Labor Unions

[David Floyd]

I agree that labor unions did help quite a bit. I don't agree that they are necessarily a good idea now. I don't oppose the idea, but what I do oppose is the "closed shop" system, and the idea of strong legal protections for unions.

Unions should be voluntary, as should employment. Right to work states

[Bill3000]

Labor unions are cool because they allows me to build Mechanized Infantry.

[MrFun]

Re: Re: Labor Unions

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Probably not good for the company.

But how is it good for the worker? Easy. And since we're going with personal observations, let me compare two very similar assembly-line jobs I held in the 80's, when the national minimum wage was $3.35/hour:

Union job: $17.50/hour, full health benefits, full retirement benefits.

Non-union job: $4.00/hour. Period.

Had I been a protege in the union shop, I would have had to wait my turn to rise -- all the while earning a living wage and good benefits.

Had I been a protege in the non-union shop, I could have zoomed to the very top of the pay scale for workers like me -- and maybe made a whopping $7.00/hour. Of course, I also could have gotten fired (and in real life did get cautioned) for suggesting that working conditions would improve if the place were unionized.

It's not even a contest.

Well, SlowwHand will just argue that it's bad for workers to earn more in wages, have full health benefits, and full retirement benefits.

Workers just need to learn to live off of wages that are not sufficient for living.

[David Floyd]

It's not bad, per se, but it can certainly be negative reinforcement for a lack of productivity.

Speaking of which, if those highway workers are unionized, I'm gonna be pissed. They get nothing but "jerk each other off" breaks.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Well, here is what you originally said:

"Union job: $17.50/hour, full health benefits, full retirement benefits.

Non-union job: $4.00/hour. Period."

I read between the lines for national average, but if $4/hr with no benefits was not the national average, then your pro-union post was a bit misleading in that it implied all non-unions shops were getting 1/4 the salary of union shops with no benefits.

I implied nothing. I said that I'd held two very similar jobs in the 1980s, one union and one non-union. Now, as it happens,

$17.50/hour x 40 hours x 50 weeks = $35,000
$4.00/hour x 40 hours x50 weeks = $8,000

The average wage in the US in 1985 was ~$19,000. So, the union job paid almost twice the national average, while the non-union job paid less than half the national average, for pretty much the same work.

A lack of unions does not create a giant underclass of poor people. The majority of Americans aren't even union workers - a good number of them are, but the rest of us certainly aren't getting screwed, and I feel better off and always have felt that way, even before I was in management.

Quick! Show me a [edit: democratic, capitalist] country with strong unions and a huge underclass. Alternatively, show me a country with no unions and no giant underclass. Unions don't do it by themselves, but unions have played a huge role in creating class mobility and an ownership society, which helps a country prosper overall and keeps its democracy stable. Right now our middle class is shrinking, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, and class mobility is declining. This is not healthy. Unions may not be the only solution, but they were one solution, which is one more than we seem to have now.

Could companies like Walmart take better care of their employees? Sure they could. Should they? Well, not necessarily - a need for more money doesn't necessarily mean more money should be given. Wages should be based on performance and results, not need or "collective bargaining".

Absent unions, which is more likely: that corporations will somehow turn into a meritocracy for their low-level workers, or that companies will exploit the hell out of their workers? In answering, make sure to account for (1) US history, 1870-1917; (2) Walmart; (3) Every third world sh*thole on the planet.

[Ramo]

I agree that labor unions did help quite a bit. I don't agree that they are necessarily a good idea now. I don't oppose the idea, but what I do oppose is the "closed shop" system, and the idea of strong legal protections for unions.

Unions should be voluntary, as should employment. Right to work states

"Right to work" laws that prohibit closed shops are involuntary impositions on the collective bargaining process by the state. Very unlibertarian.

[RGBVideo]

Show me a country with strong unions and a huge underclass.

China.

Which company created a cadre of middle class citizens, capable of buying homes, cars, and college educations for their kids -- keeping alive the American dream of a class mobility and a better life for their children?

You might want to read through the early history of Ford Motor Corporation.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by VJ

China.

I thinks its fair to say that unions that are completely under the thumb of the State are not strong unions.

You might want to read through the early history of Ford Motor Corporation.

Excellent point. Ford was quite forward-looking in his labor practices, raising pay and cutting hours in order to retain workers, because he understood that worker turnover cost him even more. If every business believed those things, unions might not have been necessary. But for every Henry Ford there are dozens of Henry Fricks, and that's the problem.

[Ramo]

China.

Independent unions (i.e. ones that are run by actual workers) are illegal in China.

[RGBVideo]

Independent unions (i.e. ones that are run by actual workers) are illegal in China.

We all know that, but it doesn't relate to what he asked.

I thinks its fair to say that unions that are completely under the thumb of the State are not strong unions.

Both employers and employees have to do whatever the unions want them to do. State-supported unions are very strong unions, just not strong in supporting their workers.

[Ramo]

North Korea calls itself Democratic; that doesn't make it so.

What the PRC considers to be a "union" has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Oh, hell, VJ, I'm sure you knew what I meant. Just see my edit and discuss the substance rather than engaging in absurd nitpicking.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
A lack of unions does not create a giant underclass of poor people.

Unions were formed to counter the massive exploitations of captialists. Just read some Dickens to see how bad the working conditions were and how nasty the capitalists were.

If not for unions, you wouldn't get all these laws protecting workers and employees.

[David Floyd]

I implied nothing. I said that I'd held two very similar jobs in the 1980s, one union and one non-union.

Fine. Even still, though, I think we can both agree that neither wage was the norm, whether for union workers or non union workers.

The average wage in the US in 1985 was ~$19,000. So, the union job paid almost twice the national average, while the non-union job paid less than half the national average, for pretty much the same work.

I think most people would agree, though, that the $35k + benefits wage was artificially inflated, and out of actual proportion to the value of the labor being done (at least, the real market value of it).

Unions don't do it by themselves, but unions have played a huge role in creating class mobility and an ownership society, which helps a country prosper overall and keeps its democracy stable.

I already agreed that unions, in the past, have been beneficial. I don't think unions are the problem. I think the problem is a)closed shops, and b)job protection for striking workers, and/or unemployment liability falling on the employer if the strikers are fired.

Right now our middle class is shrinking, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, and class mobility is declining.

I think this probably has quite a bit to do with the decline of education in this country, specifically, the failure of public education. Further, much of that gap, on the lower end, has to do with people making poor choices, such as to commit crimes. Of course convicted criminals are going to remain poor, and crime is much higher now in this country than it was 50 years ago. I certainly don't think it's fair to see that the decline of unions is responsible for this - hell, the country has had a great deal of economic prosperity absent strong unions, which is a good thing. I stand by my original point, which is that unions running amok can stunt strong economic growth, in that they blow wages out of proportion to the value of the labor being performed, and provide negative incentives for quality work.

Absent unions, which is more likely: that corporations will somehow turn into a meritocracy for their low-level workers, or that companies will exploit the hell out of their workers? In answering, make sure to account for (1) US history, 1870-1917; (2) Walmart; (3) Every third world sh*thole on the planet.

1: Again, we're talking about NOW, and conditions in this country are different than in 1900.

2:My company, Best Buy, is a non-union company, yet wages for line level employees are competitive, and in many cases above, those of similar companies, in addition to having several other incentive plans and benefits for employees. A lack of a union does not necessarily lead to a Walmart-type environment.

3: Most third world ****holes are run by corrupt dictators. Their problem isn't a lack of unions, their problem is the fact that their country lies on the Equator in Africa. No significant resources, no strategic value, and tons of corruption don't exactly make for prosperity.

Ramo,

"Right to work" laws that prohibit closed shops are involuntary impositions on the collective bargaining process by the state. Very unlibertarian.

Bull****. Closed shops inhibit the ability of businesses to hire/fire employees based upon business needs. You're only looking at one side of the picture, that is, the wish of unions to artificially inflate wages and gain more members/dues. In the long run, this benefits no one, and certainly is not conducive to free contractual agreements between individuals.

Further, in Texas, even though an employee may be fired at will, they still retain the ability to file for unemployment, and the employer is liable if the termination is judged to be unfair.

[David Floyd]

Unions were formed to counter the massive exploitations of captialists. Just read some Dickens to see how bad the working conditions were and how nasty the capitalists were.

If not for unions, you wouldn't get all these laws protecting workers and employees.

I already agreed that unions were an important step to prosperity. I just think that they have been and can be taken too far. What is needed is balance, which is something a totally free market can provide, absent government regulation in favor of workers OR businesses.