Labor Unions

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Zkribbler



That's why unions should not be permitted to manage. It didn't work for the USSR; it didn't work for our corporations in the 60's that had a board seat or two reserved for union representatives.

Unions are good at representing their members, but bad at managing.

I only use Zkribbler's quote from another thread, because it somewhat epitomizes a common belief, with which I disagree.

Has anyone ever worked in a union shop? In the USA would be more true to my point.

For example, lets say you're a 25 year old machinist in a union. You're a prodigy at what you do. You like it, and enjoy doing it. You don't want to be involved at a managerial or supervising position. You want to work with your hands.

You'd be a Machinist III. Newbie. Doesn't matter how good you are. It's union. Unions serve senority.
Eventually, I would suspect that as time rolls on, this machinist prodigy would like to go up in level. More money.
The thing, you have groups of machinists ahead of you. Remember, longevity is to be served.

At this point, the only thing going to keep that machinist motivated, is pride in his work. No rewards of pay. Only pride.

Besides that, he has to keep that pride of work going, while senior union members show zip motivation. Why are they lazy? They're not going anywhere. Comes layoff? That prodigy is gone, leaving the lazyass senior union members still there.

Now I ask. How is that good for workers, and how is it good for a company?

I contend it's not.

[Zkribbler]

I contend that (a) your post has nothing to do with my post, (b) your problem with seniority has nothing to do with whether there's an agency shop and (c) your sterotypical assertion that employees with the most seniority are lazy is inaccurate.

[SlowwHand]

It's based on actual observation. Not hypothesis.

I wasn't flaming you; only using the statement that unions are good for the worker, as a starting point.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Labor Unions

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Now I ask. How is that good for workers, and how is it good for a company?

I contend it's not.

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.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I was . . . only using the statement that unions are good for the worker, as a starting point.

Labor unions are designed by humans and run by humans, so I can guarantee that there are going to be screw ups, inefficiencies and on rare occasions even criminal activity.

However, if you want a descent wage, safe working conditions and fair treatment, you are far better WITH a labor union than walking in with your hat in your hand and pleading, "Please sir, can I have some more?"

Just ask Lancer (when he gets back from the Phils) about his experience in asking for a raise after he'd busted his hump in order to prove his worth to the company.

[Wycoff]

Re: Labor Unions

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Besides that, he has to keep that pride of work going, while senior union members show zip motivation. Why are they lazy? They're not going anywhere. Comes layoff? That prodigy is gone, leaving the lazyass senior union members still there.

They could set up some sort of incentive job... they more the person does and the better quality the work, the more a person gets paid. That's how it works in my dad's factory. He's a member of the Steelworker's union. The workers work hard as hell to get the bonus money.

He was recently laid off for a year and a half. Prior to being laid off, he was making $13 an hour base pay, plus any extra he could make via incentives, plus health care and retirement (still less than the $20 an hour my grandfather was making doing the same job in 1980... but taking pay cuts was better than losing the job). When he was laid off, the best job he could get was $7 an hour, no benefits. It's pretty clear what makes a union job superior to non-union.

[David Floyd]

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

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

There's a reason unions drive companies out of business.

Seriously, though, which company posted higher profitability every quarter? The one that controlled payroll, or the one that got screwed by letting in unions? Just curious, and my assumption could be wrong, but I bet I know which company made more money. Ultimately, that's what's important.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by David Floyd


There's a reason unions drive companies out of business.

Seriously, though, which company posted higher profitability every quarter? The one that controlled payroll, or the one that got screwed by letting in unions? Just curious, and my assumption could be wrong, but I bet I know which company made more money. Ultimately, that's what's important.

Or,

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?

And which company swelled the ranks of the working poor?

[David Floyd]

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?

And which company swelled the ranks of the working poor?

If the company is driven out of business, or at least prevented from being an attractive investment opportunity because of high labor costs and a general inability to manage staffing effectively, this isn't relevant. I never said my assumption was right, just that if you don't find a way to reign in unions, the companies for which they work will be competed out of business.

And having an average wage 4x higher than the national average with full benefits strikes me as a union that has not been adequately reigned in.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by David Floyd


If the company is driven out of business, or at least prevented from being an attractive investment opportunity because of high labor costs and a general inability to manage staffing effectively, this isn't relevant. I never said my assumption was right, just that if you don't find a way to reign in unions, the companies for which they work will be competed out of business.

And having an average wage 4x higher than the national average with full benefits strikes me as a union that has not been adequately reigned in.

Your last paragraph is interesting for the slip it contains: the union jobs weren't making four times the national average; they were making four times the minimum wage. Hardly unions out of control.

And while both business are still in businiss, to teh best of my knowledge, you can argue that it would actually be easier to ship the non-union jobs overseas, because no one would fight to keep them.

In the end, though, it comes to this: would you rather live in Canada or Mexico? Would you rather have a large middle class and high class mobility, or a giant underclass of desparate, hopeless poor? Because whatever "logical" reasons there might be for opposing unions, the result is always to move the US a little farther away from Canada, and a little more toward Mexico. And that's not what I want for my country.

[David Floyd]

Your last paragraph is interesting for the slip it contains: the union jobs weren't making four times the national average; they were making four times the minimum wage. Hardly unions out of control.

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.

In the end, though, it comes to this: would you rather live in Canada or Mexico? Would you rather have a large middle class and high class mobility, or a giant underclass of desparate, hopeless poor? Because whatever "logical" reasons there might be for opposing unions, the result is always to move the US a little farther away from Canada, and a little more toward Mexico. And that's not what I want for my country.

Neither nation boasts a true free market, or even a market as free as that of the US. I wouldn't want to live in either country.

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.

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".

[SlowwHand]

Ship non union? What makes you think union jobs aren't? Is that what your local told you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

A lack of unions does not create a giant underclass of poor people.

... it kind of did back in the 19th Century before unions became accepted.

[David Floyd]

Yes, but we're talking about now. I also don't think anyone would argue that unions were either the sole cause of or sole solution to that problem.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, but we're talking about now. I also don't think anyone would argue that unions were either the sole cause of or sole solution to that problem.

They were probably the biggest solution to that problem, however. It is hard to determine 'sole' anything.