Are unions still valuable? Were they ever?

[Shi Huangdi]

"Higher salary means more purchasing power, leading to increased demand, more production, & more profits.

Compare the economic power of the U.S., Canada & Western Europe (which have unions) to the Third World (which have no effective unions)."

Right, and high salaries are good. But, if it gets to be too much you will have more unemployed people, and those people are not working and thus not spending money, and thus less profits. If there is also a large reserve labor force of the unemployed, that will push salaries down as laborers become less valubale to employees when they know they can be replcaed easily. And as orange pointed out, if the cost of labor gets driven too high it will encourage more mechanizatoin. It can also encourage firms to **** their production overseas which we have seen alot of recently.

[tandeetaylor]

http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ton03.html

I used to work at a pawn shop, and lots of construction workers pawn their tools, and one time this guy told me that it was against union rules for him to bring some of the tools he had with him to the jobsite because they were semi-expensive tools and an employer might start to favor him because he owned these tools, however, he needed the tools to complete the job.

Las Vegas is the perfect example of why unions are bad. I can make $30/hour as a maid! Or a bus driver, or a waiter (with tips), or a valet parker (with tips), or a dealer. Why the hell should I go to college? Nevada has the lowest percentage of high school graduates who continue to college.

[chequita guevara]

Las Vegas is a great example of why unions are needed. That town wouldn't be nothing without employees. They built it, and all it's profitability rests on workers. All that money would just be going to the bosses, not passed along to consumers as savings. Whenever a union is broken or production moved over seas, the consumer never sees any benefit.

Hmmm, $30 an hour huh? Maybe I should move there.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by SpencerH
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?

Nope. Just saying that there are other, less expensive, ways to operate safely than by adding more crew. You made my point quite nicely thank you.

[Ozz]

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

That new track makes the differience between 15 and
15 to 60+ miles an hour. Freight delivery, fuel, car and engine useage efficiency all go way up. Accident statics
go way down.

The firemen situtation was ridiculus, 6 men are not needed on a Freight, Passanger, maybe. I am not experienced on passanger. (the europeans do run
6 man head end crews, and have a viable rail system)

The proper crew size is 3 in the head-end (engine).
for watchfulness alone in running. 4 for a work train
with a van (caboose). I wouldn't run on a 2 man head
end train, i wouldn't "feel" safe/comfortable. Some
guys are comfortable, some are scared/worried every
trip. It was just enough to put me in the worried group
so I got out.

The guys workin' the railroads are'nt overpaid, i made
more as a nubie programmer. The only time they stand out is on union deals on layoffs and buyouts, and thats
only because the membership sticks bigtime on those
2 points.

Some Unions are "good" for their members. Some are
just "leaches" on their members. Eithier way they are just a cost of doing business.

[tandeetaylor]

I don't know how accurate $30/hr is, but I know that it is really close. And bus drivers make $10/hr and above plus benefits.

But you don't have to belong to a union to make money in Las Vegas. Just if you want to make money that exceeds the amount your talents and skills should give you.

[orange]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Hmmm, $30 an hour huh? Maybe I should move there.

Ok, but you've gotta wear fishnet stockings and a black and white French maid outfit.

It's a plus if you already have your own feather duster.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Nope. Just saying that there are other, less expensive, ways to operate safely than by adding more crew. You made my point quite nicely thank you.

That only applies to things that can be automated. I still want an alert engineer.

[Adam Smith]

The "deadman" feature requires that the engineer hit a specific set of buttons every 30 seconds or the train stops. Many crews illegally disable this feature.

[Sava]

Flubber : I don't know sh!t about Canada

Anyways, despite our arguing, I think we generally are in agreement about their importance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One of the problems with right-to-work states is, you don't have to join the union, but you still get all of the benefits of the union if there's one at your worksite. This encourages people not to pay dues but still use the greivance system, get benefits, etc. If you don't want to be part of the union, that's fine, but then you should be all the way out.

So are you saying employers should offer different wages and benefits for union v. non-union workers? First discounting the fact that employers don't WORK that way, it'd violate the Constitution under equal protection.

It's discriminatory. The non-union worker is joining for the wage and the benefits offered. If that wage and benefits are because of the union, who cares?

[Flubber]

I would think that the high wages in Las Vegas has more to do with Las Vegas than unions-- High wages and salaries are not the sole domain of unions. I am not in any union and do just fine-- I was terminated a while back and did just fine there as well.

Its about knowing your value in the marketplace and market forces. I would presume that wages in Las Vegas are high because there is a labour scarcity. People can unionize all they want and it will not bring similar wages to an area with high unemployment.


Oh and a few people have equated unions with higher wages when it is clear that a union is not necessary for such rates of pay. Take offshore oil workers (east coast Canada)-- They are all highly paid without a union -- Why ? because thay have skills and mobility

Can a union help bring up wages ? On some occasions yes but in other cases no. In an economically depressed region, it is entirely possible that a wage increase is beyond the ability of the employer and furthermore that the existing low rate is reflective of a large available pool of labour. But a lot of thsse things are independent of unions.

Consider: workers in Newfoundland (high unemployment area) make a lot less than those in Alberta (low unemployment area) despite the fact that Newfoundland has a much higher rate of unionization. The local economy trumps unionization when it comes to wage rates.

In fact, many Albertans will assert that the low rate of unionization makes it an attractive place to do business which means more businesses set up here which means there is a continuing demand on labour which means wages stay high ( I wouldn't assert that but would assert it with respect to the low rates of taxation here)

I guess to summarize my posts I would say

1. unions have had a major role in creating the working environment and legislation that exist today
2. Unions continue to have important roles in some industries and some circumstances (North American context)
3. Unions could play a valuable role in less developed countries without high labour standards.
4. Unions often become power structures onto themselves with their own interests
5. Unions often suffer from corruption, conflict of interest
6. Unions are of lesser value in a hot labour market or for workers with specialized skills
7. I, personally, would prefer never to be a member of a union as I would prefer to be assessed and bargain as an individual.

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: Are unions still valuable? Were they ever?

Originally posted by Kontiki
The more I look at labor unions, at least in North America, the more I think they are passed their prime. I think they played an invaluable role back in the days of robber barons in establishing worker's rights, but today I think these rights are well enough established by labor laws that they are unlikely to be repealed. This isn't to say that I don't think unions do some good, but rather that on balance, they are detremental. I think that most have become massive bureaucracies that are more interested in maintaining their own power position rather than actually doing what is best for their members.

Discuss.

They were very valuable.

Noone would give you anything if you just asked politely.

You had to fight and fight together to get it.

This is true even today. If you are not united they will try to take it back.

But some syndicates are indeed a heavy burden and actually obstract the reaching of compromise and solutions.

And this is more contemporary an issue than ever. If you just look at Germany for example.