Unions: My IM debate w/ a co-worker today.

[smirkymonkey]

I was having a debate on IM w/ a co-worker today. She's not a rabid republican, in fact I can't really tell what she is. From her talking points, she seems to lean conservative, but is not a nut case. She's very intelligent and open to changing her mind.

Anyway, when the topic of labor came up, she said that unions were the reason that so many US jobs are being off-shored and that it was their fault that the US economy was in such bad shape. I said "Why do you assume it's the fault of the unions and not the greedy corporations that do not want to pay their employees a living wage and treat them fairly?" And why do the republicans make it so easy for US corporations to off-shore in the first place?

She didn't have a reply and I don't know if I convinced her. I know that my reply was a lame, weak argument and I am no expert on labor issues, but it was the best I could come up with at the time. What I would like from you guys is a better retort for that kind of anti-union nonsense.

FWIW, I straight out asked her if she voted for Trump and she said no, but she hoped she did the right thing. I don't think she voted for Hillary but I didn't press further because I do like and respect her. I suspect she probably voted for Johnson. Anyway, if you could help me develop that argument a bit I would appreciate it. Thanks!

[Jim__]

1. Suppose there were no unions and American workers didn't make decent wages.

Corporations would be paying us the minimal amount they could. So, as long as we accepted extremely low wages (less than is necessary to make a decent living), jobs would stay in the US. Would we actually be better off than we are with jobs leaving the country?

[smirkymonkey]

2. I completely agree with you.

I am for unions. But she was claiming that it was the fault of the unions that jobs were being off-shored and I was saying that it was the fault of the greedy corporations. She blamed labor and I blamed the 1% for squeezing every penny out of us. I guess I just want an explanation from someone with a little more depth.

I am sick of people blaming labor for our woes and I want an argument to defend them.

[Avalux]

13. There was a time, before unions.

My grandfather would tell you, worked 6 days a week, 12 hours or more a day for not a whole lot. Employees didn't have rights, they had no leverage at all. The 8 hour work week, weekends off - everything - is because of unions.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Not just wages. Without unions, you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all.

[Wounded Bear]

4. Germany....

strong labor unions, with high participation.

Successful large corporations in auto, solar, etc.

Decent economy, if they would drop the stupid austerity BS.

[MANative]

5. Personal experience with unions -

I'm an executive at a company that makes ladies' apparel and we have a small production room on-site where samples of the garments are made prior to being sent for manufacturing. We employ five union sample-hands who sew the pre-production garments for fit and evaluation. The youngest of them is 62, the eldest is 73. Average weekly pay is about $900, so not chump-change. The industry standard is that each sample-hand should be able to produce between three and five completed garments per week. The best one (the eldest) produces about two. The rest, we're lucky to get one completed garment each week, even acknowledging that they are complex (evening dresses). That means that the cost of producing each sample is a minimum of $700, more than triple what it should cost, and about six times what it would cost if we did our sample development overseas.

We're considering the purchase of another comparable company which also employs five sample-hands. They are not union. They make about $40 per week more than our team, and have the same benefits otherwise. Their productivity averages three to four garments per week per person.

We can't fire anyone unless they don't show up or steal from us. Period. The union tells us that reduced productivity is not sufficient reason to terminate anyone. No one ever quits or retires, but their performance continually declines, costing us more and reducing the quality of our product through the mistakes caused by failing skills, including diminished eyesight and hand-eye coordination. We do everything we can to help them, including providing specialized lighting and magnification tools, but when can we do what we need to in order to get the quality and production our business requires?

Our most obvious recourse to change things would be to shut down our sample production entirely, and send all sample development overseas, which is not what we want to do. It's helpful to have the room on-site for several reasons. The way the CBA is written, even if we shut down the room, they control our ability to hire people in that role IN PERPETUITY. We could shut down the room for ten years, then if we started it up again, the union would control employment for everyone in that category.

So as much of a liberal as I am, I see first-hand that unions can create big headaches for small to medium-sized businesses.They won't work with us to improve productivity to even get close to standard and they won't allow us to use that standard to execute the same kind of progressive disciplinary processes that we are able to use with other under-performing employees. Our only other choice is to hire more people, which further adds to costs that are already far higher than they should be.

[smirkymonkey]

9. Thank you for your perspective.

I really don't know much about them, so I appreciate your input.

[Doremus]

20. So your post-retirement-age employees could collect their pensions. Seems to me you could

sweeten the pot a bit and make retirement irresistible. Less expensive for you and decent fixed income after a lifetime of good service for them. Win-win.

Or you could do nothing and just bitch about unions.

[MANative]

21. That's exactly what we were hoping to do, but when we approached the union with that offer, they

balked and told the members that they shouldn't accept the package. I'd even prepared all the documentation with our attorney to prove the additional packages we were willing to give, including lump sum payments up to six months salary.

The union is smallish, and I'm fairly certain they are trying to ensure that people don't leave so they won't lose the dues. Even though we've told them - honestly - that we don't want to shut the room down, they are being obstinate. If we could get even two of these ladies to retire, we'd hire new people at about the same wage (can't vary by much due to the CBA) and they'd still get their dues. Very frustrating.

[lindysalsagal]

8. I have union member colleagues who hate unions.

It's irrational. No point in bothering. Hate is hate.

They're really just bigots, and the GOP gives their hatred a better impression to themselves.

[smirkymonkey]

10. I really don't know what to think. It seems to me that the opposition to unions is just about

corporate greed, but on the other hand I can see the problems with them as well. I have always worked in the corporate world so I am very unfamiliar with union labor. I was hoping that there were people here who could educate me a bit on this topic.

[lindysalsagal]

12. Collective bargaining means workers are treated legally and fairly

and are not set to compete against each other.

ONe worker cannot stand up to private business alone, but together, we have power to make them follow the collectively bargained rules, and state and federal laws.

[smirkymonkey]

15. Thanks for your input!

I appreciate it! I am just so tired of seeing American workers losing the little power that they have in favor of corporate profit.

[TrekLuver]

16. I googled it .....

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/why-we-can-all-stop-worrying-about-offshoring-and-outsourcing/274388/

http://www.cio.com/article/2414107/outsourcing/labor-union-attempts-to-measure-offshoring-s-impact-on-u-s--jobs.html

http://forbes.house.gov/uploadedfiles/crs_-_offshoring_and_job_loss_among_u_s__workers.pdf

[smirkymonkey]

17. Thank you for the links!

Very helpful!

[LWolf]

22. Good question,

at least the first one.

That other question: "...whly do the republicans make it so easy for US corporations to off-shore in the first place?"

That's not a republican thing. That's bipartisan. Neoliberal Democrats are just as guilty.