Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

[ 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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

Full Article on AFL-CIO Blow Up

'Spooking some Democrats' [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

-Zeno

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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


q/q

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

[ 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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

</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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

[ 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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

[ 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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

[ 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"?

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

[ 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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

[ 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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

[ 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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.)

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

[ 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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

[ 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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

[ 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.

Re: Mass defection from the AFL-CIO
 

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.

Consumer Versus Higher Wages?
 

[ 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.