Unions. Whats Your Opinion?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Except we already have all of those laws, Sava. What good have the Unions done in the last 25 years? I can think of several bad things.

Read Fast Food Nation. It shows the problems that have been caused after the unions for slaughterhouse workers were destroyed.

The food we eat now is much more unsafe. Working conditions are more dangerous, in many cases fatally dangerous.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Drogue
I agree with Laz that unions have got us much legislation, and that's a valuble job, and a big plus. I also think we have a bit further to go, but that's all legislation. We don't need unions for that, we need legislation.

Unions provide the driving force behind workplace legislation because unions are the only organised group dedicated to looking after our welfare.

In the US, where unions are weak, politics is dominated by the super rich and corporations. They're the ones who make substantial donations to political parties. They have the money for lobbying. They can hire the experts who understand complex laws and how to shape these laws to their benefit.

Unions provide a political voice for blue collar workers and the middle class. A union can speak for the thousands of voters it represents.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Currently the US has a happy medium between unions and management. Both sides are unhappy so I'd say we've got it just about right.

Considering the way Reagan reacted to the ATC's, that did not and does not appear to be the case.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drogue
Would they be as good, without the experience? If so, why should they pay the other bus drivers more, when someone can do an equally good job for less money?

Good is not a point, good is a range.

Or rather, why pay for good when adequate cuts your costs?

Originally posted by Drogue
What's to stop a worker deciding he can get more money elsewhere and leaving to get a better job.

Because it is not a "free" (or openly competitive) market. There are only so many bus companies in a city, and moving to another city is generally not an option.

Originally posted by Drogue
Supply and demand, the company pays what the worker is worth to them.

Again, supply and demand does not work in most of the situations. Even when it does, the existence of a pool of unemployed workers means supply is always greater than demand.

Originally posted by Drogue
Well no. In the long term, inefficiency, wherever it is, will reduce productivity, and thus average income. It may make it a more equitable distribution, but it will mean there is less to distribute.

Not necessarily. Increasing wage does not automatically translate into lower productivity.

[joncha]

Unions
Union leaders
Capitalists
Socialism

[Dis]

your arrows are screwed up

Unions
union leaders
capitalists
Socialism

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Unions are the reason that you lot don't work 12-hour days 7 days a week, probably won't get maimed at work, will probably get a pension, and won't be sacked on a whim by your boss.

While there have certainly been progressive unions, I don’t think the data bear this out in the US. Up through the 1920’s, wages (adjusted for inflation) were generally rising, and unionism was generally too small to matter much. By the 1950’s and 1960’s US unions were starting to decline, but wages were still rising. Its only from about 1935 to 1955 that you see unionism rising and wages rising. This suggests that other factors, such as greater literacy, better education, and more capital per worker, were responsible for rising wages. Shorter hours and better working conditions were then a consequence of the rising incomes. I wonder if the effects might be the same in the UK.

Originally posted by Ramo
Closed shops have been illegal in the US ever since Taft-Hartley enacted in '47 (except for a few industries).

This is disingenuous. Taft-Hartley did make closed shops (US usage = must join a union in order to be hired) illegal, union shops (US usage = must join a union shortly after being hired) are still legal, except in right-to-work states. If you don’t want to join a union, its a bit like saying the Vikings didn’t burn down your house …. the Saxons did.

Originally posted by Ramo
actions by the rank and file - sit down strikes and wildcat strikes in general are unprotected

the union has to stand by its agreement, or else its name is mud. If employees don’t have to honor the contract, why would an employer sign it?

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp The reason for this is that my union acknowledges that modern labour is more mobile/transient than before, and that "jobs for life" is not such a relevant concept these days.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger Because it is not a "free" (or openly competitive) market. There are only so many bus companies in a city, and moving to another city is generally not an option.

You two might want to get your story straight. Due to improved transportation and communication most labor is more mobile than before. Consider various migrations within the US: Deep South to Northeast and Midwest in the 1920’s; Dustbowl to California in the 1930’s; Northeast and Midwest to California in the 1950’s; Northeast to South in the 1960’s; Rustbelt to Texas in the 1970’s and 1980’s. In China, consider the current movement from rusting state industries in the Northeast to trade-driven industries in the Southeast.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger Again, supply and demand does not work in most of the situations. Even when it does, the existence of a pool of unemployed workers means supply is always greater than demand.

Henry Ford’s hiring of assembly line workers? Computer programmers? Biotech researchers? Silicon Valley types (originally)? MBA’s? As the economy changes, a pool of unemployed workers is by no means given. Supply and demand works.

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp Therefore the role of the union is to help them at work, and offer them opportunities in whatever the future may bring. Does that fit in with the images of Unions being put forward by some here?

This is essentially the “Exit Voicing” theory put forward by Freeman and Medoff. Critics of the “Exit Voicing” theory ask why a union is needed to do this. Wouldn’t it be in the interest of employees or employers to undertake such actions, depending on who would benefit from most them?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
As the economy changes, a pool of unemployed workers is by no means given. Supply and demand works.

There is always a pool of unemployed people. That's what's considered the natural unemployment rate.

But the main point people are saying is that the unemployment is not determined just by market forces.

When unemployment declines, salaries increase. Business groups start complaining because operating costs have increased. They will then lobby governments and central banks to cool off the "overheating" economy.

Business executives prefer an excess supply of labour because this keeps wages from rising.

No, this is not some secret conspiracy. Instead, it is many individuals who happen to have the same common interest; keep operating costs down by keeping salaries down.

So we have a natural unemployment rate (people unemployed while they switch from one job to another) and a long-term artificially created unemployment rate.

We rarely ever reach an equilibrium point where supply equals demand.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
By the 1950’s and 1960’s US unions were starting to decline, but wages were still rising.

Is that true? Any stats to back this up. I always thought that unions were strong in the 1950s to 1970s and only declined in the 1980s.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, btw, there is also the minimum wage which prevents an equilibrium point in the supply and demand of labor.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Dissident
your arrows are screwed up

Unions
union leaders
capitalists
Socialism

[Mr. Harley]

As a union member in an open-shop, I have always found non-union members leaching off the benefits irritating. Here is a free market solution. Require non-union members to work under whatever management made as an initial offer to the workers. Union members get the final offer. That way if the union really doesn't get anything, then people won't join because it's not cost efficient, not because they can get the benefits without paying. People who are leaching off union-derived benefits will suddenly have to pay to play, one might say.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Whoha


wrong, capitalism lets the market decide.

I'm not talking about the vacuous PR crap, but real capitalism in which the capitalists bribe lawmakers to reduce worker safety. If the free market started to benefit workers, the rules would be changed.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
You two might want to get your story straight. Due to improved transportation and communication most labor is more mobile than before. Consider various migrations within the US: Deep South to Northeast and Midwest in the 1920’s; Dustbowl to California in the 1930’s; Northeast and Midwest to California in the 1950’s; Northeast to South in the 1960’s; Rustbelt to Texas in the 1970’s and 1980’s. In China, consider the current movement from rusting state industries in the Northeast to trade-driven industries in the Southeast.

Yet the reality of such moves is vividly depicted in The Grapes of Wrath. You are talking about displaced workers who had no alternatives. They serve as testimonies of how a capitalistic system destroys the common man.

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Henry Ford’s hiring of assembly line workers? Computer programmers? Biotech researchers? Silicon Valley types (originally)? MBA’s? As the economy changes, a pool of unemployed workers is by no means given. Supply and demand works.

A developed country has about 5% unemployment even in a good economy. I personally know aeroplane pilots who were forced to change fields because they couldn't find jobs and MBA's who became insureance salespersons. I know computer specialists who had to swallow 60% - 80% in pay cuts.

Supply and demand doesn't work in real life because people who have the $$$ have the say.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh, btw, there is also the minimum wage which prevents an equilibrium point in the supply and demand of labor.

True.

The supply and demand curves are also distorted by the lack of information about prices (salaries). The S-D theory assumes that buyers and sellers have the information needed to make rational decisions, but in the job market, it is often hard to know what the prevailng salary levels are for a given job.

This is where the unions create another benefit. Pay levels for union jobs are routinely made public so that people have an accurate benchmark of the market.