Mass defection from the AFL-CIO

[Matty]

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

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

[MMMMMM]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[bobman0330]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
He could walk off at any time!

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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


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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[Hamish McBagpipe]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

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

[Hamish McBagpipe]

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

[Dov]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This includes union administrations.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

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

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


[/ QUOTE ]

People aren't commodities.

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[FishHooks]

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

[Hamish McBagpipe]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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