Unions. Whats Your Opinion?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Good is not a point, good is a range.

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

Depends what you want. Is a good worker worth the extra money they cost? That's for the company to decide. If it wants top quality workers, it will pay more, like Ford in the early part of the 20th Century. They pay more wages and get better workers. Other companies won't be prepared to pay the extra, and so will make do with adequate workers. Exactly like when you buy, say, coffee. You can pay extra and buy better coffee, or you can stick with normal stuff.

Good staff, being more productive, make more money.

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.

As I said, when there aren't enough employers in that market to make it free, legislation and/or unions are needed to bring about a better balance. That's unions in theory. In practice, unions asking for collective bargaining mean everyone is paid the same, regardless of quality of work.

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.

Actually no. There is always a pool of available jobs too. It is usually that the job are in different areas to the unemployed workers, but that means in the markets with more unemployed workers than jobs, there needs to be help for the worker, and in markets where there are more extra jobs than unemployed workers to fill them, companies need help, to balance it out.

Supply and demand does work, but when there isn't enough companies, or enough workers, in a particular market, you need something to right that balance. Personally, since unions in practice seem to not right the balance well, but try to stop change or moving forward (which doesn't help unemployed, companies or productivity), I prefer legislation to do that job.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not necessarily. Increasing wage does not automatically translate into lower productivity.

I never claimed it did. Increasing inefficiency always translates to lower productivity than it would be without that inefficiency. If a union could go for better wages, without bringing about inefficiency, I would be all for it. But in practice, they don't.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Tingkai
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.

In the UK, this isn't the case. Money doesn't buy power in the same way here, and the sums of money used for campaigning in the US would be unheard of here. Politics here isn't dominated by large corporations. Indeed, in the UK, unions (at least until recently) actually have a direct say in the running of the Labour party, our ruling party.

I don't see why we can't have legislation in the UK without unions. Moreover, I don't think much more legislation is needed. Health and safety always needs to be looked at, but discrimination legislation, legislatons against cartels, etc. is all there. Why not have unions as a political lobby, a collection of workers giving themselves a political voice, without trying to block companies modernising.

Workers lobbying
Higher wages
Inability to reduce inefficiency

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

Not saying that there isn't some inbuilt unemployment, but how do these examples counter Adam's point? These people had to go where the demand was. So what if they took lesser paying jobs?

[Agathon]

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.

I agree. This has just confirmed my belief that contemporary economics has little to do with reality.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Considering the way Reagan reacted to the ATC's, that did not and does not appear to be the case.

Please, learn a bit about the case first. Maybe you'll learn that there is a federal law that bars strikes in critical sectors of the economy including airline travel. Instead they're supposed to abide by manditory federal mediation of all labor disputes; and yeah the Fed has the habit (at least up until the early 80's) of always siding with labor.

Thus when the ATC union struck it not only broke their barginning pact with Management but it also broke Federal law. The bastards were warned they'd be fired if they ignored Federal law but the arrogant union bosses figured they'd just try to crash the national economy by bringing all air traffic to a grinding halt. They figured they could blame Reagon and then have their political friends bail them out. They were wrong.

Firing those self centered little ****** was one of the best things Reagon ever did.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon
I agree. This has just confirmed my belief that contemporary economics has little to do with reality.

How so? Contemporary economics is bounded in reality, it is about how things happen, and how changing one thing affects another, and is becoming increasingly less theoretical and increasingly more applied, IMHO. I accept that refering to labour as human capital, and talking of wages as a commodity doesn't sit well with some people, and I can understand how someone could think that what is efficient, what economists usually argue for, isn't good, and that their sitting in their ivory towers without knowledge of what life's like. However whether or not something is a good idea is not the job of an economist. The job of an economist is to tell you what the effects will likely be, and how the actions you take will affect that. It's the job of people to decide what should or shouldn't happen, based on that.

[GePap]

The problem with unions is structural, NOT systemic. Unions become stratefied and interested solely on the jobs of the current members as opposed for the opportunities of future members-which is why they become so conservative and protective.

I think the fact that worker protection is now codified in law has lessened the importance of unions- but oevr time there will be backsliding.

[Mr. Harley]

Oerdin, you made one over-generalizaton The Fed hardly "always" sided with labor, look at the strikesin WW1, the coal strikes between the wars, the attempted strikes in certain areas of WW2 when the companies in question were raking in money but the workers were seeing little of it. It was only during a golden period, post WW2 thru the 70's that unions did well with the executive. and even then not always.

Note some of the presidents involved were democrats! By the way, federal mediation is OPTIONAL, and is solely up to executive discretion. Also note that out of a century the Fed has sided with labor for maybe 30 years, if you really want to push it, 40 years. That is less than half the century. It goes in cycles, and we've had a quarter century plus cycle favoring large corporations. If as a historian I am correct, we will go back to the pro-union side. If the globalization opponents are right, the cycles have ended and Gibson (of cyberpunk fame) is the prophet. We'll see.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GePap
The problem with unions is structural, NOT systemic. Unions become stratefied and interested solely on the jobs of the current members as opposed for the opportunities of future members-which is why they become so conservative and protective.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drogue

How so? Contemporary economics is bounded in reality, it is about how things happen, and how changing one thing affects another, and is becoming increasingly less theoretical and increasingly more applied, IMHO. I accept that refering to labour as human capital, and talking of wages as a commodity doesn't sit well with some people.

Exactly. The core of almost every widely accepted system of ethics is that you should treat people as ends in themselves, rather than as means.

It's OK if someone says that a market system is useful in promoting the former, but there are too many economists who want the latter to be our sole concern and that is immoral.

Markets have their uses, but they also have significant and obvious flaws. The Grapes of Wrath is one of the greatest artistic expositions of some of the flaws. Too many economists are market fundamentalists and thus only care about someone insofar as they are a commodity.

and I can understand how someone could think that what is efficient, what economists usually argue for, isn't good, and that their sitting in their ivory towers without knowledge of what life's like.

But market fundamentalists are quite happy to overlook the inefficiencies produced by markets as well as the efficiencies produced by government and its agencies.

However whether or not something is a good idea is not the job of an economist. The job of an economist is to tell you what the effects will likely be, and how the actions you take will affect that. It's the job of people to decide what should or shouldn't happen, based on that.

Too many of them are crude, right-wing hacks, and what's the point in making a decision when most of them come up with same tired old garbage?

[Ramo]

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.

How is it disingenuous? Union shops and closed shops are fundamentally different institutions. If new employees in a union shop are able to convince the majority of employees to not require union membership (and they're legally required to have at least a month), they don't need one.

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?

And my point, as I said in the post, was that regardless of whether or not you agreed with the laws, their enshrining of the concentration of power in the hands of the union leadership is the main reason why we see corruption. Personally, I think the state should pretty much butt out altogether in labor relations.

[DanS]

Although I find most of the guys I work with tend to be conservative.

Over 40% of union members vote Republican. The unions shouldn't be such a tool of the Democrats. Their members' interests would be better served.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The core of almost every widely accepted system of ethics is that you should treat people as ends in themselves, rather than as means.

So what you are saying is that almost every widley accepted system of ethics is not grounded in reality .

[Arrian]

Depends on the Union, I guess. My general impression is they're generally a good thing, but that in many cases they fail to serve the interests of their members, and occasionally go on incredible power trips (rare, but memorable - like the ATC strike).

-Arrian

[Agathon]

So what you are saying is that almost every widley accepted system of ethics is not grounded in reality

Our lords and masters would prefer it that way. You have to keep the rabble down...