Mass defection from the AFL-CIO

[Cosimo]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[Cosimo]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

A definite 'no' on the eugenics bit.

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

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

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

[Hamish McBagpipe]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[Hamish McBagpipe]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[bobman0330]

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

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

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

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

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

[Hamish McBagpipe]

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

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

[lehighguy]

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

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

[UseThePeenEnd]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

He meant it and everyone knew it.

[lehighguy]

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

[FishHooks]

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