"Unions are Evil"

[Iplayboard]

For those of you that feel this way, are unions inherently evil or have they just drifted that way?

I think if you deny the fact that unions have played a major role in improving working conditions/worker's rights then you are ignoring part of history. The Jungle should be mandatory reading. If drifts off into becoming a socialist pamphlet but it provides a great picture of working conditions before unions. It also doesn't just paint a rosy picture of unions, but talks about how they were often corrupt and used to exploit workers.

unions create artifically high wages

[Meech]

The primary role of unions is to defend and demand nothing short of mediocrity from every member.

[bobman0330]

I don't believe anyone thinks that unions are evil. Except for the Mafia portions.

A lot of people believe that today's labor movement is essentially anachronistic. Under federal law, unions in certification elections can lie and make all sorts of promises they have no way of keeping ("We'll get you a wage increase"; "We'll keep them from moving jobs to China"), while those same laws restrict the employers ability to fight back. Once unions are in, they have little positive impact and often work harm. Flexible dispute resolution and employer-employee communication are impeded or completely destroyed. Profitability or worker's wages have to decrease to pay for union dues. Employers cannot respond to changing market conditions by freely hiring and firing workers. Strikes wreak havoc on families and are almost never effective in today's world. And most importantly, the working unit changes from a friendly partnership to a hostile divided camp.

The Delphi/GM situation is a lovely illustration of how greedy union politicians trying to look good for the workers can imperil thousands of American jobs and destroy an entire enterprise.

So, in short, unions aren't evil, they're just bad.

[Rick H]

Being the son of a former union organizer, my view may be somewhat skewed. However, this is my opinion:

There WAS a need for unions. The need came because too much "power" was concentrated in the hands of a relatively few, especially if the local area had only one or two major employers.

In many cases, unions are NOW completely at odds with what may be good for the workers as well as the employer. They have changed the balance of power in the employee/employer relationship to an extreme. Now, a relatively few union executives control much more power than the former business owners ever did. If unions were allowed to only represent employees of a single employer, instead of whole industries, perhaps a case could made for their continued existence. But, as has previously been posted, I do think they (unions) tend to perpetuate mediocrity.

[TomCollins]

Unions can be a great tool. Unfortunately, they aren't being used that way.

Imagine an electricians union. They screen who can get in. You have to have a level of expirience, pass tests, and prove you know what you are doing. You are then in the union. The union can sell itself as having better quality work and therefore hiring more expensive union workers is a better proposition for the company.

Most people are willing to pay a little extra for extra quality. Most companies are as well.

So where do unskilled unions come from? They offer no unique skillset, no benefits to the employer. Is it government protection that prevents the employer from simply replacing workers who demand more money without cause? Why would any business owner agree to support a union when a new workforce can be trained within a week?

Unions make employees feel they are "entitled" to compensation increases regardless of company performance.

My local teachers union, already the highest paid teachers in the state, went on strike following the 2001 recession when tons of students' parents had been laid off and couldn't find jobs (ie. the real world). These teachers now get paid around $105K + a ~$25K PPO plan, after 8 years teaching + a masters. Just sickening.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
Unions make employees feel they are "entitled" to compensation increases regardless of company performance.

My local teachers union, already the highest paid teachers in the state, went on strike following the 2001 recession when tons of students' parents had been laid off and couldn't find jobs (ie. the real world). These teachers now get paid around $105K + a ~$25K PPO plan, after 8 years teaching + a masters. Just sickening.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Company performance"? Teachers are part of the public service, so this is a bad example of trying to refute the idea of so-called entitlement increases.

A company claims it needs a wage reduction or else it will move the plant to Mexico. Since the membership gets to vote on any negotiated settlement, it would be the democratic decision of the bargaining unit on whether or not to accept a final offer by management. Sometimes, like in the fog of war, communication breakdown may lead to one side or the other not believing the other's true intentions. So, off the cliff they go. That goes for management as well in the case of underestimating a union bargaining unit's resolve to strike.

It would probably be unwise for a union to negotiate a wage increase that puts a company out of business. Obviously, I want any company I negotiate with to do BETTER so that we can obtain better wages and benefits through collective bargaining. Of course, it MUST be through collective bargaining as there is no pie in the sky trickle down effect where a company would actually attempt to share, however meagerly, the new profits.

Yearly wage and benefit increases was what employers promised in return for labour peace and unions giving up any claim to ownership of the company. This deal was ratified by federal legislation in the 1930s-50s. Management has increasingly reneged on this deal. Some union members may still see bargaining as goody bag time but fewer and fewer union professionals see it that way.

In solidarity, Hamish.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you that feel this way, are unions inherently evil or have they just drifted that way?

I think if you deny the fact that unions have played a major role in improving working conditions/worker's rights then you are ignoring part of history. The Jungle should be mandatory reading. If drifts off into becoming a socialist pamphlet but it provides a great picture of working conditions before unions. It also doesn't just paint a rosy picture of unions, but talks about how they were often corrupt and used to exploit workers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm against Unions for Goverment workers. What do they need a union for?

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine an electricians union. They screen who can get in...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what many people fail to realize. Skilled trades unions such as electricians, operating engineers, carpenters, etc. are only protecting their own trade. Traditionally, a skilled trade union has been able to keep the standards of the industry high. Increasingly, however, the US government has introduced legislation trumping a skilled trade union's power over its own trade. When they have done this the training and education of new members, safety standards, and workmanship have declined.

[ QUOTE ]
So where do unskilled unions come from? They offer no unique skillset, no benefits to the employer. Is it government protection that prevents the employer from simply replacing workers who demand more money without cause? Why would any business owner agree to support a union when a new workforce can be trained within a week?

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not asking for the owner to support the union, believe me. Successor rights legislation prevent a company from just closing for a day and reopening under a new name in order to bust the union. This legislation prevents mass labour unrest.

The employees demand, through the union, a wage increase. What's to prevent the company from firing them all? Nothing really. The bargaining process is set up by legislation to stop one party or the other acting too hastily but once the process is exhausted a company can lock out its employees and hire new ones depending on local anti-scab legislation.

Any group of employees, skilled or unskilled, can democratically form a union in order to collectively negotiate better wages and benefits because on their own, as you say, they have no power, the company has it all. Without a union there is pitifully little legislation protecting workers. You seem to suggest that employees should be discarded at whim. I believe that in the lop-sided employee-employer relationship, especially when the only thing that the employee has is his time in, collective action is the only way to at least have some small chance at leveling the playing field.

In solidarity, Hamish.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
If unions were allowed to only represent employees of a single employer, instead of whole industries,

[/ QUOTE ]

The North American industrial relations model has developed where union locals represent workers at the plant level not industry wide, as in Europe, though there are exceptions.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, a relatively few union executives control much more power than the former business owners ever did.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think that any union executive has the power that business owners do? At what level? Executives are elected. Owners aren't. I'd say union executives have far LESS power, legislated that way since the 60s, than they used to. But, sometimes, I wish we were back in the days when I could get some muscle to get even with the things that management does every day, heh.

You're right about there being a change in the balance in the employer/employee balance of power. If you think that unions have somehow made the tilt in favour of the worker, I'm flabbergasted.

In solidarity, Hamish.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

There is a thread called Mass defection from the AFL-CIO that became about this topic a few months ago. The link thingy isn't working right now. The thread started 6/29/05.

[theweatherman]

Further more, the unions SHOULD have more power than the owners. The owners should be in fear of the union's ability to close their business. This way the workers are not exploited (at least as little as is possible since every worker is exploited under capitalism) and the owners get their profit margins.

Claiming the unions have power over the owners is ridiculous. If anything the burracracy of large unions have basically sold out thier constituents to the owners.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

"Under federal law, unions in certification elections can lie and make all sorts of promises they have no way of keeping ("We'll get you a wage increase"; "We'll keep them from moving jobs to China"), while those same laws restrict the employers ability to fight back."

Laughably wrong.

"Once unions are in, they have little positive impact and often work harm. Flexible dispute resolution and employer-employee communication are impeded or completely destroyed. Profitability or worker's wages have to decrease to pay for union dues. Employers cannot respond to changing market conditions by freely hiring and firing workers. Strikes wreak havoc on families and are almost never effective in today's world. And most importantly, the working unit changes from a friendly partnership to a hostile divided camp."

Bobman may have become totally delusional, like a rabid, slavering dog, in his quest to complete his studies and enter the real world as a corporate labour relations lawyer/union buster. The brain-washing is complete yet tends to result in oft-repeated meaningless propaganda being spouted. What pamphlet was that diatribe from anyway? You know, Bobman, when there is serious debate in this forum about whether, not to increase, but to actually abolish the minimum wage(!) you definitely have too easy an audience. Out there, people have to live with the other people around them.

In solidarity, Hamish.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Bobman may have become totally delusional, like a rabid, slavering dog, in his quest to complete his studies and enter the real world as a corporate labour relations lawyer/union buster. The brain-washing is complete yet tends to result in oft-repeated meaningless propaganda being spouted. What pamphlet was that diatribe from anyway? You know, Bobman, when there is serious debate in this forum about whether, not to increase, but to actually abolish the minimum wage(!) you definitely have too easy an audience. Out there, people have to live with the other people around them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Hamish, if you weren't such a bloodsucking parasite on the body of American industry, your overblown rhetoric would be charming. Anyways, I'm not planning on being a labor lawyer. Not enough money.

[ QUOTE ]
"Under federal law, unions in certification elections can lie and make all sorts of promises they have no way of keeping ("We'll get you a wage increase"; "We'll keep them from moving jobs to China"), while those same laws restrict the employers ability to fight back."

Laughably wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is. While I work on finding the Wagner Act cites and NLRB decisions, tell us how many promises you or your unions made to win elections that you failed to keep. (Hint: if you say none, we'll know you're lying.)

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
are unions inherently evil or have they just drifted that way?


[/ QUOTE ]

Tragically the average American believes that this is the question rather than, "How can I make the Union at my workplace live up to the ideal we had from the start?" Are they evil through and through or have they just become that way?!? Um, option C please.

The battles can be won and lost on the picket line, legislation goes for and against unions, and arbitrations are won and lost. Unions have failed to continue to educate people about the obvious benefits of unionizing their workplace. Enemies of the working class have managed to pull the wool over the people's eyes with this nonsense about union corruption, union tyranny, etc. Now, when working people need help the most, businesses have actually stepped up this Orwellian campaign.

"With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the race, for the developing of character in men, than any other association of men." - Clarence Darrow.

In Solidarity, Hamish.

[lastchance]

Unions good:
You know workers need collective bargaining. Unions are the sole reason why there are safety standards for workers, why employers can't make employees work 80 hours a week.

Unions bad:
QFC pays people $15+ a hour. That's not good. It really decreases competitive edge and costs jobs in sectors like customer service and automation production. Unions are why outsourcing exists.

Workers need collective bargaining, but after a while, the value of what someone does becomes very artificial, and you get outsourcing, among other things.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Further more, the unions SHOULD have more power than the owners. The owners should be in fear of the union's ability to close their business. This way the workers are not exploited (at least as little as is possible since every worker is exploited under capitalism) and the owners get their profit margins.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a worker is "mistreated" without a union, what keeps him from walking out? Do owners of non-union shops shoot the dissenters? How are workers "exploited"?

[lehighguy]

My mom has been a dues paying union member for DC37 for 6 years. She quit a month ago. Two days ago she got a letter charging her for a hospital visit that resulted from an on the job injury back in April. When she had trouble with her employer she called the union, explained it happened while she was still paying dues, and they told her that it wasn't thier problem.

While she worked there she was also union shop steward until she quit. The office workers made outrageous demands, like 15min smoking breaks every hour. She was so embarrased she just quit.

Even "successful" unions are failures. I'm sure the negotiators for the Delphi guys though they were freaking genuises when they got $65/hour pay for some factory workers. Was it really such a surprise when the company went bankrupt.

Corrupt and incompetent doesn't even begin to describe unions.

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine an electricians union. They screen who can get in. You have to have a level of expirience, pass tests, and prove you know what you are doing. You are then in the union. The union can sell itself as having better quality work and therefore hiring more expensive union workers is a better proposition for the company.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be nice if they actually worked that way. My dad had to recently join the elevator union because they harassed him at every job site he was at when he was non-union. They would say that he was breaking security regulations and other stuff. The truth is they were full of [censored]. My dad has been in the business for 33 years, and he is the 4th generation to work with elevators.

The corrupt leaders of the union offered union membership to several employees of my dad's business and then fired them once my dad was "forced" to join the union. They never wanted the employees, they just want to dismantle any competition. Everyone was hurt except for the top members of the union. The consumer has to pay more for an elevator now because of the oligopoly and workers lost their jobs.

[ QUOTE ]
Most people are willing to pay a little extra for extra quality. Most companies are as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Union quality is usually poor. My dad refuses to higher any union workers because he knows how worthless they are. The union workers have no reason to be good because the union controls the labor supply.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure it is. While I work on finding the Wagner Act cites and NLRB decisions, tell us how many promises you or your unions made to win elections that you failed to keep. (Hint: if you say none, we'll know you're lying.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I learned from the start not to promise anything in terms of wages and benefits. I can and have promised that someone who signs a card or votes for the union will receive the things that are guaranteed in a collective agreement if one is reached. That includes at least a grievance procedure of some sort.

I would never promise something that is not a guarantee. First agreement negotiations are a bit tougher than once the CA has been around for a while so you never know what will happen during negotiations. I promise people at least they will have a kick at the can. Unlike now. Anyway, after all the anti-union tactics have been exhausted and the company sits down to negotiate in good faith I can't fathom a situation where an employee would be worse off than before. I've said before, it's a vote. If I come back with a contract that doesn't at least cover your dues (1 or 2 hours a month, tax deductible) plus 1 or 2% (or much more if that's the kicker), then vote against it. Simple.

The assertion that a union can do more during a unionizing campaign than the company is daft. I can't call a meeting on company time at the workplace and present my case, unlike management. I can't fire employees as an example knowing full well the impotence of the NLRB in getting them back to work. The campaign can be shut down that way. I am a salesman. I can hand out flyers and hold meetings (non-mandatory). I don't hold the intimidating power that the big boss possesses. If, even then, I manage to convince enough people to sign cards, showing clear support for unionizing, they still have to vote multiple times before a union is certified. The time for the anti-union company SWAT team to terrorize the employees is far too long. Even principle organizers within the plant can not talk about unionizing except on their breaks. God forbid that I even come close to company property.

I'd love to promise the moon. Some do it but it's just bad salemanship.

In solidarity, Hamish.

[ QUOTE ]
Further more, the unions SHOULD have more power than the owners. The owners should be in fear of the union's ability to close their business. This way the workers are not exploited (at least as little as is possible since every worker is exploited under capitalism) and the owners get their profit margins.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be an anti-capitalist if you believe this. I hope you don't live in the US.

Does the average liberal think like this? I would be really scared if they do.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
What's to prevent the company from firing them all? Nothing really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the competition?

[BadBoyBenny]

Those bastards probably only work 185 days a year too.

[ QUOTE ]
Those bastards probably only work 185 days a year too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, summers off naturally. And after 10 years of teaching they get tenure, which prevents them from ever being fired or layed off except for extreme cases (which never happen).

And when the next contract is up in 3-4 years, they will go on strike again if they dont get another large pay raise and increase in an already lucrative medical compensation package.

Again, a total detachment from reality due to "entitlement" syndrome that goes along with doling out confiscated taxpayer money.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine an electricians union. They screen who can get in. You have to have a level of expirience, pass tests, and prove you know what you are doing. You then have to be sponsored, bribe, be related to a member, or otherwise extort your way into the union

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those bastards probably only work 185 days a year too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, summers off naturally. And after 10 years of teaching they get tenure, which prevents them from ever being fired or layed off except for extreme cases (which never happen).

And when the next contract is up in 3-4 years, they will go on strike again if they dont get another large pay raise and increase in an already lucrative medical compensation package.

Again, a total detachment from reality due to "entitlement" syndrome that goes along with doling out confiscated taxpayer money.

[/ QUOTE ]

My high school physics teacher choked another female teacher at one of the board of ed meetings and he was untouchable because of tenure. He also threatened to kill the principle.

saw something on CNBC yesterday about GM job bank and how its costing them 750 million a yr now to keep people that shouldn't be employed by the company , but are because of the contracts with the unions, now it would be all fine and dandy if GM wasn't losing money but they are and their losses are only gonna grow larger.

[FishHooks]

Are you really serious, The Jungle should be mandatory...you realize it was written by a socialist...wonder if he puts a good spin on unions.

[PokerMatt]

[ QUOTE ]
saw something on CNBC yesterday about GM job bank and how its costing them 750 million a yr now to keep people that shouldn't be employed by the company , but are because of the contracts with the unions, now it would be all fine and dandy if GM wasn't losing money but they are and their losses are only gonna grow larger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then GM should've had a better idea of where their business was headed and negotiated a better contract. The contract was a mutual agreement willingly signed by both parties involved. Isn't that what capitalism is supposed to be about?

[whiskeytown]

watch Harlan County USA or American Dream...

Unions keep workers and families making a fair wage - Maybe not EVERY Union - but far and away I think Rural and Blue Collar America benefits from them -

Of course if your sole goal is to pull a bait-and-switch on people who come to work for you and cut wages to increase stock options, then yah, they're bad -

Only people that hate unions or think they're bad are rich people - period.

RB

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
Only people that hate unions or think they're bad are rich people - period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh.


We have this guy that stumbles into our weekly game occaisonally. The ongoing joke is that he only shows up when he's working (union big 3 job). The sad part is it's true.

I know you guys will say sample size, etc. But growing up in the motor city these stories are all too common. Working with engineers, plant managers -- sometimes I am amazed that the domestic automobile business is still alive at all.

I think the phrase "not in my job description" had to have originated with a union member.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
watch Harlan County USA or American Dream...

Unions keep workers and families making a fair wage - Maybe not EVERY Union - but far and away I think Rural and Blue Collar America benefits from them -

Of course if your sole goal is to pull a bait-and-switch on people who come to work for you and cut wages to increase stock options, then yah, they're bad -

Only people that hate unions or think they're bad are rich people - period.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe instead of getting your information from movies, you should look in the real world. Particularly the huge swathes of the country that are largely un-unionized. Also consider the fact that unions lose most certification fights.

[whiskeytown]

there is a difference between auto unions and many other unions as well - auto unions sorta have their own screwed up way of doing things - that's why you're seeing so many fractures and issues within the big unions -

Detroit bad apples do not invalidate the whole union cause -

RB

[whiskeytown]

you are aware that those movies are documentaries that are shot in the real world with real people, right? Real issues where Americans even DIED because the foreman shot one who was on a picket line - shotgun blast to the face.

Maybe you should be better informed before you open your mouth - Those movies are Award Winning Documentaries about the plight and purpose of Rural unions in America. They are as informative as any book on the subject you'll read and have inspired books themselves.

RB

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
you are aware that those movies are documentaries that are shot in the real world with real people, right? Real issues where Americans even DIED because the foreman shot one who was on a picket line - shotgun blast to the face.

Maybe you should be better informed before you open your mouth - Those movies are Award Winning Documentaries about the plight and purpose of Rural unions in America. They are as informative as any book on the subject you'll read and have inspired books themselves.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, documentaries. When you put it that way, I guess my advice is:

"Maybe instead of getting your information from movies, you should look in the real world. Particularly the huge swathes of the country that are largely un-unionized. Also consider the fact that unions lose most certification fights. "

[Meech]

Granted most of my experience relates to auto unions. But isn't what where it all started? Aren't those the "prototypical" unions?

Try and do a trade show at a detroit expo center. You are _forced_ to pay union scale wage to an electrician to screw in a light bulb.

Again, perhaps I am jaded because I was raised in a union region. But to me, the unions main purposes are to:

- Extort money from the membership.
- Artificially inflate wages.
- Defend those who perform below average.
- Punish those who perform above average.

The day and age where unskilled labor can earn $30/hour are gone. Loooong gone.

[adios]

IMO one of the reasons for the decline in unions is that the workforce has changed a great deal over the years. The days of the unskilled laborer being in demand are over in this country. Many people that acquire skills that are desirable for employers don't wish to throw their lot in with people they feel are less skilled. There's a place for unions but there is less need for them now as compared to 20-30 years ago.

[imported_Chuck Weinstock]

One can argue that the unions and management of the US steel industry joined together to destroy that industry in the 1970's. Does that make them evil? Probably not (same for management.) But it was criminally stupid of both sides.

I haven't studied the auto industry as much so I can't make the same claim about the UAW and the Big Three automakers, but I'd be willing to bet that there is a strong parallel.

FWIW, my Father's company was essentially put out of business by the Union (this was in the 1970's as well.) It's a long story which I'd be happy to share at some other time, but basically it had to do with job classifications and (domestic) competition and even though the Union never had a complaint with my Dad's company and always were treated properly they refused to negotiate on this and the company shut its doors. The company was in a vibrant industry in Chicago. Within 2 or 3 years after this what was left of the industry in Chicago was gone as well. Evil? No. Stupid? I think so but YMMV.

Chuck

[slamdunkpro]

Isn't this the strike that led to the Yablonsky murders?

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Try and do a trade show at a detroit expo center. You are _forced_ to pay union scale wage to an electrician to screw in a light bulb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try to do one in D.C.

You are not allowed to use any power tools to assemble your booth – including screw guns. If you are seen using a “power tool” you have to pay 3 hours of union scale ($65 per hour). If your booth needs electric service you have to pay a union electrician $250 to “wire it” (read plug it into the existing wall outlet) If you have something shipped in over 5 pounds it has to be received at the loading dock and “delivered” by the Teamsters ($150 minimum). Need to use the freight elevator? $250 for the union operator. The list goes on.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
You are not allowed to use any power tools to assemble your booth – including screw guns. If you are seen using a “power tool” you have to pay 3 hours of union scale ($65 per hour). If your booth needs electric service you have to pay a union electrician $250 to “wire it” (read plug it into the existing wall outlet) If you have something shipped in over 5 pounds it has to be received at the loading dock and “delivered” by the Teamsters ($150 minimum). Need to use the freight elevator? $250 for the union operator. The list goes on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exact same scam in Detroit.

[whiskeytown]

definately related - I can't remember how but I remember how the candidate got shot with his family and how the former head of the union was convicted -

This may have been a small child of that parent union, and somehow they intertwined, but I don't recall completely how -

RB

[pokerdirty]

unions are evil

my 40K/year education is about to get [censored]. (http://www.nyunews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/01/436717f84488c)

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
Also consider the fact that unions lose most certification fights.

[/ QUOTE ]

They lose certification fights because that although the NLR Act guarantees the right to organize for most workers, employerseffectively challenge union organizing through illegal and even legal methods. Unfair tactics are totally rampant simply because the government does not enforce its own rules. Threats of firing, threats of plant closures, closed door meetings are only a few of the general tactics used. The right to organize is thwarted.

Millions of workers would join unions if employers didn't use these tactics:

Employers that illegally fire at least one worker for union activity during organizing campaigns: 25%
Employers that hire consultants to help them fight union organizing drives: 75%
Employers that force employees to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings with managers: 78%
Employers that force employees to attend mandatory anti-union presentations: 92%
Companies that threaten to close the plant if the union wins the election: 51%

An amazing 20,000 workers a year are illegally fired or discriminated against for trying to form a union.

-Kenneth Roth, Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States under International Human Rights Standards, Human Rights Watch. Testimony before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Page 3. June 20, 2002.

web page (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:iYQPJcJ1XeIJ:hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/ken-testimony-0602.pdf+kenneth+Roth+Senate+Committee+on+Health,+ Education,+Labor,+and+Pensions&hl=en)





The laws that are supposed to guarantee the right to organize unions are clearly no longer effective. I've described ways to change this elsewhere.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you that feel this way, are unions inherently evil or have they just drifted that way?

I think if you deny the fact that unions have played a major role in improving working conditions/worker's rights then you are ignoring part of history. The Jungle should be mandatory reading. If drifts off into becoming a socialist pamphlet but it provides a great picture of working conditions before unions. It also doesn't just paint a rosy picture of unions, but talks about how they were often corrupt and used to exploit workers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unions are a bad deal for the union members. The union, like any organization, eventually evolves to the point where its only purpose is to further *itself* as an entity.

Both my parents are in unions and they are both worse off because of it.

natedogg

[BadBoyBenny]

Why not evil?

This is called licensure. Its what physicians do. It has no relationship to the purpose of a union.

[ QUOTE ]
Unions can be a great tool. Unfortunately, they aren't being used that way.

Imagine an electricians union. They screen who can get in. You have to have a level of expirience, pass tests, and prove you know what you are doing. You are then in the union. The union can sell itself as having better quality work and therefore hiring more expensive union workers is a better proposition for the company.

Most people are willing to pay a little extra for extra quality. Most companies are as well.

So where do unskilled unions come from? They offer no unique skillset, no benefits to the employer. Is it government protection that prevents the employer from simply replacing workers who demand more money without cause? Why would any business owner agree to support a union when a new workforce can be trained within a week?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Unions are NOW completely at odds with what may be good for the workers ... They have changed the balance of power in the employee/employer relationship to an extreme.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the "balance of power" currently resides with the worker more than the owner? (If we are allowed to make such a clear distinction in modern economy, still.)

Then, please point out to me the data which shows the ranks of unions swelling (since being a union member empowers the worker so much, lotsa workers should be rushing to join) or the news items about union action stopping a plant from relocating to a lower-wage region. I'm interested to know.

[ACPlayer]

There was a successful company called Enron headed by a widely respected White House pal and confidant Ken Lay ... rest of well known story ....

[ QUOTE ]
Corrupt and incompetent doesn't even begin to describe American Corporations.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Both my parents are in unions and they are both worse off because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"why dont they just leave"

Presumable they wake up in the morning and decide (explicit or implicit) that it is worth going to work and it is worth being in the union so they do.

[ACPlayer]

If a corporation charges a monopolistic, usurious price it is a good business, if a union member charges a monopolistic, usurious price for its services one hears complaints.

If a corporation tries to negotiate a higher prices from its customers, it is a good business, if the employees try to band together to negotiate a higher price for their services, the country is going to hell.

Internal union politics may be terrible for the members (however, if the member is paying the dues it cant be toooo bad) but then internal company politics are pure hell. I know.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a successful company called Enron headed by a widely respected White House pal and confidant Ken Lay ... rest of well known story ....

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. The market punished the fraud and now the company is out of business.

FWIW, Ken Lay was a big pal of the Democrats, too. If you're implying that government corruption played a big part in the Enron debacle, I hope you realize that the solution isn't to simply replace government thug group A with government thug group B.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Both my parents are in unions and they are both worse off because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"why dont they just leave"

Presumable they wake up in the morning and decide (explicit or implicit) that it is worth going to work and it is worth being in the union so they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely they have decided that it is worth it. That's not an interesting question at all. It's much, much more interesting to look at how coercion affected their decision making process.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
If a corporation charges a monopolistic, usurious price it is a good business, if a union member charges a monopolistic, usurious price for its services one hears complaints.

[/ QUOTE ]

The price charged is not the issue - it's how they are able to command the price. If the price is commanded via truly voluntary negotiation, then there can be no reasonable objection. If the price commanded is supported by coercion (such as legislation giving unions monopoly power, or legislation giving a (eg) utility company monopoly over a market), then it is reprehensible.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Both my parents are in unions and they are both worse off because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"why dont they just leave"

Presumable they wake up in the morning and decide (explicit or implicit) that it is worth going to work and it is worth being in the union so they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC, that facile argument could be applied to non-union low wage workers.

The point is that they would be better off without the union. Why? Because they are skilled, non-lazy workers.

Unions are certainly good for workers that are unskilled, lazy or incompentent. But unions are a bad deal for highly skilled, competent, hard-working people. Any union that represents skilled labor (like a teacher's union) is a detrimental influence that hurts the workers, and the consumers alike.

natedogg

[superleeds]

I think you'll find it was the law that punished them. The market, in fact, allowed them to defraud their customeres and employees for as long as they did, because, part of their crime was their manipulation of the market.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you'll find it was the law that punished them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law may have punished them, but the market destroyed them. The law doesn't mandate that their stock drop to 0.30.

Also, you're conflating the concepts of "government" and "law".

[ QUOTE ]
The market, in fact, allowed them to defraud their customeres and employees for as long as they did, because, part of their crime was their manipulation of the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can substitute "government" for "market" with no problem.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
The law may have punished them, but the market destroyed them. The law doesn't mandate that their stock drop to 0.30.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Why exactly did the market react when it did? Because their crimes were being exposed? Or was it just a normal everyday market adjustment thing?

The market became exposed to the fact that a stock they thought was worth something was in fact worth considerably less. A fact made clear to them by a legal investigation, not because California could suddenly buy cheaper electricity thru a competitor of Enrons'.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you're conflating the concepts of "government" and "law"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because the government creates the law.

[ QUOTE ]
You can substitute "government" for "market" with no problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

When they suppress supply to increase demand, that's manipulating the market. When they bribe politicians to pay higher prices for a commodity readily available for less, that's manipulating government. I'm sure Enron were guilty of both, but they are different.

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
Unions are a bad deal for the union members. The union, like any organization, eventually evolves to the point where its only purpose is to further *itself* as an entity.

Both my parents are in unions and they are both worse off because of it.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about this one Nate. Public school teachers AFAIK make a lot more with benefits and all than private school teachers. Teaching is a good skilled position and all, but there is a very large supply of people that want to be teachers. As far as other types of union jobs go, I don't know if you are calling something like a longshoreman unskilled, but without unions I don't see them making the kind of money they make.

Sure, Unions support their own interests and do things like take the members dues and spend it on political contributions for things the members don't support, but higher wages for it's members is in the unions interest.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The law may have punished them, but the market destroyed them. The law doesn't mandate that their stock drop to 0.30.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Why exactly did the market react when it did? Because their crimes were being exposed? Or was it just a normal everyday market adjustment thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the information was available.

[ QUOTE ]
The market became exposed to the fact that a stock they thought was worth something was in fact worth considerably less. A fact made clear to them by a legal investigation, not because California could suddenly buy cheaper electricity thru a competitor of Enrons'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, more information came out. I don't see where you're going with this. You're also confusing the accounting hijinx with the regulatory abuses - abuses that were enabled and encouraged by poorly-planned government regulation.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, you're conflating the concepts of "government" and "law"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because the government creates the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they are still seperate. There's nothing intrinsic about law that requires a government to create it. The government gives itself a monopoly on it, that's all. The fact that the concept of law prevailed and outed thugs doesn't automatically validate government.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can substitute "government" for "market" with no problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

When they suppress supply to increase demand, that's manipulating the market. When they bribe politicians to pay higher prices for a commodity readily available for less, that's manipulating government. I'm sure Enron were guilty of both, but they are different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppressing supply to increase demand is fine with me. If the market is truly free, this move will backfire and those that provide supply to meet demand will be rewarded.

These moves only work in markets that are restricted by government regulation. Such regulation encourages bribers and bribees. You get one and two or three more spring up to do the same thing. Get off the treadmill, remove the *source* of the problem - government intervention.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the information was available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why was it available?

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, more information came out. I don't see where you're going with this. You're also confusing the accounting hijinx with the regulatory abuses - abuses that were enabled and encouraged by poorly-planned government regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your the one in confusion. They broke the law in numerous ways. They didn't discover ingenious loopholes, they didn't use ethically grey areas to give them an advantage over their competitors and they didn't ignorantly break some obscure laws that had hardly any effect on how thay ran their business. They committed fraud, they co-erced and bullied their workforce and other investors not in the know to keep their value artificially high by giving false information about the state of the company, they manipulated certain energy markets to give an impression that a commodity that was in fact in abundance was scarce and more valuble than it was. They did this not simply by abusing government regulation because it was poorly planned and easy to abuse, they did it for money. They (and by they I mean the executives who didn't accidently but actively - and they did - persued this course of action) stole for greed and they got caught. If the law had not been in place to catch them as I think you would prefer they would all be at other companies in senior positions no doubt thinking how clever they are whilst their victims from Enron pick up the pieces. The market would not have corrected this. It would not have given Enron employees the difference in what they were told Enron shares were worth when they were railroaded into buying them and what they were really worth. The market did not as far as I am aware make any recompense to any customer whose energy supply suffered due to Enron's machinations and most importantly maybe the market certainly did not begin to evolve checks and balances to stop abuses such as this happening again. The law will, the market won't.

[ QUOTE ]
But they are still seperate. There's nothing intrinsic about law that requires a government to create it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there is. If the law isn't enforced it isn't law. Whether government is one chief or 10,000 minions in Washington matters not, they have the power to dictate and enforce what is illegal, not you or I.

[ QUOTE ]
The government gives itself a monopoly on it, that's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say this as if there could be another way. I'd love to hear it. (The only way, I think, it could be otherwise is civil war which history teaches is a rather unstable and ultimately doomed form of society ordering).

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the concept of law prevailed and outed thugs doesn't automatically validate government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is not the point I'm making. It validates the law. Laws you seem to wish were not in place because you think the market would compensate. But the point is they were broken, not because they were there, not because of some kind of dare, not because Mr Lay thought it would be a bit of a giggle, but for money. Now can you please tell me why leaving everything up to purely market driven forces somehow makes these crimes less likely.

[ QUOTE ]
Suppressing supply to increase demand is fine with me

[/ QUOTE ]

How can I take you seriously?

[ QUOTE ]
If the market is truly free, this move will backfire and those that provide supply to meet demand will be rewarded

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just so naive

[ QUOTE ]
These moves only work in markets that are restricted by government regulation. Such regulation encourages bribers and bribees. You get one and two or three more spring up to do the same thing. Get off the treadmill, remove the *source* of the problem - government intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

These moves happen in markets where money is involved. It's as pure and simple as that.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
They broke the law in numerous ways. They didn't discover ingenious loopholes, they didn't use ethically grey areas to give them an advantage over their competitors and they didn't ignorantly break some obscure laws that had hardly any effect on how thay ran their business. They committed fraud, they co-erced and bullied their workforce and other investors not in the know to keep their value artificially high by giving false information about the state of the company, they manipulated certain energy markets to give an impression that a commodity that was in fact in abundance was scarce and more valuble than it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still not sure what your point is. I'm not attempting to deny or excuse fraud.

[ QUOTE ]
They did this not simply by abusing government regulation because it was poorly planned and easy to abuse, they did it for money. They (and by they I mean the executives who didn't accidently but actively - and they did - persued this course of action) stole for greed and they got caught. If the law had not been in place to catch them as I think you would prefer they would all be at other companies in senior positions no doubt thinking how clever they are whilst their victims from Enron pick up the pieces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still not disputing anything.

[ QUOTE ]
The market would not have corrected this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Investors don't care about frauds? Please. The market put Enron out of business.

[ QUOTE ]
It would not have given Enron employees the difference in what they were told Enron shares were worth when they were railroaded into buying them and what they were really worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Markets don't award damages. Arbitration does.

[ QUOTE ]
The market did not as far as I am aware make any recompense to any customer whose energy supply suffered due to Enron's machinations and most importantly maybe the market certainly did not begin to evolve checks and balances to stop abuses such as this happening again. The law will, the market won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will? When? With what money? Again, you're conflating law and government. I do not advocate a system where thugs can escape responsibility for fraud. Those that are damaged by fraud should pursue damages and be compensated. Not by "the market" in general, but specifically by a free market in arbitration.

"The Market" in the general sense destroys companies that do not deliver. Arbitration decides damages. Don't fault one for not doing the job of the other.

Government, which you seem to think will "fix" this problem, firstly failed to prevent it, and secondly has not delivered any substantial compensation to those damaged. The system you are championing to "recompense" has not done so. The system which you say does not check and balance and stop abuse did exactly that. Enron is no longer pillaging, not because government stopped them, but because they went bankrupt.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But they are still seperate. There's nothing intrinsic about law that requires a government to create it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there is. If the law isn't enforced it isn't law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Maintaining law and order requires effort.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether government is one chief or 10,000 minions in Washington matters not, they have the power to dictate and enforce what is illegal, not you or I.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's where you're wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The government gives itself a monopoly on it, that's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say this as if there could be another way. I'd love to hear it. (The only way, I think, it could be otherwise is civil war which history teaches is a rather unstable and ultimately doomed form of society ordering).

[/ QUOTE ]

Civil war? You're going in the wrong direction. I want less violence, not more.

Law, just like any other service which people have a desire for can be provided by the market. Food, clothing, and shelter all all of utmost importance, but reasonable people know that these things can be provided without government interference. Why is the law any different?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the concept of law prevailed and outed thugs doesn't automatically validate government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is not the point I'm making. It validates the law. Laws you seem to wish were not in place because you think the market would compensate. But the point is they were broken, not because they were there, not because of some kind of dare, not because Mr Lay thought it would be a bit of a giggle, but for money. Now can you please tell me why leaving everything up to purely market driven forces somehow makes these crimes less likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I say I don't want laws in place? Fraud is a crime. When have I said otherwise? Justice, like all other services, can be efficiently provided without government interference.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Suppressing supply to increase demand is fine with me

[/ QUOTE ]

How can I take you seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I have a bunch of firewood, and the current market price is less than I'd like to sell the wood for, I should be compelled to sell anyway? I can't voluntarily withdraw my supply? If that's the case, then I don't really own the wood.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the market is truly free, this move will backfire and those that provide supply to meet demand will be rewarded

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just so naive

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These moves only work in markets that are restricted by government regulation. Such regulation encourages bribers and bribees. You get one and two or three more spring up to do the same thing. Get off the treadmill, remove the *source* of the problem - government intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

These moves happen in markets where money is involved. It's as pure and simple as that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Money is involvled in all markets. If there's no government regulation, then there's no regulator to bribe, regardless of how much money is at stake.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
Any union that represents skilled labor (like a teacher's union) is a detrimental influence that hurts the workers

[/ QUOTE ]

It is plain to most people that the prevalence of teaching unions has, of course, drastically increased the level of compensation and power for teachers. To a point where even I have difficulty justifying the types of contracts that teachers are getting.

Teaching unions operate in the public service, though, which is a completely different world. But, even in the private sector highly-skilled workers DO benefit greatly from being in unions. They may not be able to obtain the increases that we have seen teachers and other public service skilled and semi/non-skilled workers get but the private sector works much differently.

When bargaining with private sector employers, especially owner operated ones, I have had employers pound the table, threaten to close, and even threaten to burn the place to the ground rather than give the bargaining unit another penny. But, hell, I like these guys. At least I know where they are coming from. When I bargain with public service employers I like to call it the "ethereal" approach to industrial relations. No one really knows where the
money is coming from and there is no one to really say yes or no to anything. So, a big union like the teachers can easily exploit this kind of situation.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, Unions support their own interests and do things like take the members dues and spend it on political contributions for things the members don't support

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the reasons that major unions have recently defected from the AFL-CIO. Dues forwarded to this umbrella organization were too often spent on causes not supported by the average dues paying union member. After all, millions of union members voted for and supported Republican positions in the last election. They are not interested in their dues being spent on bizarre left-wing causes funded by the AFL-CIO.

However, differentiate between this kind of political spending and the lobbying that many unions do which directly affects their membership. It would be hard to fault a carpenters union, for instance, for spending dues toward trying to protect and increase safety standards, education levels, etc. As you say, it is their own interest to do so to the point, if successful, that they become quite exclusionary. This is the beef that many people have with unions.

[quote Any union that represents skilled labor (like a teacher's union) is a detrimental influence that hurts the workers, and the consumers alike.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

The real problem with teachers unions is that they work for and negotiate with a public monopoly, that is, K-12 education. A monopoly by definition is inefficient and ineffective because it has the consumer right where it wants it. Its only a question of how to divy up the profits (workers vs owners). However this is a public service so there aren't any profits, the workers are the teachers, and the owners are the school board (for which the teachers unions prop up thugs to control it), and given the entitlement syndrome of public workers, teachers feel that the confiscated school tax revenue inherently belongs to them. The teachers unions rape this system by continuously forcing higher and higher property taxes to "improve education", usually under the guise of reaching for smaller classrooms (which they dont take advantage of b/c they dont need to), and ultimately disgustingly lucrative contracts which in many cases put their capped out salaries (attained within 8 years) anywhere from 20 to 40K over the average salary of the school district itself.

Its even more sickening when they go on strike for 20 days demanding more money, at the kids' expense.

[ACPlayer]

Ah, you made my point.

A post outlining sob story of a union member is ended with how corrupt unions are.

When the story is about a corporate sob story, we get talking points.

[ACPlayer]

All prices are negotiated. The buyer simply does not have to pay the price. If a union worker at mcCormick is asking for $200 to pound in a nail -- when then you dont have to do the trade show at McCormick and the one's that do find the value in the money.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that they would be better off without the union. Why? Because they are skilled, non-lazy workers.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, what is the problem with my facile argument. If they are skilled then they should quit.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
All prices are negotiated. The buyer simply does not have to pay the price. If a union worker at mcCormick is asking for $200 to pound in a nail -- when then you dont have to do the trade show at McCormick and the one's that do find the value in the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also entirely possible for a group to set their extortion prices higher than they would with free competition, but low enough to still make it worthwile to do business with them (when costs associated with going elsewhere are factored in). That doesn't excuse the theft.

Note this is different than charging $200 to drive a nail in a free market just because you're the only game in town. In that case, if non-union workers are allowed to move in, but simply haven't, there's no problem.

What are the chances that a group of nail-drivers that get together and fix their price at $200 will actually manage to get any business in a free market? Eventually someone will enter the market at $190 - possibly even someone inside the cartel.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, you made my point.

A post outlining sob story of a union member is ended with how corrupt unions are.

When the story is about a corporate sob story, we get talking points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pointing out that Ken Lay would have been a "pal" of anyone that happened to be in the white house is a talking point? Are there lots of spin doctors up there in washington trying to show how there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans?

Here, I'll fix your post:

"Oh, you pointed out that my flimsy argument has no substance. Talking points are lame."

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is that they would be better off without the union. Why? Because they are skilled, non-lazy workers.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, what is the problem with my facile argument. If they are skilled then they should quit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the same as the "if you don't like paying taxes, move to somalia" argument.

Let's say local government decides to levy a $0.01 tax on gasoline, and the tax goes directly towards the governor's son's ferrari fund.

Will I go out of state to avoid the extra $0.01 tax? No. Am I harmed by it? Yes. Even though I'm harmed, it's still better to pay the extra 0.01/gal than to travel out of state to avoid it.

Saying that I should just move to another state ignores my property rights. Even if we take that out of consideration, moving is likely a greater expense than I will pay in Ferrari Fund gas taxes, so I won't move anyway.

Therefore, according to your argument, the tax is justifiable and I should just shut up and pay it, right?

[Easy E]

<font color="blue">Unions are a bad deal for the union members. The union, like any organization, eventually evolves to the point where its only purpose is to further *itself* as an entity.</font>

Could the same charge be leveled at a corporation?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Unions are a bad deal for the union members. The union, like any organization, eventually evolves to the point where its only purpose is to further *itself* as an entity.</font>

Could the same charge be leveled at a corporation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. A corporation will liquidate or let itself be bought out if that maximizes shareholder value.

[Cyrus]

You folks need to stock up on your history, man.

[ QUOTE ]
Come all you good workers,
Good news to you I'll tell
Of how the good old union
Has come in here to dwell.
<font color="white"> . </font>
CHORUS:
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
<font color="white"> . </font>
My dady was a miner,
And I'm a miner's son,
And I'll stick with the union
'Til every battle's won.
<font color="white"> . </font>
They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there.
You'll either be a union man
Or a thug for J. H. Blair.
CHORUS:
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
<font color="white"> . </font>
Oh workers can you stand it?
Oh tell me how you can?
Will you be a lousy scab
Or will you be a man?
<font color="white"> . </font>
Don't scab for the bosses,
Don't listen to their lies.
Us poor folks haven't got a chance
Unless we organize.
CHORUS:
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/strangefruit/photos/phGuthrie.jpg

[Cyrus]

I'm kinda waiting for the honorable poster Adios to offer, once more, his valuable insight on the matter of unions. Especially his familial experience.

[ACPlayer]

I have personally managed trade show booths at McCormick, Moscone and other convention halls. The value is there so I buy the service. Just like I have bought Microsoft software for my company's computers since 1985 paying exhorbitant prices for utter crap (for those who dont know OS/2 was a better OS as was Apple at that time but MS muscled the market big time) in some cases but realizing that the value was there. I had no chance to negotiate the price of MS Office or Windows 95 etc.

However, I also bought MS stock. Which of course helped. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the same as the "if you don't like paying taxes, move to somalia" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is a great argument. Every year thousands move to America and are happy for a chance to pay taxes because they know that the American infrastructure will provide them an opportunity to make lots of money.

Of course, the very rich do move to some tax haven or the other.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say local government decides to levy a $0.01 tax on gasoline, and the tax goes directly towards the governor's son's ferrari fund.


[/ QUOTE ]

But of course you fire the bum the next chance you get. Union members elect their leaders in elections. If they dont like it, if it is not adding value to their lives, if the EV for them to continue to pay union fees is not there -- then move.

However, for the free market types, it seems that unions business practices are bad but the same practices when done by companies are just fine.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say local government decides to levy a $0.01 tax on gasoline, and the tax goes directly towards the governor's son's ferrari fund.


[/ QUOTE ]

But of course you fire the bum the next chance you get.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in the meantime, he's justified in pillaging as much as he can?

[ QUOTE ]
Union members elect their leaders in elections. If they dont like it, if it is not adding value to their lives, if the EV for them to continue to pay union fees is not there -- then move.

However, for the free market types, it seems that unions business practices are bad but the same practices when done by companies are just fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I am eager to object to corporations that coopt government power to force people to do business with them on unfavorable terms.

See if you can tell the difference in these scenarios:

1) I have a supply of hot dogs. The next town over, 100 miles away, has a vibrant hot dog market, with multiple suppliers, multiple vendors, and multiple buyers. Hot dogs in that market generally go for about $1 retail to consumers.

In my town, due to a series of coincidences, there are no hot dog suppliers or vendors. People have to drive to the next town if they want a hot dog.

People find out that I have some hot dogs, and ask me to sell them. I decide that I can let them go for $3 each. Some people will decide that it's worth paying $2 extra instead of driving to the next town. They would prefer to pay $1, but they don't mind paying $3. Some other people continue to drive to the next town to save the $2.

2) Same scenario, but now I'm employing thugs to break kneecaps of people that try to bring hotdogs into my market. People still buy my $3 hot dogs. They obviously find value in my $3 hotdogs, so my thuggery must be justifiable, right?

3) same as scenario 1, execpt there is one other vendor. We get together and decide to charge $3.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
So in the meantime, he's justified in pillaging as much as he can?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course,unless you can prosecute or impeach.

You are aware that actions have consequences. You voted him in, now live with him till you vote him out.

[ QUOTE ]
Same scenario, but now I'm employing thugs to break kneecaps of people that try to bring hotdogs into my market. People still buy my $3 hot dogs. They obviously find value in my $3 hotdogs, so my thuggery must be justifiable, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well in my world you end up in a government jail, awaiting a government trial, prosecuted by government attorneys. In your world there is no government, so you end up charging $3 I guess and a lot of people go to the hospital with broken knee caps.

See, I like my world a lot better. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in the meantime, he's justified in pillaging as much as he can?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course,unless you can prosecute or impeach.

You are aware that actions have consequences. You voted him in, now live with him till you vote him out.

[/ QUOTE ]

But *I* didn't vote him in. I'm oppressed because YOU (or whoever) voted him in. Maybe I should take it out on voters.

If 50%+1 of the voters say all redheads should be drawn and quartered, are you OK with it? Hey, the redheads should have come up with more votes, right? What a bunch of losers, they deserve it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Same scenario, but now I'm employing thugs to break kneecaps of people that try to bring hotdogs into my market. People still buy my $3 hot dogs. They obviously find value in my $3 hotdogs, so my thuggery must be justifiable, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well in my world you end up in a government jail, awaiting a government trial, prosecuted by government attorneys. In your world there is no government, so you end up charging $3 I guess and a lot of people go to the hospital with broken knee caps.

See, I like my world a lot better. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just showing how dense you are. Of the three scenarios I presented, the one you highlight is the only one in which people are being coerced, and hence, a crime is being comitted. You seem to grasp this, but assume in "my" world that it would be allowed to go unpunished.

The point is that *if* unions use force (usually in the form of government protection) then they're comitting a crime. You suggested that I would allow corporations to get away with the same crime that I condemn unions for, which is 100% NOT true. I do NOT advocate a system with no checks on corporate power. Suggesting that I do indicates that you are either too lazy to read my posts, too dense to understand them, or just dishonest.

The other point I've been making which seems to have gone right over your head is that it's possible to violate people's rights but do it in such a way that it's not obvious. In the example with the Ferrari fund, stealing one cent per gallon is not enough to make people go elsewhere to get gas, but IT'S STILL STEALING, which you explicitly excuse, because "people are still finding value" in the higher gas prices.

You can't seem to tell the difference between high prices due to coercive force and high prices due to market forces.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is that they would be better off without the union. Why? Because they are skilled, non-lazy workers.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, what is the problem with my facile argument. If they are skilled then they should quit.

[/ QUOTE ]

One is in the public employees unions. That union has a stranglehold on all employees working for the state, including teachers. Realistically, you can only make a living as a teacher if you are in the union.

And yes, the other should quit and you, as a confirmed liberal nanny-stater, should realize that not everyone always knows what's best for them or acts in their own best interest. So, the union is a bad deal for my parent, but they may not realize it or may not care for other reasons.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't seem to tell the difference between high prices due to coercive force and high prices due to market forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just defined leftism.

natedogg

[SheetWise]

Your "Ferrari fund" example is one the government has learned too well. There will always be strong resistance to a flat tax, national sales tax, or any single source of revenue -- because then people would know how much they're paying. It's a concept that successful thieves have known for centuries -- if you want to steal a million dollars, steal $1 each from a million people, and nobody (including the governemnt) will care. Take a million dollars from one person, and now you've got an enemy.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
They broke the law in numerous ways. They didn't discover ingenious loopholes, they didn't use ethically grey areas to give them an advantage over their competitors and they didn't ignorantly break some obscure laws that had hardly any effect on how thay ran their business. They committed fraud, they co-erced and bullied their workforce and other investors not in the know to keep their value artificially high by giving false information about the state of the company, they manipulated certain energy markets to give an impression that a commodity that was in fact in abundance was scarce and more valuble than it was.

[/ QUOTE ]
But this was "common" knowledge as far back as 1998. I recall talking with a group at Deloitte who were well aware of what Andersen was doing. They were pretty open about it, wondered why Andersen would do it, and flatly told me that if I wanted those types of services I would have to go to Andersen. The information was in the financials, people simply didn't want to believe it. The government manipulation of "accounting" and tax law added a lot of "grey area" -- add to that a period when so many unsophisticated investors were in the market, and you get Enron.

[ACPlayer]

I did not say I excuse the Ferrari fund. Far from it. However, it is a consequence of a democratic form of government, in that once the person is voted in there is little redress till the next election.

Perhaps there is a better way for a society to be built than having a democracy. However, no one has come up with one.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that *if* unions use force (usually in the form of government protection) then they're comitting a crime. You suggested that I would allow corporations to get away with the same crime that I condemn unions for, which is 100% NOT true. I do NOT advocate a system with no checks on corporate power. Suggesting that I do indicates that you are either too lazy to read my posts, too dense to understand them, or just dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the unions use force, specifically in the form of government protection, than it is likely not a crime (it is the govt that defines the crime). Secondly corporations that manipulate prices usually do so with government protection.

My point in this thread is simple, people have put out anecdotes about how bad unions are because they allegedly get away with price gouging among other "crimes". Some of the same people are simply happy to accept price gouging if it is not from an organization called a union. This is clearly dishonest, as they are playing to the politics of the union vs corporation rather than looking at the underlying transaction and/or negotiation that has occured.

The second point is like all organization unions become buearacratic and the base for power building for people, just like corporations do -- hence the Enron anecdote (clearly I do not conclude that becuase of Enron the entire corporate structure is bad or incompetent or criminal).

Unions serve a purpose. The members in the unions choose to stay in the union because it is to their benefit. Whether they are too lazy to find a new line of work or for whatever reason. They have accepted that to maintain the quality of life they have they should be in that union.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not say I excuse the Ferrari fund. Far from it. However, it is a consequence of a democratic form of government, in that once the person is voted in there is little redress till the next election.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the many defects of representative democracies.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps there is a better way for a society to be built than having a democracy. However, no one has come up with one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So maybe people should stop trying to "build" one.

[ QUOTE ]
If the unions use force, specifically in the form of government protection, than it is likely not a crime (it is the govt that defines the crime).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not "illegal" but it's still criminal. You obviously know what I mean.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly corporations that manipulate prices usually do so with government protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep bringing this up as if someone disputes it. You won't ever find me defending corporations that co-opt government power.

[ QUOTE ]
Unions serve a purpose. The members in the unions choose to stay in the union because it is to their benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you keep ignoring the fact that something may be to your "benefit" but still cause you harm.

If jackbooted thugs bust down your door and make you choose between a bullet in the leg and a bullet in the face, which do you pick? Choosing the bullet in the leg is most likely to your benefit - given the choices you've been restricted to - but it still harms you. You don't find "value" in it.

[ACPlayer]

Well, I dont know what kindof world you want to live in. I would like to live in a world where there is some agreement (even if it based on flawed democratic principles) about the norms and functions of society.

[rusty JEDI]

Regarding teachers.

First allow me to state my bias.

I am a teacher, and grew up with 2 union parents. 1 is a carpenter and the other is a mail carrier.

1. What state is a teacher with a masters getting 105K, because I call B.S.

2. Name a career that requires 5 years of education that gets paid less than a teacher. (Not using the 105k masters example)


rJ

[rusty JEDI]

In regards to all of the anecdotal anti union junk like my dad got screwed, or i heard about this...

It is my belief that so much of this is the whole 1 bad apple thing. Its like when you hear about someone screwing unemployment or welfare you suddenly assume the whole system is corrupt. Sure there are bad unions and there are bad employees, but overall they do much more to the masses than if they were not there.

The KKK was against unionisation. Does this mean I should assume all those against it are of the same ilk?

rJ

RJ

1) The State of Pennsylvania (Southeast Region)

2) Here's a good article on the rape of local school districts by unchecked teacher's union thugs -
http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/in...;articleType=29 (http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/index.cfm?mainContent=/research/index.cfm&amp;section=commentaries&amp;articleID=191&amp;artic leType=29)
inside containing this

[ QUOTE ]
Here’s just one example of how this is working across Pennsylvania. The Council Rock School District in Bucks County went on strike earlier this month over the issue of salaries and benefits. In Council Rock, the average teacher salary last year was $75,000, and about 40 percent of district teachers received more than $87,000. But they wanted more.



[/ QUOTE ]

[rusty JEDI]

I am just guessing here, because i dont know all of the facts.

Districts make up the wage for teachers and not the state. Is this a particularly well off district? In B.C. the province sets the wages.

Also the <u>average</u> wage may be very high because half the work force is 5 years from retirement and all maxed out. This is what is happening in B.C.

$87,000 US is certainly enough to recruit all of the best teachers out of Canada. There is no reason that with compentent hiring this district should have the best teachers in the nation. This should happen within 5 years as the aging teaching population retires. Currently the average teacher salary in B.C. (3rd highest paid province) for a teacher is $54,000. A first year teacher will make $42,000. In my education program there were representatives from Texas, and New York recruiting. Maybe i should look into that.

Just an aside:

What happened in BC recently is the teachers union campaigned very heavily against the party that ended up getting into power. They did this partially because in the previous term they made teaching an essential service, and took other rights away from the union by stripping the right to bargain class sizes, and other things, and even making it illegal to negotiate for them. They also implemented a new bill that allowed them to rip up union contracts and impose new ones.
Well they got back in mostly becasue they sold off all of the crown corporations to make it look like they balanced the budget. The teachers contract came up and they tried to "negotiate" for almost a year, but refused to offer any more than 0,0,0 for 3 years. Of course the teachers went on strike. So what should have happened is that essential service levels were to be set and the teachers would go back to work on that level until a negotiated settlement could be reached. But, the government instead decided to impose a contract. Guess what? The teachers got nothing but a 1 year extension of the current contract.
Government workers need unions because governments can write any law they want.

One more thing. The premier of B.C. (i think same sa Governor) was arrested for drunk driving in Hawaii. Real stand up guy.

rJ

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
I have personally managed trade show booths at McCormick, Moscone and other convention halls. The value is there so I buy the service.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of us are comfortable with plugging in light sockets and screwing in light bulbs without paying the extortionists.