being denied the freedom of association so that the God Given Right to Bear Children Without Responsibility can be maintained.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds to me like more people want these jobs than there are jobs available

[/ QUOTE ]

The vast majority of people want to work to support their families. There is no real freedom of movement in the labor market for most people. Abandoning the workforce is not a realistic option.

[ QUOTE ]
It's unfortunate that some people try to raise children without the financial resources to do so safely

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting some kind of eugenics program? Actually, my statement was meant to emphasize ANY crisis at home, in health, or family, that would leave you vulnerable to the whims of management.

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
The vast majority of people want to work to support their families. There is no real freedom of movement in the labor market for most people. Abandoning the workforce is not a realistic option.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that you're coming from the point of view that says there is a limited amount of work to be done; a finite set of jobs available. Before I respond to that, I want to make sure we're on the same page here. Is that indeed your view?

Also, what do you mean by "no real freedom of movement"?

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's unfortunate that some people try to raise children without the financial resources to do so safely

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Bleh. That paragraph was a hot-headed denounciation of statism. I'll move on.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting some kind of eugenics program? Actually, my statement was meant to emphasize ANY crisis at home, in health, or family, that would leave you vulnerable to the whims of management.

[/ QUOTE ]

A definite 'no' on the eugenics bit.

What I was trying to say was that the 'whims' that one is vulnerable to here are those of reality. Suddenly a child gets ill, or the worker suffers some other crisis that threatens their ability to maintain contracts that they have previously agreed to. These crises aren't inflicted by management.

The company offers a contract saying, "we are free to fire you at any time for any reason," and the employee agrees. Then they don't show up for work one day and get fired. Yeah, that sucks, but it is precisely the risk that one takes when you agree to a contract like that. It's like bitching about your opponent rivering a 2-outer after an all-in on the turn. If you're going to allow them to draw another card then you have to be willing to accept the consequences.

I don't know; I guess I don't have a point here. I think the company should be free to offer that contract, and it would be valid for the workers to try to modify that contract so that the company agrees to only fire employees for a specific list of causes. I don't consider the original contract (by its nature) exploitive, however.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that you're coming from the point of view that says there is a limited amount of work to be done; a finite set of jobs available. Before I respond to that, I want to make sure we're on the same page here. Is that indeed your view?


[/ QUOTE ]

Never really thought about it and not sure what pertinence it has, but sure, I'd have to say there is a finite amount of employment out there.

Low wage workers do not have the freedom of movement in the labour market to pursue skills training, relocation, or even take time for job searches because they have to eat. Any movement would only be horizontal, anyway, to another similiar low wage job.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
The company offers a contract saying, "we are free to fire you at any time for any reason," and the employee agrees. Then they don't show up for work one day and get fired.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fired at any time for any reason is exactly the situation most nonunion employees are in and don't even know it, you are right. But that situation is simply not fair. I don't think we live in a society where we can opt out of the workforce and go live in a cave like a hermit.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the company should be free to offer that contract, and it would be valid for the workers to try to modify that contract so that the company agrees to only fire employees for a specific list of causes. I don't consider the original contract (by its nature) exploitive, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the crux of the matter. You are stating it outright. Unions exist because there IS a fundamental exploitative relationship between employer and employee. When trying to modify the employee/employer contract no power resides amongst the individual employees unless collective action evens the score. Now the argument becomes based on the scarcity of that labor. Low wage workers with interchangable skill sets are abundant. They, of course, have no individual bargaining power. Your doctor, dentist, and favourite baseball player are highly skilled yet they have unions, in fact NEED representation, to avoid arbitrary action from management.

[bobman0330]

1 thing. Baseball players don't need representation. Can you imagine a team letting a player play without a contract?? He could walk off at any time! The economics of the situation absolutely require a contract.

The reason you're characterizing at-will employment as "exploitative" is that what the employee receives in return is so valuable that we take it for granted. If you think the law should be that management can't fire a worker without notice or without cause, then logically, the other party to the contract shouldn't be able to back out without meeting the same requirement. No one wants that, so we shouldn't expect management to take on burdensome requirements for no return.

As for the general decline in union membership: I believe it just isn't worth it for the average worker. The reasons companies don't pay higher wages or give nicer benefits is that they frequently just can't afford them. No matter how good the union negotiators are, they aren't going to convince the company to go out of business paying an unreasonably high wage. And, given union dues, an employee NEEDS a raise just to stay even with their new financial commitments.

And most importantly, anyone who believes that union organization is spurred primarily by financial considerations is just plain wrong. As the old adage goes, "A vote for a union is a vote against the supervisors."

(In the interests of full disclosure, I work for a law firm that specializes in helping employees avoid unionization.)

[Hamish McBagpipe]

No time to fully reply right now. I'm very interested in talking to a union-buster. If you don't know already, bobman, I revealed in a response to an earlier post that I am a Union Business Agent and former Organizer. Could be a good rhetoric battle from both sides. Neutral term - replacement worker. Union term - dirty rat scab. Managaement term - loyal recruit.

Have you read Confessions of a Union Buster by Levitt? Good read. Cya tomorrow.

[lehighguy]

Employment at will is great. It means you can fire people. In my experience being able to fire people makes things run much better. Most failing businesses or industries are forced to employ people wether or not it is profitable.

On a side note, one big problem with unions is that homogenize workers. You are negotiating with a group rather then individuals. As a result no individual has any incentive to distinguish themselves.

[UseThePeenEnd]

[ QUOTE ]
(I've actually had an owner say he'd rather the place burn to the ground than give me another dime in wages, but this guy was great to deal with)

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have loved Charlie Cannon, then. He was sole proprietor of Cannon Mills, and he said he'd close it, lock it up, and let it turn to sand before he'd have a union.

He meant it and everyone knew it.

[lehighguy]

I think Wal Mart closed one of its huge big box stores because the employees voted to unionize. Didn't even bother with scabs just closed the whole store and took a loss.

[FishHooks]

Yep they sure did, they claimed the store was "doing bad" and decided to shut it down, the reason being the workers tried to unionize, this send a big messeage to the rest of the wal-mart employees

Well that is Wal-Mart's right. If that is what they feel is necessary to avoid suffering the fate of Ford and GM, Ford and GM were rendered completely uncompetitive by unions- then yeah.

[lehighguy]

It's an incredibly bold management move to take a loss like that. Shows some real long-term planning. I have a lot of respect for that move, show they actually care about the long-term viability of the company.

They really had no other choice from a financial standpoint, because the labor laws in this country are very friendly to unions. Unions have an almost unlimited right to organize so sometimes the only option is to shut down, lest they suffer the fate of Ford and GM, two companies that the UAW have a stranglehold on. Big Labor has been this way for years and they fail to realize that they are not helping themselves by forcing companies into bankruptcy. You get almost nothing from a bankrupt company. If they were a little less demanding in their contract negotiations then these companies would be doing better. Just my $.02

[Hamish McBagpipe]

This was in Canada. McDonald's have been organized as well. Once the corporate SWAT team has been sent in and failed to stop the certification (unionization) process the company can still just close the doors and leave. The union's idea in North America is that once one of these low-wage chain stores is organized the rest will fall like dominoes. It hasn't happened yet. The corporate message sent by a willingness to close profitable stores is intimidating, clearly fearful, and possibly mad.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

It is not bold at all. It is cowardly. Walmart's bullying is well known, not just in its labour relations. If a cost in another part of the business goes up, they do not shut the store down. So, what are they scared of. Certification does not automatically mean that wage costs will go through the roof, or even rise at all. If, on the other hand, they don't want to negotiate with a so-called third party, then skirting the law and finally closing perfectly viable outlets is their only option. Sounds quite crazy to me.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
the labor laws in this country are very friendly to unions

Unions have an almost unlimited right to organize...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply beyond the pale. Labor laws are NOT friendly to unions in the US unless your comparison country is your local south american dictatorship or worse. Definitely not any other industrialized western country. In every way, no argument.

Unlimited right to organize? You have to be joking.

[FishHooks]

Me too, I dont like unions and I think it was a GREAT move on Wal-Marts part, kudos to them.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
If they were a little less demanding in their contract negotiations then these companies would be doing better. Just my $.02

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont agree, most unions, not all but most are comprised of just human labor jobs that dont require much if any skill, there is no reason for the businesses to compromise with the workerss when there will always be many unskilled workers available for jobs. Like wal-mart they will have no problem trying to find new workers, they have no incentive to negociate.

[FishHooks]

hundreds of thousands of people aren't going to risk their jobs to try to bring down a company, its not work it. It's like a lock-out for sports, its a lose lose situation.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The union's idea in North America is that once one of these low-wage chain stores is organized the rest will fall like dominoes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, what about the typical consumer, like me?

I WANT to buy cheap goods--as cheap as I can possibly get them (things like towels, cleaning products, screwdrivers, insect repellent, tee-shirts, etc).

I DON'T WANT to pay more for them just so some low-level worker can get paid more.

Therefore I don't want Wal-Mart or any other chain store to unionize.

I WANT to get a cheap oil change in a hurry at a Jiffy-Lube or other chain outlet.

I WANT to be able to get a hamburger for under a dollar.

I WANT to be able to get a Taco at a drive-thru for 69 cents.

I don't want anything unnecessarily getting in the way of companies getting these things to me at the lowest possible prices. And I certainly don't want to be paying more just so some low-level worker can make closer to a "living wage".

The way I see it, the good to the consumer far outweighs the not-so-good for the low-level worker.

Besides, the low-level worker's meager paycheck also goes further if he too can buy the necessities of life really cheaply.

So I'm afraid I don't see unions today as much other than a special interest group, seeking to increase the wealth of their members at the expense of everyone else.

My view is essentially this:

Go Wal-Mart! Get that stuff even cheaper! Thank you.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Go Wal-Mart! Get that stuff even cheaper! Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]Another common misperception. Wal-Mart actually costs more for most purchases. There is a list of around 200 items of which consumers take note of the price (like a gallon of milk), and keep it in their mind. Wal-Mart gives cheap prices only on these high-profile items, and prominently displays them at the ends of isles, under big signs, etc. This is not a conspiracy theory but an actual strategy of theirs. For example, you can get a comb at my barber's for a quarter (he pays like 5 cent for them, and wal-mart gets them cheaper for buying in bulk), but at wal-mart it costs 1.25. Nobody notices [censored] like that though.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Go Wal-Mart! Get that stuff even cheaper! Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another common misperception. Wal-Mart actually costs more for most purchases. There is a list of around 200 items of which consumers take note of the price (like a gallon of milk), and keep it in their mind. Wal-Mart gives cheap prices only on these high-profile items, and prominently displays them at the ends of isles, under big signs, etc. This is not a conspiracy theory but an actual strategy of theirs. For example, you can get a comb at my barber's for a quarter (he pays like 5 cent for them, and wal-mart gets them cheaper for buying in bulk), but at wal-mart it costs 1.25. Nobody notices [censored] like that though.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, Grey, and an interesting point. Now that you mention it I do recall something recently being quite a bit cheaper at Stop &amp; Shop compared to Wal-Mart (I forget the item, though).

Anyway I would hate to see unions across the country raising consumer prices at Wal-Mart and all the other chains.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
This is simply beyond the pale. Labor laws are NOT friendly to unions in the US unless your comparison country is your local south american dictatorship or worse. Definitely not any other industrialized western country. In every way, no argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. While US laws may be less favorable to unions than other countries' laws, they certain favor union organizers over employers. Section 1 of the National Labor Relations Act states outright that the policy of the act is to encourage collective bargaining. Not to be a neutral referee or provide a fair playing field, but to encourage unionization.

Under US law:
-Union organizers like Hamish can lie to employees. E.g., "The employer is neutral (or even in favor of) a union at this plant"; "Signing a union authorization card just allows us to get an election", etc., etc.
-Union organizers can make promises they can't keep. E.g., "If we get a union, we'll get higher wages/better benefits, etc., for you" even though many union contacts result in a DECREASE in wages.
-Just about the only right the employer has to combat these abuses is to offer up facts about the union or their opinions on the matter. It is unlawful for the employer to say, e.g., that they will close down a plant if it becomes unionized, even if that is what they're going to do.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
He could walk off at any time!

If you think the law should be that management can't fire a worker without notice or without cause, then logically, the other party to the contract shouldn't be able to back out without meeting the same requirement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I believe no dismissal without just cause. That is fair. But I'm not sure if you are suggesting some kind of return to indentured servitude or what?

And baseball players are without a doubt better off with a union than without. Even after the '94 strike, (or lockout, whatever) there was no real talk of decertifying. Same with this year's NHL. They know they would not be receiving that kind of money without the union.


[ QUOTE ]
No matter how good the union negotiators are, they aren't going to convince the company to go out of business paying an unreasonably high wage. And, given union dues, an employee NEEDS a raise just to stay even with their new financial commitments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who the heck is going to ratify a collective agreement that doesn't at least cover the union dues plus a couple of points. Not to mention the many other benefits of having a collective agreement. Maybe you certify a union, first of all you don't pay dues until a CA is ratified, secondly if employees are unwilling to strike yet can't come up with a satisfactory first agreement then the whole thing is dead.

Insurance policies have premiums. In a union's case, these are the dues. And they are tax deductable. If I negotiate a $3.00 an hour raise for you and take back $2.50 in dues because I'm totally corrupt, aren't you still better off? Most businesses are disfuntional, not suicidal, assume that the increase brings you up to par with other workers in similiar companies. Don't worry, the company is still making money or they never would have agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
And most importantly, anyone who believes that union organization is spurred primarily by financial considerations is just plain wrong. As the old adage goes, "A vote for a union is a vote against the supervisors."

[/ QUOTE ]

This, alone, is correct. Any employee calling me up asking to organize a workplace solely due to believing he (or they) are underpayed has little chance of success. Management is generally so incompetent, however, that there are plenty of other reasons to unionize. Without the rampant boobery I see from owners/management/HR personnel, I agree, I'd be out of a job. I'm not expecting to change suits soon.

Even worse is the conduct of management during an organizational campaign. This is why they need people like Bobman. On any campaign I have worked on, at almost every turn management they could have stopped me cold if they knew what they were doing. On second thought I think there is a lot of money to be made in the management consulting side, heh. Any openings?

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
While US laws may be less favorable to unions than other countries' laws, they certain favor union organizers over employers. Section 1 of the National Labor Relations Act states outright that the policy of the act is to encourage collective bargaining. Not to be a neutral referee or provide a fair playing field, but to encourage unionization.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. Employees can use the NLRB to fight back when their rights are violated but it is hopeless. Employers know that the government has given up enforcement. Cases take forever.

To encourage unionization? Laughable. During union organizing drives closed door anti-union meetings, threats to close, and illegal firings are the norm. These and many other union-busting strategies are the norm because they are so effective due to NLRB impotence. This is not the international standard.

Right now, even if over 50% of a workplace's employees have indicated a wish to join a union, the NLRB will order a vote. You have to vote at least twice to have your wishes known. In the interim between votes, union-busting lawyers have developed a strategy of fear, coercion, and anti-union activities that is highly effective since there is no real body to enforce the rules. Luckily, legislation has been introduced to change this undemocratic method of multiple votes before they count to bring the US up to international levels.

The NLRB states it tries to encourage collective bargaining. The statement is hollow when illegal firings and coercion are the standard and remedies unavailable. The right of freedom of association is at an all time low in the US.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

Downward pressure on real wages and benefits is not to your benefit.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
If a cost in another part of the business goes up, they do not shut the store down. So, what are they scared of. Certification does not automatically mean that wage costs will go through the roof, or even rise at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a supplier screws them into a price that forces them to lose money, they can choose to stop carrying the product. They want the same flexibility with their other resources like liquid assets and human resources.

Unions have been known in the past to create entitlement-like atmospheres which are genuinely counter-productive on many levels.

If the company has decided that it doesn't want a union, and the employees don't like it, then let them quit. If Walmart can find someone else to do the job, then why should anyone be able to force their hand?

This whole idea of 'labor fairness' has been blown way out of line.

Companies do not exist in a vacuum. They are in a competitive market space.

I honestly do not understand why people think they have the right to tell others what to do with their assets, time, children, or anything else without explicit agreements between both parties.

This country really does have opportunity for ANYONE willing to do the work learn how to use it.

This has been shown to be true time after time. The problem seems to me that wealth building and independence are discouraged by the people at the wheel, so that they can continue to stay there.

This includes union administrations.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

Complete free labour market with no checks on employers, huh? God help the working man.

[ QUOTE ]
They want the same flexibility with their other resources like liquid assets and human resources.


[/ QUOTE ]

People aren't commodities.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem seems to me that wealth building and independence are discouraged by the people at the wheel, so that they can continue to stay there.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who's discouraging wealth-building? Unions want companies to make more profits (there would be more dues, right?). Then, not through some fairy tale trickle down effect, but through solid collective bargaining can employees receive a decent living. Are you denying them the ability to maximize THEIR wealth-building and independence? Or do you only support the owners?

I like seeing that a lot of you seem to care more about corporate competitiveness than the MILLIONS of families struggling in low wage jobs. Yeah, they are all too dumb to pull themselves up by the bootstraps right? As long as Walmart provides you with the trash you want right now, decimating communities doesn't matter.

[FishHooks]

You dont understand how economics works, but its ok you will one day....hopefully.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
You dont understand how economics works, but its ok you will one day....hopefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will believe your credentials to speak with authority on the matter if you put post them up, brother. An undergraduate course in economics 101 and half a semester of micro 201 ain't gonna do it though, son. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I learned more in my first day of collective bargaining, my first organizing drive, and coordinating my first strike, than my entire graduate studies in Industrial Relations. But, I can cite all the studies and all the labour economics theories to back up my case anytime. I've tried to keep it grounded in the real world. A place where you should go take a look at a bit more.

[lehighguy]

There is a real problem when a company can't fire people. This is what most unions I know push for. Either that or they make it so much paperwork to fire someone its not worth the managers time.

This is what's its like at my mom's job. I'm convinced most of them would be fired immediately without the union or if it was private rather then government. They really are the biggest bunch of incompetent and thieves I've ever seen.

Moreover, the biggest problem I've seen with collective bargaining is that it homogenizes workers. After all, your pay and perks are based on the collective, not your individual effort. Why stay late, why take initiative, why do not goof of if you think you can get away with it. After all, the union will protect you. And you can't get ahead if you want because its not like the boss is gonna negotiate your pay with you, they are gonna do it with the collective.

In my moms office she catches a lot of flak because, quite frankly, she does work. She shows up on time, she stays late if she hasn't finished the tasks she has, she takes initiative. She gives a damn about completing the tasks she's been assinged.

The other girls won't give her a break. They are always telling her that if she works hard they are all going to have to work hard. As if collective laziness will somehow make them all better off.

It reminds me of how kids at school would give me a hard time for breaking the curve in physics. But then again most of those do nothings that were bad at school were the working class of tommorrow.

[FishHooks]

This is why the capitalism yeilds more production, you shouldn't be paid on how the group preforms, your carrer is not a team sport. This is also why the education system is really bad, all 10 year teachers make the same (in most areas) it doesn't matter if your a good teacher or not, this really hurts the education. I think this is another good example like you gave.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
God help the working man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because he is a helpless sod. God forbid you should encourage the working man to make something of himself and his dreams. Better he should hope for a .50 raise every 3 years thanks to a union deal.

Good thing YOU are there to help him, because obviously God isn't doing his fair share, in your opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
People aren't commodities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dictionary.com

Commodity:

Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage: &amp;#8220;Left-handed, power-hitting third basemen are a rare commodity in the big leagues&amp;#8221; (Steve Guiremand).

Isn't it interesting how their FIRST definition includes a person as a commodity?

Believe what you want. That doesn't change reality.

[ QUOTE ]
Who's discouraging wealth-building? Unions want companies to make more profits (there would be more dues, right?). Then, not through some fairy tale trickle down effect, but through solid collective bargaining can employees receive a decent living. Are you denying them the ability to maximize THEIR wealth-building and independence? Or do you only support the owners?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to break it to you buddy, but laborers do not get wealthy. Owners do.

You are promoting the laborer mentality in the working class. I am saying to give them incentives to be the best they can. They will always do better than being spoonfed for the rest of their lives.

If they CHOOSE not to do better, then the company that employs them shouldn't be penalized by leeches who just suck more money out of the company than necessary. (Unions)

Even by your own admission, the union needs to make companies pay for its own dues. This is not labor that the company has purchased. It is a FINE.

Ridiculous.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway I would hate to see unions across the country raising consumer prices at Wal-Mart and all the other chains

[/ QUOTE ]

Companies raise prices not unions. Companies also crush opposition which is easier if you don't have to pay a decent wage. Your getting what you want MMMMMM, lets hope Wal-mart consult with you on a fair price when they can't compare with other retailers.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Wal Mart closed one of its huge big box stores because the employees voted to unionize. Didn't even bother with scabs just closed the whole store and took a loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you think this admirable?

[FishHooks]

very much so

[bobman0330]

Hamish, which union are you with?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Companies raise prices not unions. Companies also crush opposition which is easier if you don't have to pay a decent wage. Your getting what you want MMMMMM, lets hope Wal-mart consult with you on a fair price when they can't compare with other retailers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be fair to suppose that unions indirectly cause prices to be raised.

Anyway, if what you suggest might happen, actually comes to pass: I'll just buy more stuff over the Internet;-)

Not hamburgers, but things like razor blades, etc. There are lots of cheap places to buy things online if you look around a bit;-)

[adios]

Since this thread has gotten a little off topic. Has Walmart opened for business in your country? Just curious if you have had a chance to check it out (I rarely find my way into a Walmart). I would also note that Walmart hasn't killed it's competition in the U.S. either. Target for one is doing quite well.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway I would hate to see unions across the country raising consumer prices at Wal-Mart and all the other chains

[/ QUOTE ]

Companies raise prices not unions. Companies also crush opposition which is easier if you don't have to pay a decent wage. Your getting what you want MMMMMM, lets hope Wal-mart consult with you on a fair price when they can't compare with other retailers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Companies, not unions, raise wages too. What's your point? Unions force them, or try to force them, to do both. The only take credit for the wage increase though.

[FishHooks]

Target is doing ok but isn't close to wal Mart, I have 1 target and about 4 wal-marts in a 20 mile radius and the parking lots in wal-mart are always filled, target, not so much. Go Wally world

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of cheap places to buy things online if you look around a bit;-)

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a very good quote. Online prices are always much lower, does anyone wonder why? Because paying people does up the cost of products by a lot. Look at amazon an online compaym, they offer lower prices than almost anyone, take books for example they sell $29 books for $19. Now they can do this because they dont have much labor costs, so for those of you that say labor costs dont raise prices your wrong. What happens when they raise prices the company suffers because you can always go online to buy things cheeper,which is where i buy most of my stuff.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a very good quote. Online prices are always much lower, does anyone wonder why? Because paying people does up the cost of products by a lot. Look at amazon an online compaym, they offer lower prices than almost anyone, take books for example they sell $29 books for $19. Now they can do this because they dont have much labor costs, so for those of you that say labor costs dont raise prices your wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Labor does increase the cost of goods but, in your example (Amazon) I think it's the savings on retail real estate expenses that allow them to sell cheap.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a very good quote. Online prices are always much lower, does anyone wonder why? Because paying people does up the cost of products by a lot. Look at amazon an online compaym, they offer lower prices than almost anyone, take books for example they sell $29 books for $19. Now they can do this because they dont have much labor costs, so for those of you that say labor costs dont raise prices your wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Labor does increase the cost of goods but, in your example (Amazon) I think it's the savings on retail real estate expenses that allow them to sell cheap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, but I thing your wrong here. Lets say a big book store like barnes and nobel averages about 9 employees at any given time. and their open from 9 am-10pm, and each employee makes about $9/hr (some make less some make more), seems pretty just to me. The formula would be 9*9*13(hours) thats $1053 in labor a day, times that by 30 for days in a month and thats $31,590 a month just in labor costs, I guranatee you they dont spend nearly that on their real estate a month.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
Hamish, which union are you with?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't say, it gets too specific, I'm on a poker site and I can't take a chance, no matter how slim, that my loyal party comrades might find out, hehe. I work for a skilled trade union, say like the plumbers or electricians (but not them). In the past, especially organizing, I have worked for more "general" unions like SEIU.

Because the local is small, I get to do everything myself instead of being stuck doing one thing in a large local. So, I do all the grievances and negotiations, etc. And, since it is a skilled trade union it means that I deal with the big companies, albeit at a smaller level, because, as you know, the skilled trade guys want to have their own small union and not be lumped in with the big production union at a manufacturing plant or the big administrative union at non-manufacturing or public plants. This also means that I have had dealings with a lot of the other big "general" unions for better or worse.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
The formula would be 9*9*13(hours) thats $1053 in labor a day, times that by 30 for days in a month and thats $31,590 a month just in labor costs, I guranatee you they dont spend nearly that on their real estate a month.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s actually more than that because of benefits and matching Social Security tax but…..

The average B&amp;N or Borders is about 25,000 square feet (I checked with a friend who is a mall agent). In the DC area mall and upscale strip mall space is about $30 - $40 per square foot per year. That’s $62,500 per month not counting the common area payment and utilities.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
It’s actually more than that because of benefits and matching Social Security tax but…..

[/ QUOTE ] Yea I agree, thats true, but was just doing a simple formual, i dont know how I could figure all that stuff out.

The average B&amp;N or Borders is about 25,000 square feet (I checked with a friend who is a mall agent). In the DC area mall and upscale strip mall space is about $30 - $40 per square foot per year. That’s $62,500 per month not counting the common area payment and utilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well thats DC, in the northwest wages are generally higher because the cost of living is higher and I have no idea how much the average B and N worker gets paid up there.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
in the northwest wages are generally higher because the cost of living is higher and I have no idea how much the average B and N worker gets paid up there.


[/ QUOTE ]

??? it was your example; did you just pull $9/hour out of your a$$?

Still, my point was that rent, common area fees and utilities are the biggest non-inventory expense for book stores.

If I’m Amazon and I don’t have 500 retail outlets with the associated real estate and labor costs, I can easily under sell B&amp;N.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

Listen, I'm a partisan, not a zealot. I've already indicated many of the problems that I believe are inherent in the industrial relations system. But, I do believe I am doing one of the few jobs, outside your doctor, divorce lawyer, and mattress salesman, that at the end of the day I can say I have at least tried to help my fellow man. So, here we go again, I love it.....
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, because he is a helpless sod. God forbid you should encourage the working man to make something of himself and his dreams. Better he should hope for a .50 raise every 3 years thanks to a union deal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Security is what we are talking about here. You are much better off knowing, by looking in your collective agreement, that 6 months from now you will receive a .50c raise. Now you can plan on buying that new colour TV you wanted. Security, a living wage, and freedom from fear come before the pursuit of one's dreams, wouldn't you agree?
[ QUOTE ]
Good thing YOU are there to help him, because obviously God isn't doing his fair share, in your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are right. It is good that I am here to help him if he chooses. If you are against unions that is one thing but this seems to indicate that you don't think that any social agencies should exist at all. God ain't helping the people who need to use these agencies either. Yet without them I think we'd be talking about mass revolution.
[ QUOTE ]
Dictionary.com Commodity ...blahblah

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you going on about? If you truly believe that people are no different than any other tradable item then, although I'm not qualified to diagnose, you sound like a sociopath. I'm sure that what you must mean is that there is no difference between capital and labour in corporate decision making and success. I can live with that opinion even though, obviously, it is wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
I hate to break it to you buddy, but laborers do not get wealthy. Owners do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? You sure? What have I been talking about this whole time? Perhaps I mispoke when I said "wealth-building" in reference to employees. As I mentioned above, security and a living wage is the issue. So, are you denying an employee's ability or option (i won't say "right") to provide themselves with those things?
[ QUOTE ]
If they CHOOSE not to do better, then the company that employs them shouldn't be penalized by leeches who just suck more money out of the company than necessary. (Unions)

[/ QUOTE ]
This bootlicking nonsense reminds of many arguments against unionism I hear. "No, we don't want a union, they have one across the street, they make more money than us but they are lazy and don't do any work. We are more friendly with management here." You are doing more work for less money at the same job and you think the union guy is the sucker?!? You dumptruck, no wonder management is friendly with you, they should be kissing your ass every day for putting their kids in private schools. The union is the leech? If the company weren't the real bloodsuckers then the union wouldn't be there. Why are you so interested in making the company money but not yourself?

Finally, you really think that people working in those dreary factories are a choice or two away from a dream life? And in the meantime tough luck? Sad.
[ QUOTE ]
Even by your own admission, the union needs to make companies pay for its own dues. This is not labor that the company has purchased. It is a FINE. Ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hate to break it to you, brother, but union dues are the employees money, not the employers. At least say it is a fine on the employees. This is a common misconception because of dues checkoff. This means that the dues are deducted and forwarded to the union from the company but it is the employees money.

You have insurance on your car, house, and all the crap in the house, yet unions are just an insurance policy on the job that provides all that other stuff. Even better than that, you pay the insurance premium (the dues), and you actually CONTROL the insurance company. Greater wages, benefits, security, say in the workplace, health and safety checks, etc. for a tax-deductable monthly pittance sounds like positive expected value to me especially since, if the union isn't doing its job, you can much more easily turf them out than bring them in.

In solidarity, Hamish.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

It is impossible to disagree with you. Like I said before I sympathize with this situation and I see it occasionally, although probably not to this degree. Unfortunately, it is probably in a lot of people's nature to take advantage of this kind of thing. I'd have to say they are also taking advantage of management weakness as well though. All I can say is that I have personally never seen a union executive that does not try to discourage this kind of behaviour or actively combat it. It is in their own best interest. They know decertification is the end result and it is all over. But, as on the corporate side, there are unions and union locals that lack foresight and act suicidally.

[FishHooks]

Your job relates with negotiating upon the unions behalf, wow I feel sorry for you, when you get older and realize what you really doing. Rather than let someone abilites reflect their pay, your giving everyone the same pay regardless of their abilities, no one benefits from this except the lazy people in the unions and the head of the unions who make their money from all the dues.

[FishHooks]

Of course I pulled $9 out of my a$$, you can't find how much the average B and N worker makes especially in a particular region of the US, I even said that I was assuming all of this in my original statement. However in DC I guarantee you they get paid more because the standard of living is much greater and you most likely can't find too many people to work for $7/hr up there. I would estimate that Labor overall is about half the cost (we didn't take into account many things like 401k, stock options benefits, employee discounts), and real estate is the other half. So its pretty fair to say labor costs will definatly affect prices of an item.

[superleeds]

Your a bit of a joke aren't you?

Heehee.

What happens when the union shop across the street closes down when the owners can't afford to pay them their contractual wages and the unions refuse to take a pay cut(which happens a lot). They're out of a job, while I'm in the non-union shop across the street making 2 bucks less an hour, but I still have a job. Gotta love the union.

[FishHooks]

That is an intelligent of a comment as it gets, when someone knows their wrong and dont want to admit it they make comments like this.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Heehee.

What happens when the union shop across the street closes down when the owners can't afford to pay them their contractual wages and the unions refuse to take a pay cut(which happens a lot). They're out of a job, while I'm in the non-union shop across the street making 2 bucks less an hour, but I still have a job. Gotta love the union

[/ QUOTE ]


Heehee.

The people who have lost their jobs from over the road come over to your place and say they will do yours for less and because you have no union you have to undercut them so your wages reduce or you lose your job. CEO's gotta love dumb employee's.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
The people who have lost their jobs from over the road come over to your place and say they will do yours for less and because you have no union you have to undercut them so your wages reduce or you lose your job. CEO's gotta love dumb employee's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, this doesn't happen

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heehee.

What happens when the union shop across the street closes down when the owners can't afford to pay them their contractual wages and the unions refuse to take a pay cut(which happens a lot). They're out of a job, while I'm in the non-union shop across the street making 2 bucks less an hour, but I still have a job. Gotta love the union

[/ QUOTE ]


Heehee.

The people who have lost their jobs from over the road come over to your place and say they will do yours for less and because you have no union you have to undercut them so your wages reduce or you lose your job. CEO's gotta love dumb employee's.

[/ QUOTE ]

For your information, I know quite a bit about unions, because I was a member of UFCW during high school, and they took dues out of my paycheck. One year later the grocery store had to close down due to unreasonable demands from the local.

And your arguments don't make any economic sense. What you are doing as attempting to raise the equilibrium price of labor in the market, and all this does is raise prices on consumer and make consumers think that unions are just a bunch of lazy people who want more money for doing less.

I'll also note that most of the people that I worked with at my grocery job were twice my age, lazy as hell, and I wished that there was no union so they could all be canned.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
However in DC I guarantee you they get paid more because the standard of living is much greater and you most likely can't find too many people to work for $7/hr up there.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif/images/graemlins/confused.gif/images/graemlins/confused.gif/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I never said anything about regional wages - My original response was about space rental prices.:

[ QUOTE ]
So its pretty fair to say labor costs will definatly affect prices of an item.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I never said labor didn't affect pricing.

[superleeds]

Umm, neither does Scoot's scenario.

[bobman0330]

I think anyone will concede that in certain situations, a union can really improve the worker's lot.

However, a better model than the rapacious employer and unionized employees is an employer who has a brain (or who gets advice from someone with a brain) and treats his employees well enough that a union doesn't come in.

-A union in a big plant will walk about with as much as a quarter of a million dollars in dues per year. And as Hamish noted, every penny of that comes out of the employee's pocket.
-A nonunion employer has the flexibility to introduce programs that are good for both sides (e.g., profit-sharing, drug testing). A union employer has to negotiate it all, and is encouraged to keep compensation minimal because they can't adjust in lean times.
-Strikes. Fines for crossing picket lines. Permanent replacements. What's more, the union's often willing to strike for things the employees would never go to the mat for (DUES CHECKOFF!), and these days, unions just don't win strikes.
-Unionized plants are more likely to close down due to the earlier-discussed higher wages and lower profitability. Even if they stay in business, it's often only through decreased wages (plus the $250,000 in dues money).

People like Hamish are important to have around to keep employers acting fairly, but given the choice between a union and a responsible employer, there's no question that an employee prefers the latter.

Also, I'd be cautious about accepting Hamish's lofty moral rhetoric. A union isn't the Red Cross. Unions are big business. Federal law requires all unions to disclose their annual finances, and the numbers are just staggering. The Teamsters bring in almost $200 million dollars, half of which goes to union salaries, and another 20% or so goes to cash reserves. Any honest company would kill for that kind of profit margin.

[FishHooks]

You should read this guy's post history, its funny, just small little ignorant comments like this with nothing to back them up.

[superleeds]

Yeah, you know what your right. Your arguments have totally convinced me. Thank you. Good day.

[slamdunkpro]

Let’s make a list of some of the companies that collapsed under the weight of union demands / wages / pension funds:

US Steel
Bethlehem Steel (chapter 11 – reorganized – got concessions &amp; survived)
Colt Firearms
Binion’s Horseshoe
PAN AM
Eastern Airlines
Brannif
Chrysler (chapter 11 – reorganized – got concessions &amp; survived)
Roadway Express (chapter 11 – reorganized – got concessions &amp; survived)

Companies that are on the verge of collapsing from the above
GM
Ford
United Airlines

Companies that were in trouble and were saved by unionizing
???

[superleeds]

All because of unreasonable demands by unions? Nothing to do with any incompetence on the side of management? Or too many fish in too small a pool?

Is it really so simple in your world.

[FishHooks]

Hey man answer the question and that would be great.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
All because of unreasonable demands by unions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say unreasonable - I said “collapsed under the weight of union demands / wages / pension funds:”

When the US steel industry collapsed union labor was 78% of their production costs. The industry couldn’t afford to modernize or lower prices to compete with foreign steel tariffs and price supports. The auto industry crisis accelerated the process. But back on point the Steel companies went to the union for help and they were refused out of hand. They then closed.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it really so simple in your world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes the truth is simple.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Target is doing ok but isn't close to wal Mart, I have 1 target and about 4 wal-marts in a 20 mile radius and the parking lots in wal-mart are always filled, target, not so much. Go Wally world

[/ QUOTE ]

I stated that TGT is doing well and didn't say it was doing as well as WMT. Actually TGT is growing revenue slightly faster than WMT. TGT has sales of slighty in excess of $51 billion while WMT has sales of around $77 billion. Both mega retailing corporations that are doing well.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
I stated that TGT is doing well and didn't say it was doing as well as WMT. Actually TGT is growing revenue slightly faster than WMT. TGT has sales of slighty in excess of $51 billion while WMT has sales of around $77 billion. Both mega retailing corporations that are doing well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious can you post a link where you found those numbers from what I've read in 2004 Wal-Mart had sales of 83 billion dollars.

[adios]

Actually we're both wrong. I was looking at a 1Q stat. Actually it's closer to $300 billion. So yeah WMT is much bigger but $50 billion in revenue isn't too bad either.

Target Stats (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=TGT)

Walmart Stats (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WMT)

[FishHooks]

Oh cool thanks for the links,maybe the 83 billion I read was just U.S. sales I dunno.

I happen to prefer TGT to Wally World just because TGT stores are cleaner, and their customer service in-store is much better. I don't mind paying a little bit more for that.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh cool thanks for the links,maybe the 83 billion I read was just U.S. sales I dunno.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably for a single quarter.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

I agree. If employers were fair I'd have to get into another business. And sure, it is a business to the extent that we must service our "customers". But it is a not for profit business.

The fixation on the dues issue is typical yet always overstated. This is a common anti-organizing tactic used to inflict fear. The best is when management buys like 8 shopping carts worth of groceries, puts it in the workplace, and says, "This is what a year's dues could have bought". A strike fund is necessary, sure, but since you are positing that the union is greedily hoarding the dues money, doesn't that mean that the greedy union executive would DISCOURAGE strike activity? And, like you said, unions seldom win strikes (based on financial gains anyway).

[ QUOTE ]
Strikes... What's more, the union's often willing to strike for things the employees would never go to the mat for (DUES CHECKOFF!), and these days, unions just don't win strikes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you must be referring to the primitive right to work states where this could still be an issue. It isn't an issue anywhere else since the Wagner Act. And I'm pretty sure that even in those states it is the bargaining unit that gets to vote on whether or not to strike.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'd be cautious about accepting Hamish's lofty moral rhetoric. A union isn't the Red Cross. Unions are big business. Federal law requires all unions to disclose their annual finances, and the numbers are just staggering. The Teamsters bring in almost $200 million dollars, half of which goes to union salaries, and another 20% or so goes to cash reserves. Any honest company would kill for that kind of profit margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not mean that a union was a "social agency" as well, I consider a union definitely seperate and superior to other social agencies. I have as much of a problem with handouts as the next person. That is not our business. No gains in the union/management relationship comes for free. They are hard won.

You are correct about union dues as far as the amounts go, it is, by law, in the public domain. Laws requiring disclosure of union finances and salaries are extemely rigid and ensure the whole business is transparent. Clearly there can be no argument about any kind of shady union investment or spending. It is simply not allowed. The dues pay salaries. How else are you going to run it? You have to pay premiums on insurance policies.

Finally, don't be fooled by our friend bobman. The incredible amount of money spent by companies on union avoidance and union-busting goes to his firm's coffers. Companies massively outspend unions during an organizing drive or even when there is no threat of unionization at all. Unions are hopelessly outgunned in this department despite bobman's claim of union wealth. Lawyers like bobman profit from the company's ignorance. And I don't blame the legal firm. Companies are absolutely terrified that employees will begin to receive a fair shake. Clouding the issues, dividing, and muck-raking are all standardly used practices. But at least, people like bobman also tend to educate the company's management on their many failings so that, perhaps, they straighten their act up sufficiently.

In solidarity, /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Hamish

I'll paste my post again, this time to you:

[ QUOTE ]
For your information, I know quite a bit about unions, because I was a member of UFCW during high school, and they took dues out of my paycheck. One year later the grocery store had to close down due to unreasonable demands from the local.

And your arguments don't make any economic sense. What you are doing as attempting to raise the equilibrium price of labor in the market, and all this does is raise prices on consumer and make consumers think that unions are just a bunch of lazy people who want more money for doing less.

I'll also note that most of the people that I worked with at my grocery job were twice my age, lazy as hell, and I wished that there was no union so they could all be canned.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bobman0330]

Actually, I'm not a lawyer, I'm still in law school, but I'm currently working in a "primitive right-to-work state." (I think you're just mad you can't win any elections around here... /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly there can be no argument about any kind of shady union investment or spending.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be mistaken, because it seems like you're bragging about how unions are SO likely to be corrupt that they're required by federal law to account for every penny they spend. And I don't think anyone is going to argue that union corruption is entirely relegated to the fairly recent past.

As for the rest, I'm glad they pay us as much as they do. I wouldn't be so proud that your activities are so destructive of industry that tight-fisted businessmen will fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect themselves from you. And as you pointed out, our advice is almost always to encourage employers to address employee grievances before a union gets in... we can't really be cast as villains here.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

A Student!?! Well, son, there is still time to switch away from the dark side. Our side is way more exciting, believe me, and you'll make only be taking about a 40% pay cut.

[ QUOTE ]
I must be mistaken, because it seems like you're bragging about how unions are SO likely to be corrupt that they're required by federal law to account for every penny they spend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some unions were corrupt in the past. Now the legislation makes it impossible. Glad we agree.

[ QUOTE ]
And as you pointed out, our advice is almost always to encourage employers to address employee grievances before a union gets in... we can't really be cast as villains here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, I was rethinking giving any credit at all to union-busting firms even as I was typing it. It's not even in a union-busting's firm's interest to educate the company. And anyway, law student, who's this "we" and "our" you're talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be so proud that your activities are so destructive of industry that tight-fisted businessmen will fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect themselves from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

It ain't Norma [censored] Rae every day. But sometimes it is. I am proud of what I do. I'd be surprised to meet any management side lawyers that are proud of what they do and treat it other than a good, high-stress, living using the skills they have accumulated. Seriously, take a look at that book I mentioned. It is anti-union but a great read if that is what you plan on pursuing once you graduate.....kid.


In solidarity,

Hamish

[superleeds]

I admire your patience. Some good stuff Hamish. I've appreciated it.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

Tks, I've noticed you as the only other supporter, I think, haha, sorry I haven't chimed in on your own debate there. Obviously, internet forums and this one in particular have pretty skewed demographics so I'm entering a minefield , but it is fun anyway since the only other time I get into these debates is at the local........pub, that is.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be surprised to meet any management side lawyers that are proud of what they do and treat it other than a good, high-stress, living using the skills they have accumulated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had previously imagined you knew what you're talking about, but this makes me wonder. Every management lawyer I've spoken to LOVES, LOVES, LOVES what they do. As I've already mentioned, the anti-union side isn't just about oppressing workers, there's a real, albeit different, vision of what the workplace should be like. The managing partner of my firm was down doing some union avoidance training last week, which I was observing, and he was capering around like a little kid he was having so much fun.

I'll check that book out, old man.