Are unions still valuable? Were they ever?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH Unfortunately, the labour movement was suborned early on by the communists who have too often used it for their own ends.

Ex-squeeze me? I'm sorry, we [i]built[/i[ the unions.

You're right about trains though. I used to shoot the sh*t with the conductors on my way home from school and they were talking about how dangerous it was getting in the yards. That was ten years ago. In Chicago, though, the railworkers union was still controlled by the mob.

[Adam Smith]

Granted other factors were involved, but at the time labor was by far the largest and most intractable cost.

If smaller crews harm safety, why are US railroad accident rates today one third of what they were when railroads were deregulated in 1980?
1980: 11.65 accidents per million train miles
2002: 3.62 accidents per million train miles
(Source: Federal Railroad Administration Accident/Incident Database)

Please note that I am not talking about the one man crews and remote control switching currently being used by CN. I will also grant you that switching trains in a sleet-filled yard at 3 am is nobody's idea of fun.

Oz:
Where did you work out of?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Here's one of the most patently rediculous statements ever made. First of all, it directly contradicts itself - murder should be made legal because laws preventing it are well established? What kind of Fezzian logic is that? Second, the point is that there are labor laws in place which, thanks to unions in the past, protect workers rights. Nowhere did I say that existing labor laws should be abolished - quite the contrary. It seems that many argue that unions still form a necessary part of that process, and I can't totally disagree.

I was just applying your reasoning to other forms of established norms in society. Sounds stupid doesn't it?

[chequita guevara]

The numbers that you should use are per man hour, since there are much smaller crews today.

If six man crews were the norm in 1980, that comes out to 1.9 accidents per mtms.
With a two man crew in 2002, that's 1.8 accidents per mtms. So it actually is safer, but not by much.

But what kind of accidents are we talking about? Train crossing accidents? Derailments? Or employees getting their fingers taken off in a coupling?

[Flubber]

My personal experience being a temporary worker in a couple of different union environments led me to witness first hand some negative work behaviors. I do not assert that unions caused these behaviors but I never saw similar behaviors in my non-union jobs

Example 1

On my first job ever we were working at a fish plant-- I was at a table with a bunch of other new (non-union guys). We worked steady but not at all hard. After 4 hours, a (union) guy approached us and told us we had packaged 600 units in the first four hours. We had no idea if that was good or bad but he warned us that " the average table does 750 for the whole shift . . its no skin off my nose cause if we run low on product, you're the fellas that will be working yourself out of a job"

and he was right-- A couple of weeks later, the non-union folks were sent home early when product ran low. merit or hard-work was irrelevant.

Example two was the same as I was told to slow down when working in a unionized liquor store

Example 3
A unionized worker for the federal government was in a position where he was required to assess tax returns. It was highly routine work and there were quotas of number of returns per hour (on avarage). This guy had been there forever (refusing promotion or any alternate assignments) and could complete his weeks quota by Thursday midday at the latest . He would then sit at his desk with his hands folded behind his head and make eye contact with the supervisors whenever possible and smile-- at Friday he would tally his hours and submit EXACTLY the number of returns required to make quota (of course having a good number on his desk already completed as a headstart on the next week)

personally, I did not enjoy working in a union environment. I felt it often rewarded mediocrity . Hard work or merit seemed irrelevant.

More generally, I see unions as an institution that has done a lot of good work in the past and which can sometimes be useful now. However, often, unions become little empires of their own and sometimes the process seems more about the egos and power of the union leaders than doing what is best for the members . . .

One of my best friends does contract negotiations ( employer side) and deals with dozens of unions. Some are solid interested representatives for their people. But he has had union leaders

-- demand gifts of various sorts
-- demand that he demand that negotiations take place in a certain city (so the union guy gets his free trip)
--raise issues that aren't issues so that the several days of "negotiation" is required
-- concede very very important but less visible issues in return for "winning" a very visible issue


And Che

Employers fight getting unions not because they are necessarily a "good" thing but because they are an expensive thing. Often, employers will compensate their employees better than the local area union standard in an attempt to keep the unions out. Its simply because unions complicate dealings with employees by adding a third interest. On every issue there would now be 3 interests, employee, employer and union.


Living in Alberta I am now in one of the most non-union places in Canada. Wages are high, the economy is hot and most people see no need for a union. Job security is not a big issue as unemployment is so low and people seem to accept that merit not long service will be what is rewarded

[Sava]

This whole argument that unions are bad and corrupt is silly. Sure there is corruption. There's always corruption in every single institution in America. But the same people I see here bashing unions are the same ones defending and apologizing for corporate corruption. And corporate corruption, mind you, costs the American people many more millions of dollars than some petty union trying to improve the lives of its members. Hypocrits!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Sava


I was just applying your reasoning to other forms of established norms in society. Sounds stupid doesn't it?

Sava, your point is the one that is nonsensical.

Other parties said that unions were less necessary since the labour standards they sought to achieve and maintain were entrenched in labour laws now. Losing unions alone would not cause the elimination of those laws. ( although the loss of the influence of big unions could eventually lead to the weakening of such laws)

[Sava]

that's my point Flubber... look at my first post in reference to that one... It's a slippery slope, and workers have fought too hard in the last 100 years to throw it away because of a few bad apples in the system.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Oz:
Where did you work out of?

CP, London, Ontario. Ran freights Detriot- London- Toronto. I was also able to run on the USA rails, having my I-94 (cross without customs) ,and US rules ticket (Conrail ).

The US has/is improving their tracks ALOT since I began,
also the operating rules are tougher on both sides of the border since i began (ie: no jumping off moving trains, when I began you had to be able to get on and
off at 15 mph to pass trainman school). I worked on
both the vaned and vanless trains, and hot wheels were
a bigger problem vanless IMHO at that time.

[axi]

I'm an engineering student and as we are considered to be free enterprising professionals, we have no union, but a professional society. (meaning our employers can be in it too, if they are engineers) However about half of our collegues work as employees in industries and engineering firms. There is currently an effort, led by the far-left, to create a union, but it is currently very small and I guess it's usefulness is currently rather educational. With less than 500 members among more than 70.000 society members, there is little they can do. I guess I will join them however, when I get a job for the first time.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
Its simply because unions complicate dealings with employees by adding a third interest. On every issue there would now be 3 interests, employee, employer and union.

Only two interests, if it's a healthy, democractic union: the workers and the bosses. It's only in corrupt unions, which the companies and the goverment encouraged (in their drive to roust the reds), that the union becomes a 3rd interest.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Ex-squeeze me? I'm sorry, we [i]built[/i[ the unions.

I'll clarify my point (hopefully). There are similarities, but I dont see that the goals of a labor movement are the same as the goals of the communist movement. The first is a collective method of 'worker' protection while the second is a failed utopian political agenda. Unfortunately, communist politicians, previously supported by countries such as the USSR, continue be factors in the leadership of too many unions despite the almost utter failure of the communist political system.

[Flubber]

SAVA

while I can accpt that the loss of union influence COULD lead to weakened labour laws, I do not see that as a necessary or even a likely result ( at least in the Canadian context). Most such laws have been in force for a long time and governments would be very reticent to weaken ANY of them.


On your corruption point, I accept that there have been very many, very bad examples of corporate corruption recently. However, my point was that unions are rife with it as well -- my knowledge mainly deals with the construction industry which may or not be typical.

Unions, whether good or bad, are not a REQUIRED part of the employment relationship. You need an employer (whether that be a a corrupt corp or a tyrant individual) and you need an employee. You do not NEED a union.

I do see unions being very positive forces

1. in monopolistic situations such as nursing where government is the only likely employer (in Canada)
2. in places without modern labour standards and occupational health legislation
3. in industries dominated by uneducated people unlikely to be able tomstand up for themselves


In a lot of situations I just simply see them as not doing much positive or negative. They simply seem to exist as part of a system and its difficult to discern the value that workers get for their dues

[Adam Smith]

Chegitz:

SpencerH's comment pertained to collisions, so the data I gave were for collisions and derailments, not grade crossings or employees. I will have to rummage thru my hard drive for the employee data.

Ozz:
US rails have invested in track, some of that money coming from labor cost savings, some of it from more reasonable rate regulation.

Lastly, some additional evidence that increased labor efficiency was vital to pulling US railroads out of bankruptcy.

US Railroad Employment
1980: 458,000
2001: 162,000
- 65 %

US Railroad Output
1980: 919 bil ton-miles
2001: 1495 bil ton-miles
+ 63%

US Railroad Output per Employee Hour
1980: 863 ton-miles
2001: 3516 ton-miles
+ 307%

Source: Association of American Railraods, Railroad Facts, 2001, pp. 27, 41, 56.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Granted other factors were involved, but at the time labor was by far the largest and most intractable cost.

If smaller crews harm safety, why are US railroad accident rates today one third of what they were when railroads were deregulated in 1980?
1980: 11.65 accidents per million train miles
2002: 3.62 accidents per million train miles
(Source: Federal Railroad Administration Accident/Incident Database)

Please note that I am not talking about the one man crews and remote control switching currently being used by CN. I will also grant you that switching trains in a sleet-filled yard at 3 am is nobody's idea of fun.

Are you saying that there have been no improvements to communications, computers, etc etc since 1980 and that the only variable accounting for increased safety from 1980 to 2002 is less people?

Obviously, those other safety improvements made some crew redundant so that perhaps 6 are no longer needed but it doesnt alter the observation that engineers are sometimes (perhaps often) operating locomotives on too little sleep.