Unions: Dying relics of the past or needed more than ever?

[prolesunited]

Last week I posted a quiz on the plight of workers in the U.S. The questions most people tended to get wrong were the ones regarding unions. Another current I noticed in the thread was some general negativity toward unions (which did kind of surprise me.)

So, today I thought we could have a discussion about unions. In addition to learning and dispelling myths, perhaps you have some firsthand experiences you can share. I must admit I am biased in this discussion. My father was a union pipefitter who spent his life in the steel mills in Northwest Indiana.

On his union salary, he earned enough money so that my mother could stay home (not exactly a good thing for her, but that's another discussion) and raise six kids. We never had a lot, but we certainly had all that we needed, including health insurance. Now, he is retired with a small pension and supplemental insurance that includes prescription drug coverage. Without a union, I highly doubt any of this would have been possible.

I have some links and some good information I would like to share, but first I think it would be interesting to get a gauge of the experience and opinions of DUers.


Are you a member of a union?

Do you work in a field that is unionized at all?

How do you feel about unions in general?

How do you feel about working for companies that actively fight unionization?

How would you react to a union organizing drive at your workplace or in your field?

Would you actively support it, go along with it, or would you be indifferent or even hostile?

If you are in a non-unionized field, what is the relationship between management and the employees?

Special thanks to pmbryant for formulating the questions and helping track down resources.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Needed more than ever!

We don't need to go back to the gilded age when we had slavery, sweat shops, child labor, company stores that owned your soul.

Kucinich and Nader are both spot on when it comes to supporting unions. And that's one of the reasons why I like them so much.

[Taeger]

107. NEEDED MORE THAN EVER!!!! (nm)

[Screaming Lord Byron]

2. Real unions who stand up for the workers? - Needed

Useless unions who do nothing for anyone but a few workers who have been there for centuries and operate purely for their own gain while letting employers get away with murder? - Not so much.

[LincolnMcGrath]

10. A Union is only

as strong as its weakest Member.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

15. Yeah. The unions need to be reorganized and revitalized

the ones I've had experience of have lacked teeth of late.

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. ....the relationship between management and the employees?

If you don't own the company, you're an employee, even if they call you 'management'.

False dichotomy, encouraged by our 'labor' laws....

[Iverson]

4. a couple of thoughts

I have to be brief, but can offer this.

My personal experience in organized labor is more than most. Unions are essential in our country if we want to continue to have a middle class.

The policy of enthusiatsically cheering for economic globalization acts against the interests of organized labor. Both mainstream parties do this, although unions still have a voice in some places in the Democratic Party.

[enki23]

57. the only recourse may be to globalize labor

though they'll probably call you "terrorists" if you try

[prolesunited]

66. It is probably

the only real solution. However, many countries' governments are openly hostile to labor organizing and state-sponsored or state-condoned violence against union organizers and members is common.

In fact, look how much violence occurred in the U.S. in the early stages of the labor movement. Many of the things that we take for-granted, like child labor laws, work-place safety regulations and 40-hour weeks, were the direct result of a hard-fought struggle and some bloodshed.

We have to push our leaders into supporting FAIR trade, not free trade.

[madrchsod]

5. i was

in the iam in the 70`s when i worked at a steel drop forge shop. dam that was great-cost of living raises,etc. dam good union. then after the reagan years i got a job at northwestern steel and wire. so i became a steel union member for four years. that was nice to have a group of union guys who actually fought for your rights! nws&w no longer exists. i`ve worked in non union shops also and i `ll take a union shop any day.but since i live in ronnieland area there`s not many union shops left. most of the union members around here are the public employes,fire,police,county workers,teachers. most factory workers around here really don`t care if they are union or not.

[prolesunited]

6. Why do you think the factory workers

don't care anymore? Have any theories? Were they prevented from organizing or did they simply swallow the company line?

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. I think it's the company line

It seems like the folks who sound like they are being screwed over most by the companies they work for are the ones who fight hardest against unions.

They really buy the idea that NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO is somehow GOOD for their jobs, that trickle down economics really works, and that unions actually take money and benefits away from them! x(

[salin]

31. They ought to compare their wages to union wages

and subtract the union dues to see if they would really lose money to the union (net) by being in a union. Then compare the economic value of benefits had by union members (eg health insurance, etc.) compared to their own benefits - add those to the wages for the comparison...

Then they should look at how much gain in wages they have received in real dollars (controlling for inflation/cost of living increases) now compared to pre NAFTA, GATT, WTO... and how much wage increases they have received since the various trickle down (bush2) tax cuts have gone into effect.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. To be fair

They need to take into account the possibility of work stoppages and strikes if they are union and weigh them against the chance they will lose their job otherwise.

Then they need to take into account how the union would help them personally. Many unions have been more supportive of veteran workers and less so to newer employees. If you are a newer employee, the odds are you are not going to stay working for the employer your whole career. Actually, this point is one of the biggest changes that have hurt unions.

[prolesunited]

149. Here's actual facts

Myth: Unions force workers out on strike often.
Fact: Workers vote whether or not to strike in most unions. Ninety-seven percent of contract negotiations are settled without a strike. No one ever wants a strike.

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutunions/joinunions/myths.cfm


Frankly, with only 3 percent of contract negotiations ending in strikes, I would love to take my chances because the odds are certainly in my favor — particularly with the pay differential depicted in this chart.

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutunions/joinunions/whyjoin/uniondifference/uniondiff5.cfm

[Muddleoftheroad]

172. As I said

They need to take BOTH into account -- chances of strike and firings. However, some of those strikes are doozies. I imagine those Safeway workers aren't too happy right now.

[LeahMira]

69. Not really either one...

Were they prevented from organizing or did they simply swallow the company line?

The company has all sorts of ways to get back at union members after a dispute is settled.

I belonged to the teachers' union when I was teaching and one thing the teachers wanted was to have some imput into the decision making about which textbook series would be used in the classroom. I forget exactly how the agreement was worded now (it's been well over 20 years), but it ended up with our principal asking each of us to individually order the paper and pencils, etc. for our own classrooms and of course none of us had ever counted out exactly how many sheets of construction paper we used per year. I'm sure that in other occupations, other bosses have come up with other strategies.

I think that since the Reagan administration went after the air traffic controllers union, people have come to realize that there are at least a hundred people out there waiting in line for a job who will take whatever they can get. Of late, that situation has become even more desperate. To a large extent, I feel that is because the American workers abandoned their unions, which has led to a concentration of wealth and power instead of a more equitable sharing with the rank and file. Nonetheless, workers are seeing their jobs sent overseas, and they are scared.

The UPS workers had a successful strike not too long ago that impressed me because the full-time employees were standing behind the part-timers. I had hoped that particular action would inspire other unions to take back some of their power, but apparently not.

I don't think workers are especially greedy and only looking out to keep what they can get these days, but I do think they see the unemployment numbers going up and think that this is just not the time to make waves.

[LincolnMcGrath]

13. Hehe I worked at the mill too!

What dept. were you in?

[maveric]

87. "Bread and Roses". Interesting union story from my hometown.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45b/073.html

I remember my great grandfather and grandfather(who was 7 and cleaned machines), told me stories of this strike that paved the way for many more unions and strikes that gave workers a little more than the slave wages and conditions they had been subjected too.

[LatteLib]

8. Like you, I grew up in NW Indiana and my father was a union

employee at USS. My husband is a retired teamster. Thanks to him belonging to the union, we have a pension and he made a good living.
I don't think a lot of people understand what individuals sacrificed that started unions. Without their unity, people wouldn't be making benefits, hourly wage, vacations with pay, retirement with benefits and safe work conditions. I am sure there are plenty of other things that I forgot to mention.
I don't understand why anyone that is working class would vote republican. Unions have lost a lot of their strength ever since the Reagan administration busted down the air traffic controllers.
My husband and I often felt that if all union members decided to stick together and when one union takes a hit, as the ATC's did, all the unions would stand behind them and strike as well, they would have no choice but to negotiate and produce a better contract for the workers. Alas, that won't happen. It may have had a chance in days gone by but, these days, too many people are in debt up to their eyeballs between mortgages, utilities, car payments, insurance, credit cards and of course, people have to eat, have clothing and send kids to school.
I fear the direction that the country is headed. It seems to be going backward when it comes to corporations and workers, especially with the new overtime scams that the bush administration has cooked up to get people to work more hours for the same pay as their normal work week.
This November election is so important. I hope the working class will get out and vote. I hope the working class people that voted for bush in 2000 have come to their senses and vote to help their own families.
Time will tell.....

[Jose Diablo]

12. The outlawing of sympathy strikes

weakened union's bargaining position. It was another way used by corporations to diminish the market position of labor.

What troubles me is why did union leaders allow corporations gain control of the government. It is like the leaders, including the union, were on the corporations payroll.

Unions are needed. Now more than ever before.

[ret5hd]

9. my answers:

1 & 2: yes, proud member of TWU for 19 yrs, aircraft mech.

3: (The following statements only refer to U.S. unions, as i don't know enough about canadian, mexican, or other countries unions. They are also referring to the union movement as a whole. Individual unions, locals, state umbrella groups may be better off than i portray.)

The union structure has stagnated. This stagnation is caused by the movement willingly co-opting itself to capitalism. The AFL-CIO has willingly allied itself with the CIA and its whole bag of dirty tricks in South America and elsewhere. Low wage sectors of the economy are completely ignored, even though these are the very workers that need organization the most.

4: A person does what he needs to put food on the table, but i would subvert a company like this at every turn. That said, if it involved crossing a picket line--NEVER!!

5 & 6: Funny you should ask. We have one going on right now. But we are already unionized! Rather than spending time and effort on organizing a group that needs it, we have an outside union wasting time trying to get us to switch unions. So in this case, i am hostile. It is a waste of 2 unions time and effort that could be better spent organizing someone who really needs it.

7: N/A

[Lab Owner]

11. They've gone too far

I've lurked here for a long, long time, but (not being much of a joiner) was never tempted to register until now. I joined just to reply to this topic!

My experience is this: I live in a small town that's fairly isolated. In other words, if you want to live here, you are limited as to job opportunities, unless you want to drive considerable distances. Thirty years ago this was a blue collar paradise. Lots and lots of good-paying jobs for people of (shall we say) limited skills and education. The unions put most of those companies out of business. A friend of mine told me that her husband was a union employee at a company whose owner TOLD the guys that he was running so close to the edge that a strike would put him under. They thought he was bluffing and went out on strike anyway. He went out of business and when the union went to him and said they'd take whatever he was willing to give them, he said it was way too late. The company is gone.

Today our major employer is a NA casino that pays between $6 and $8 per hour. My husband's paper company (he's salaried, just so you know) pays as much as $23 her hour. Two years ago the union there went on strike and one of these $23/hour clowns had the nerve to stand on the picket line in a gorilla suit with a sign saying the company expected him to work for "bananas!" They were within weeks of being permanently closed as a result of that strike. The "deal" that the union negotiated actually took the guys backwards. They gave up the signing bonus that was offered if they would have avoided the strike, lost several weeks wages, and gave up some stuff for a COLA, which has been known to go down.

The union defends people who do outrageous stuff that endangers peoples' lives and limbs, just because they have to stand behind every member, regardless of what he or she does. They got a guy rehired who had done some stupid thing that had damaged a machine and potentially cost the company millions of dollars.

I know that unions did a lot of good in the past, but they're no longer needed.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Welcome out of lurkdom

I agree that Unions have to resort their priorities, but disagree that they are no longer needed. We just need to get them back to their roots.

[prolesunited]

16. Thanks for registering

and weighing in on this topic. I hope you will continue to remain with the discussion here today. Perhaps we can learn something from you and perhaps you can learn something from us.

How do you feel about WalMart, which if I'm not mistaken is now one of the nation's largest employers, and their ongoing position on preventing workers from organizing there? Do you think a union would help or harm the workers there.

[Lab Owner]

24. This topic interests me immensely--

--so I plan to stay with it, for sure.

Wal-Mart. I know you all hate Wal-Mart with a passion. And I don't know what they pay, or what their current benefits are. But a neighbor of mine once worked at a WM, and, if I recall, she was very pleased with her benefits, especially the profit-sharing and/or stock plan. I think there's a place and a need for companies like Wal-Mart. I think they provide an entry into the working world for young people, or people (like me) who may be returning to the work world after a lengthy absence raising kids, or whatever. Or for someone wishing to supplement a spouse's income. I guess I feel that we're not a one-size-fits-all world. If Wal-Marts would all unionize, a lot of them would disappear, along with a lot of jobs that people need and actually appreciate. Just my opinion.

[prolesunited]

29. I have to leave for work now

so I don't have time to fully deal with this but I'll get back to it later.

Wal-Mart's wages are often so low that their workers often receive food stamps and free medical coverage. In essence, the taxpayers are subsidizing them so their five Walton children can remain among the wealthiest people in the country.

I have no problem with people amassing wealth, but not upon the backs of people who made that possible. I'm sure some DUers can provide more information on how WalMart exploits its workers. And the fact that it puts American workers out of jobs by importing everything from China also hurts everyone.

And believe me, WalMart will NOT disappear if they paid their workers a living wage.

[Odessey]

136. Walmart, unions

First of all, our 24-hour Walmart has been closed for the last three days because the roof caved in from all of the ice and heavy snow we've had. My son, who is in college, works part time at a local grocery store. His boss called TWICE today and left messeges because they are so swamped - which they haven't been since Walmart came in!

I admit, I shop at Walmart. My income is prohibitive - even educated with a degree I don't make that much, and Walmart has it's place. I try to shop at the local grocery stores as much as possible, but I get some things at a much lower price at Walmart. I have to add, the union nearly put the grocery store that my son works at out of business several years ago even before Walmart came in.

Second, I come from a long line of coal-miners. And, believe me, the union mentality is strong in my family. But I am quickly losing my respect for unions. I don't like to be told how to vote, I don't like the unrealistic expectations and demands, and I don't like the strong-arm tactics and harassment. I still see a need for coal-miners unions and steelworkers unions - and other jobs where safety is a major issue, but jobs like grocery-store clerk and department store clerks are not meant to be living-wage jobs. I worked at those kinds of jobs in college. If I needed to make more money, I picked up a second job.

Finally, I am a supervisor at my job. I make $17,000 a year. I don't have a union backing me up. Isn't 'supervisor' supposed to be one of those jobs that makes victims of 'the working people'? Well, guess what, I'M a working people too, and I don't have a union running interference for me. Of course, the alternative is clear. If I don't like my job (which I do), I am perfectly free to seek another one - if I'm willing to move!

Just last month, my boss tried her darndest to get all of us in my office a raise - including the two people in our office who were union. They would have been really decent raises too!. Ya know what? The UNION would not let those two people have a raise!!! None of the rest of us got one either, but at least the union should have fought for its two members! THEY are paying union dues!

Sorry for the rant, but I get really upset when somebody making $20.00 an hour in a union job complains about NOT MAKING ENOUGH MONEY!! I don't begrudge those folks their income - they've earned it, I'm sure. But please don't look at me with a straight face and complain about your income!

Flame away!

[LincolnMcGrath]

140. I'm sorry that America has come so far backward

Starting pay 1975 Northwestern Steel and Wire $12.75 per hr.

Starting pay Ipsco steel 2004 $9.00 per hr.

Real wages have been in decline for 30 years, and you MOST certainly are begrudging their higher pay.

Union grocers due make a living wage, And to call these service jobs only temporary is putting an awful spin on a real problem. Working two jobs is not the American way.

I have been a supervisor as well. Living in a country where shareholders are more important than stakeholders is what makes victims of our workforce.

I get upset when Tom Delay whines that he can't make a living on $187.000 per year. Nice to know where your loyalty lies

[yankeedem]

162. Take a look at what you said

You said that these union workers make $20/hour, you make $8.50/hr. So that is your argument for NOT liking unions? It would make me want to sign up!

[LincolnMcGrath]

18. Congrats to them for turning down

a signing bonus. They are often a bad deal for the workers.

So how many workers make $23.00 an hr? Just the highest skilled maint. workers? Is $23.00 an hour really a huge wage in your area?. How many get hurt, disabled, disfigured in the paper mill? The ones I`ve been in are horrific places to earn a living.

[Lab Owner]

28. Not sure about numbers . . .

But even their lower paying jobs pay a whole lot more than the casino. And, yes, $23/hour is a LOT of money here. Especially when you consider that they can choose to work a lot of overtime, at time-and-a-half, if they work holidays they can get double time, there are guaranteed minimums for call-in (i.e. 4 hours of pay for being there 20 minutes,) etc. My husband is in charge of the payroll, so he knows these things. Because of seniority on call-ins they often have to call several people in (and pay them for doing literally nothing) before they can actually get a person who is willing or able to do the job.

There are injuries occasionally, but those are usually preventable if people follow the procedures. He recently told me about some woman (at a different mill) whose hair got caught in a machine, ripping her scalp off. A horrendous injury, but it wouldn't have happened if she had had her hair tied back or under her hard hat as per OSHA regulations.

[LincolnMcGrath]

35. A perfect example of a company

with an inferior safety program. "a different mill"

The scalping is not folklore. Not paper mills either, the scalpings took place in an Orlando area factory in 01-02. Three Victims.

[Lab Owner]

39. Nope.

Just within the last couple of weeks, and a paper mill owned by the same company as the one my husband works at. It probably happens fairly often. Again, preventable accidents. Even if it wasn't a company rule or OSHA regulation, common sense would have prevented it.

[LincolnMcGrath]

49. Post a link plz

Oh Yes! Common Sense and Personal Responsibility!
Common Sense and Personal Responsibility!
Common Sense and Personal Responsibility!

Have you ever been hurt? Inside or outside of work?

[Lab Owner]

56. Sorry, don't have a link

It's something my husband told me about. It came through on an official company "safety letter," (which comes in monthly, detailing all company accidents.) This one included such details as the woman's medical treatment and pictures of the machine. Of course, he could be lying to me, I suppose.

Anyway, what's your point? It happens. It's not "folklore." It's a REAL problem, and a horrendous injury.

And, what's wrong with Common Sense and Personal Responsibility? Life is definitely better with them than without them.

Yes, I have been hurt--doing something stupid. I was standing on a chair cleaining off the top of my refrigerator and I fell off and broke my leg in three places. I blamed no one but myself and I learned never to do that again.

[LincolnMcGrath]

65. I know it isn't folklore

I have over a decade in workplace safety programs. It is a real problem. You attacked the injured victim saying common sense could have prevented it.

"What's wrong with Common Sense and Personal Responsibility?" Nothing, they are as important as corporate responsibility, Though we rarely hear of company misdeeds until someone is dead or gravely injured.

[Lab Owner]

71. "Attacked" the victim????

I merely pointed out what should be obvious to anyone. The danger of having long hair around machinery is a known problem, hence there is, and has been, a company rule about long hair being tucked into a hat. There are also OSHA regs for the same reason. In addition, anyone who knows what machines can do to loose clothing, body parts, or even hair would have known this, even if there were no rules or regulations. This particular woman CHOSE to ignore company rules and OSHA and common sense and have her hair hanging down where it got caught in a machine. I'm not saying she deserved it. Just that a little forethought could have prevented a lot of pain. I think the company did all it could under the circumstances to prevent that accident. What should they do--have the Hair Police running around writing tickets? Or giving on the spot haircuts?

[LincolnMcGrath]

72. Not all dangers are obvious to all.

Apparently it wasn't that OBVIOUS to her. You think you could carry my tool belt and NOT GET HURT?

Yes, smart employers would have disciplined her for the hair violation, If they had a rule. Not a hair police, only an effective safety policy/program.

[Lab Owner]

83. There is really only so much a company can do

I know that the workers are trained in safety procedures. I know the supervisors are trained to look out for safety violations. I know that even my husband, an accountant, has to go to monthly safety meetings. I know each location has a safety director who is charged with seeing that safety procedures are implemented and followed. I know that they provide financial incentives to avoid accidents. And, believe it or not, companies don't want to see their workers injured or kill, if for no other reason than that it really isn't cost effective.

That said, I don't know what went wrong in this case. Maybe a supervisor hadn't seen her that morning. Maybe fellow workers never noticed that her hair was loose. Or, if they did, maybe they didn't want to "narc" on her over her hair. There is only so much management can do. They can't (and shouldn't have to) follow each employee around to make sure he or she is dotting every "i" and crossing every "t."

Kind of funny story: This mill provides summer employment for the college student children of its employees. It's a good deal. They get $12/hour (WAY more than any other summer job around here) for "make work" tasks. They have a bomb shelter/fallout shelter at the mill and one of the summer students was given the task of cleaning it out. At the time, every employee was about to receive a quarterly safety bonus of several hundred dollars because there had been no loss-time accidents for that quarter. Well, this idiot kid was down there with all these ancient cans of food, and wondered if any of it was still good. He broke open a can with a shovel, reached into the can, cut his hand on the jagged edge, needed a few stitches, and BLEW the safety bonus for everyone. You simply cannot prevent stupidity.

[LincolnMcGrath]

86. "no loss-time accidents for that quarter"

Sounds like the employees DO take an interest in safety!

Does it bother you that college kids make a semi-decent wage for a few months? If not why bring it to the table?
I see nothing funny in taking hundreds of dollars away from all those families.

[Lab Owner]

93. Safety & summer jobs

"Does it bother you that college kids make a semi-decent wage for a few months? If not why bring it to the table?"

Of course not! My older boy has spent a summer working at the mill, and will again. My younger one (high school senior) will probably work there every summer. As for it being "a semi-decent wage" I guess that's all in your perspective. Around here most summer jobs pay only minimum wage. $12/hour is a considerable amount of money for college kids, and goes a long way toward tuition and costs, especially at a public college. I brought it to the table to point out that this is an employee benefit that the company gives out of a sense of generosity. It was not negotiated, and it is in no contract. Since it isn't open to the public you can't even call it community relations.

"I see nothing funny in taking hundreds of dollars away from all those families."

Since my family was one of those that didn't get the $$$, if I can find it at least slightly amusing I don't see why you can't. Besides, the money wasn't "taken away." It was THROWN AWAY--by one stupid, stupid kid. I'm just saying that you can't predict every brainless act. Should they have had training programs to teach summer students not to bust open rusty old cans with shovels and then reach inside? Actually, cutting his hand probably saved his life. He probably would have died of ptomaine poisoning if he'd had the chance to actually eat the food. (And you know he would have!)

[LincolnMcGrath]

96. Hiring preference clauses are in most contracts

It is most certainly about community relations.
Stocking shelves at Save a Lot, and working in a paper mill are worlds apart.

We agree that safety money should not be pulled from everyone because of one. New employees, especially summer help need extra attention at all times.

[Lab Owner]

99. Actually, we don't agree

That was contractual. The entire mill has to go without a loss-time or nobody gets the bonus. Simple as that. Personally, I think the mom should have considered that her kid is a jackass and kept him out of the mill, but that's just my opinion.

Don't know what you mean about hiring preferences clauses. Are you saying that hiring summer students is in the union contract? I can tell you for a fact that it isn't. Otherwise the kids of salaried employees wouldn't be eligible.

And, like I said, the summer jobs are make-work jobs that are no more dangerous than Save A Lot. The kids paint, weed flower beds, my boy did a little computer work. They really don't have the kids anywhere near the machines.

[LincolnMcGrath]

106. Did the company sign the contract?

Did the Union sign it too?

I do not feel one mistake should cost everyone money, do you? Keeping 'lost' time rates low is extremely important.

Why wouldn't salaried kids be eligible to work? Hiring Preference clauses across the nation include sons and daughters of ALL employees, and HAVE for decades. I hope you are basing your "fact" on more than that.

[Lab Owner]

110. What?

Maybe my synapses are firing a little slowly today, or something, but I think I'm missing something . . .

I don't know what you mean about hiring preferences clauses. Really. I know that there have been times when the summer students haven't been hired. At all. It appears to be the general manager's prerogative to hire or not. So that when they have a GM who doesn't have college kids of his own, no one's kids get the jobs. I guess that's why I'm pretty sure it isn't in the union contract.

As for the safety bonus, I've really never given it a lot of thought. My husband has worked at a number of different paper mills and they have all had the same policy regarding safety bonuses. Maybe it's based on a peer pressure theory. Maybe they think workers will police each others' safety if they have a financial stake in it. Don't know. Whatever, it does seem to work. Loss-time accidents don't happen all that often, at least not here.

[LincolnMcGrath]

113. It is always a management decision to hire new help.

You said it can't be in the contract or salaried kids wouldn`t be here.
The preference clauses do not state that they have to hire every summer, it says if they do, we the work force(see everyone) would like you to employ our children first.

Keeping lost time injury rates below a certain target is more fair and every bit as effective. My cuurent company/union safety policy strives to keep lost time injury rates at zero, but does not punish everyone for the occasional anomoly. Like an outside contractor hurting themselves or a company employee.

[Odessey]

138. OH PLEASE!

The people who have those jobs in that awful, horrible paper mill you describe are probably very glad to be working there! Lots of jobs are not pleasant and are downright dirty, sweaty and backbreaking - but they allow you to put food on the table and keep a roof over your head. And yes, $23.00 an hour IS a whole lot where most of us live! Do you know how many communities would LOVE to have that paper mill to give employment to its citizens? Geez - give em' an inch and they want a mile!

[LincolnMcGrath]

141. No I want a mile for you!

Union scale brings up everyones wage.

$23.00 per hr may seem grand to some but how many jobs cause you to go deaf, lose your lungs and die before you retire?

Oh wait they should be happy to work there, I forgot. Get rid of unions and your 17k will drop to 12k overnight.

[ramapo]

22. Responsible unions are needed

It's a tough situation...

My first jobs back in the '70s were all in union shops. I've been a member of the musician's union, the service employee's union as a cemetary worker, and the machinist's union as a stock clerk.

I felt then that I didn't get much for my dues, especially as a musician. Reflecting back, the other jobs were pretty good paying with decent benefits and some protection from arbitrary management actions.

This was about the time that unions started to get a bad name. Corruption, unfair demands that impeded profits. Certainly true to an extent. Lab Owner's example is one that shows how some workers need a reality check.

I don't think there is any question that many workers work in safer and healthier environments with better benefits because of the efforts of their union. Many government regulations that protect workers would not exist had it not been for the unions.

[LincolnMcGrath]

30. Sounds more like folklore to me

"Did ya hear about the drunk union crane operator? He killed 27 people!"
Company corruption outpaced union troubles 20 to 1 in the early eighties

Do we give a reality check to middle managers who make huge mistakes? Are CEOs disiplined for leading cos. down the drain? I cant remember all the times I have had a front line supervisors try to tell me how to do my job over the years. Not only were their ideas often wrong, they were usually dangerous as well.
.

[ret5hd]

25. In reply to: ..did a lot of good in the past, but they're no longer needed

No longer needed where?

In the meatpacking plants or slaughterhouses, arguably the most dangerous work environments in the U.S.? I believe the unions are needed there more than ever, and not just to organize and protect the workers. Unions in this industry could be at the forefront of the drive to improve the food safety of the U.S. consumer, much as they were at the forefront of child labor laws and the 8 hour workday. The unions were strongest when they fought for the needs of ALL Americans, not just the members. (It can be argued that this was also their downfall, being as everyone benefitted while only a few fought.)

Or maybe in the construction industry, where OSHA has abdicated from its role in worker safety and year after year people are killed in trench cave-ins? Many unions perceive one of their main goals as getting their members home alive.

Anyway, I believe they are needed now more than ever...BUT...many have to rethink their priorities.

[Lab Owner]

37. You could be right

My experience is limited, admittedly.

I don't know what you mean about OSHA abdicating its worker safety role. From what I've heard (again, limited knowledge) there are REAMS of regulations concerning EVERYTHING imaginable. Often accidents happen because companies are lax about complying, or workers ignore OSHA regs and company policies to take short cuts.

[ret5hd]

51. OSHA has been raped of money and power

sure, lots and lots of regs, but no money for investigation or power to prosecute those found in non-compliance.

research Tyler Pipe (if you can find it, there is even a very interesting documentary about this company, though I can't remember the name)

research the odds of an OSHA inspector showing up unannounced at a company (0%)

research the odds of an OSHA inspector showing up unannounced at a company and then being admitted entrance to the company grounds (0%)

research the odds of an OSHA inspector calling to make an appointment to do an inspection (close to 0%)

research the difference between OSHA fines allowed for a particular offense and the fines initially levied and the fines actually paid.

[LincolnMcGrath]

63. "fines initially levied and the fines actually paid"

One of my favorite topics.

Great post ret5hd

[rman]

52. no protection needed wrt overtime, outsourcing, low wage replacement?

Isn't it obvious that corporate interests are opposite of workers interests, and that the only way for workers to protect their interests is to unite? Any individual worker has no chance against a corporation.
Where do you think things like 40 hour work-week, minimum wage and protection against child labor come from? Those things were achieved against the wishes of the corporations.

[alarimer]

78. "Nickel and Dimed"

Reaq this book by Barbara Ehrenreich (not sure I spelled it right). It will tell you a LOT about how Walmart operates. Most of the employees cannot actually afford the health insurance on their wages. They amke people work off the clock. There have been several lawsuits. And the documentary about Tyler Pipe is also quite revealing.

[Lab Owner]

85. My college student son had to read that book

As I recall, it was a big eye-roll for him. Can't remember all of his comments, but I do remember him saying that for the sake of writing a book, the author was taking jobs that other people needed. The book is around here somewhere and I will find it and read it. Never heard of Tyler Pipe. Can you give me some details?

Question: Why does everyone here have it in for Wal-Mart and not K-Mart or Target or other discount stores?

[IrateCitizen]

89. Because Wal-Mart is vehemently anti-union, anti-employee

They don't pay a living wage, engage in either borderline or blatantly illegal union-busting, wipe out all other businesses in every town they move into, get most of their goods from Chinese sweatshop labor, don't offer decent, affordable health benefits (so employees have to go on medicaid)...

Target and KMart, while not great companies, come nowhere near the rapacious nature of Wal-Mart. Shall I go on, or is this enough for you.

I'm sure that someone could get you a few links to all of this too -- it's been posted here many times before.


PS -- your son said it was an "eye roll" for him? Perhaps he might like to focus on the plight of the workers of which Ehrenreich writes (living in cars or 5 to a hotel room, skipping meals, not reporting injuries, etc.) rather than deride the author for trying to get a first-person perspective. I would highly suggest you read it yourself.

[Lab Owner]

97. Questions

How much is a living wage? And if Wal-Mart paid whatever you consider a living wage, would you that be good enough, or would you still think that they need to unionize?

As I posted above, I had a friend who worked at Wal-Mart, and it suited her needs just fine. I especially remember her talking about her employee stock plan. It really did sound like a great deal, long term.

There are lots of people for whom a Wal-Mart job is an OK thing. Kids needing a part time job, people who have benefits through a spouse, people who don't want to work a 40-hour, 8 to 5 job. I sure wouldn't want to support a family on it, but I'm willing to bet that most of their employees don't have to.

[LincolnMcGrath]

101. It is about more than money

It is about wm not allowing union made stickers on their shelves.
It is about wm not providing benefits to its workers.
it is about wm breaking labor laws over and over.
It is about wm locking employees in at night.
It is about wm forcing its suppliers to convert to RFID now or else.
It is about holding workers at 39 hrs so they are only part-time.
It is about making people work off the clock to keep their job.
It is about wm keeping the economy booming....... in CHINA.

It is the Walton offspring amassing the greatest fortune in our land in less than a generation, why the workers who brought them that wealth live below poverty level.

[jmowreader]

144. Was it Wal-Mart or Gillette that initiated the RFID thing?

I'm probably remembering this wrong, but IIRC it was a collaborative effort because the shrink on Mach3 razor blades is unbelievably high. Something like 65 percent. In other words, for every 100 packs of these blades that leaves the store, 35 of them were paid for.

And as shrink-paranoid as Wal-Mart is, I have a feeling that Health and Beauty is the department they give to a DH they're trying to get rid of. Three months in that department and you've got plenty of cause for termination.
"Mary, you didn't get the shrink down in the razor blade department, so we're going to let you go."
"Mark, the only way to get the shrink down in the razor blade department is to stand beside it with a gun. So screw you, I already got a job playing piano in a whorehouse."

[LincolnMcGrath]

145. Wal-Mart commits billions to RFID

"On June 11, Linda Dillman dropped a bomb on the retail industry.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s CIO announced that, as of January 2005, the world's largest retailer would require its top 100 suppliers to put radio frequency identification (RFID) tags on all pallets and cases they ship to its distribution centers and stores. The news sent suppliers and competitors scrambling to learn about the wireless technology, which enables companies to identify and track items in the supply chain automatically." - from Case Study

[wvnatv]

118. What is a living wage?

[rhino47]

150. Well 7.20 is considered a living wage .

heres the link.take the test.http://bernie.house.gov/economy/today.asp>

[prolesunited]

164. No link in your post

:shrug:

Actually, a true living wage would vary based on the cost of living.

[mac56]

102. Wal-Mart famously locked horns with meatcutter's union in Texas.

As I recall, they fought that union tooth and nail. When it became apparent they wouldn't win, Wal-Mart closed down tons of the meat departments in their Texas stores rather than have to negotiate!

File under: cutting off your nose for face-spiting purposes.

edited for detail

[prolesunited]

132. I'm glad that you and your son

have had the good fortune not to struggle through life that you can simply "roll your eyes" at the daily struggle millions of people are going through in this country. Frankly, if I had a child who could be so dismissive of other people's pain and suffering, I would wonder if I had missed teaching him some valuable lessons.

But, I guess it's easier to go through life with blinders on and not have to confront such fundamental issues. There was a time in my life that I lived the "Nickle and Dimed" life. I was lucky. I got out. Was it because I worked harder or was so much better. No, I got a lot of breaks. Instead of having a "screw you, I got mine and I'm keeping it" attitude, I want to provide others with a lifeline and make sure others don't have to go through the same hardships.

I wish all of those who condemn the poor and believe that they are somehow totally responsible for their lot in life would have to spend a week in their world. I'm sure they would walk away with a totally different perspective.

[Unforgiven]

17. Union, Yes!

Thank God for Our Union (AFSCME), Without it we would already be out of our jobs here in Jebworld. It's the only hope State workers have right now to survive another day!

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Unions must change to survive

More and more employees feel that they are smart enough to be a union of one. Unions tend to rule professions that require less education, but as more and more Americans get college degrees, that will need to change.

Somehow they need to speak to those who tune them out.

[Gringo]

23. Millions with degrees work for a pittance

if we're lucky enough to find jobs. I'm one of them. As a translator, I'm forced to compete with translators overseas who will do the work at half the price. I don't reject unions, but I wonder how they could help me when the "scabs" are at a computer in some other country?

[Lab Owner]

34. Have you ever gotten fan mail? ;-)

I've read your posts for months, and always know that when I see your monicker I will read something intelligent and thought-provoking, and often much more (gulp!) conservative than most people on this board seem willing to tolerate. I applaud your courage in stating your opinions in the face of criticism!

That said, this time I'm not real sure what you're saying about being a "union of one." Would you mind elaborating?

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Self interest

First off, I am, as my monicker suggests, a moderate. But thanks for the compliments. How that plays out here is sometimes I wildly agree -- gay rights for example. Sometimes, I wildly disagree.

Here, I am trying to point out that most new workers feel they can better handle their career, their negotiations, etc. on their own. Hence a union of one.

Unlike the old days, employees don't spend their whole careers with one business. Sure, it does happen, but nowhere near like it used to. That means, if you feel you are getting a raw deal one place, you simply move on.

[pmbryant]

70. "Union of one"

Here, I am trying to point out that most new workers feel they can better handle their career, their negotiations, etc. on their own. Hence a union of one.

Unlike the old days, employees don't spend their whole careers with one business. Sure, it does happen, but nowhere near like it used to. That means, if you feel you are getting a raw deal one place, you simply move on.

I think you may be correct that most "new workers" feel this way. Unfortunately, they are wrong. And I suspect that after they are no longer so new, many of them realize that. (Alas, not enough, thanks to massive anti-union propaganda.)

It simply makes no sense that an individual would be able to negotiate better than a group. (This would only be the case if the individual is willing and able to undermine the group in some way that would benefit the employer.)

Moving on to a new company doesn't help if you are still negotiating as an individual. You are just as impotent, and just as likely to be screwed over, in a new place. Even if you are so fortunate as to find an organization willing to treat you with respect, there is absolutely no guarantee this will continue. Forfeiting control over one's life and career to other people who have very different interests is a poor decision (as I think any business-person would recognize).

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. Quality individuals CAN do better

And most workers like to see themselves in that category.

If you are an OVERachiever, then a union brings you down to the mean.

[LincolnMcGrath]

77. NOT true

Trade unionists are regularly paid over-scale wages to hold them on a particular job site. I was promoted to foreman on a $100 million dollar resort with less then a year in my local. That meant a $4 dollar/hr raise, and a gator to drive around. Even in the manufacturing sector hourly workers are paid extra to be team-leaders, temp foreman, etc.
This sounds like the old merit myth.

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. Yes, true

And on this point we will simply have to disagree.

I believe I do better careerwise on my own. I know others who feel the same. One important point is that this is heavily dependent on type of industry. Unions are stronger in some areas and weaker in others.

[IrateCitizen]

82. I'd say it's in keeping with your general philosophy, Muddle...

I'm not saying that in a denigrating way, I just see it as a point of contention in which we'll never agree.

You look at things from a much more individualistic sense. Which is fine, but there reaches a point at which individualism can be quite detrimental to the common good. (See the Gilded Age for a shining example, or Dickensian England)

More of us here look at things from a more social perspective, focusing on ensuring that people are not left seriously behind in the pursuit of "overachievement" by a few individuals.

Like I said, I think this is a major origin of many of our disputes -- and it's better to just leave it at that.

[cryofan]

100. Also, most of us here look at it from a STATISTICAL perspective...

....we KNOW that the law of averages holds true in the end, ALWAYS. Many Americans have bought into the Horatio Alger propaganda. But in the end, power and privilege win out, and the AVERAGE American loses out. You can trot out every example and anecdote you want, but unions and prole power is the most efficient way for obtaining a high standard of living for the citizens of any country.

[Muddleoftheroad]

103. That's a fair way to put it

And I agree that the disagreement is a basic one.

Ultimately, I don't even oppose unions in all lines of work. In some cases -- migrant workers come to mind -- conditions are atrocious and ideal for unionization. And I would love to see unions get their hooks into Walmart.

[pmbryant]

84. You work at the mercy of your employer

If you feel comfortable placing that degree of control over your life and career in the hands of some other person whose interests are likely far different from yours, then you certainly have every right to do so.

But it is not likely to be a smart business decision. In any industry.

EDIT: If you are in the extreme minority of workers in a powerful enough position to negotiate an individual contract, then your POV makes a bit more sense (just a bit). But this is not the case for the vast, vast majority. Unions are essential for everybody else.

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

104. You are at everyone's mercy

You are at the mercy of the employer or union or both. That's the way things are.

As one loses power, the other gains it. Either way, you don't have a whole lot of it.

[pmbryant]

109. This doesn't make sense to me

The union is a vehicle for promoting the interests of the workers, and thus, you. So the union gaining power is equivalent to you gaining power. It is not absolute power, of course, as the other union members also have a say. But their interests are much more closely aligned to yours than are those of the executives.

If you find yourself working at a place where your interests are opposed to those of both the company and the other workers, then indeed you have problems that the union will not be able or willing to address. But I just don't see that happening except in a small minority of cases.

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

111. Matter of perspective

I worked a lot in publishing and that field is unionized only to a limited extent. In my experience (again, my perspective, not yours), the unions were a problem and never a solution. They held back innovation and limited opportunity of newer workers.

As for the second part, you misunderstood what I meant. I mean that you are a cog and turn the way the Powers That Be mandate. When the ownership has less power and the union more, that still doesn't impact your OWN power. In either case, they have the power, not you.

[pmbryant]

112. Isn't union leadership elected?

If so, the power indeed lies with the individual workers. If the union leadership abuses that power, they need to be shown the door, a la Bush in 2004. :-)

If union leadership is not elected, then that needs to be changed.

(Not being in a union myself, I am not aware of the details of how they work.)

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

114. Only sort of

Just like OUR political process, it isn't necessarily democratic. The longterm employees have all the power and, by consequence, get the lion's share of the attention. New employees or employees who don't intend to be lifers get disregarded.

[LincolnMcGrath]

119. Hogwash

Younger employees grab at signing bonuses like they are really something. If you offer a pension increase OR a signing bonus, and the majority(who happen to be the genXers) vote yes. They win. A company can pit worker against worker real easily.

[Muddleoftheroad]

123. So why is that hogwash

It is a virtual guarantee that no new employee will be around till retirement. Hell, it's no guarantee that the FIRM will be around then. Yet veteran workers will take the longterm approach every time.

And I have a right to take the other approach every time.

[cryofan]

94. Self perception and reality usually not the same

THe law of averages ALWAYS comes out ahead. Most people are AVERAGE. That perculiar American innumeracy is why our standard of living for MOST Americans lags hehind that of the social democracies of NW Europe.

[Gringo]

20. Dying, but needed more than ever

The low-wage service jobs that are quickly replacing our manufacturing base are much harder to organize, especially when companies like Wal-Mart union-bust so ruthlessly. Many of our remaining manufacturing jobs have fled to "right-to-work" (anti-union) states.



We need them desperately, but I'll be damned if I know how to resurrect them. The right has succeeded in promoting the stereotype of the fat, laxy, overpaid union worker as much as they have the shyster lawyer. Both stereotypes are lies, but since millions of people don't know any lawyers or union workers, it's hard to overcome.

Makes me want to go out and rent "Norma Rae" and "Silkwood" to show my kids why unions are important...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

21. If the Democratic Party won't support Unions

I won't support the Democratic Party. It's that simple. That's 99% of the reason I'm a Dem, and if that changes I won't be one. Simple.

[cosmicdot]

26. needed more than ever

computerized offices, e.g., are the new assembly lines ... and, like those who once twisted a bolt on a tangible product; dataprocessors, whether it's issuing a memo, paying an invoice, interfacing with other departments, customers or suppliers, etc., tweak data by twisting a mouse ... and repetitive stress injuries occur ...

the service economy trends toward a work situation ... typically 'downsized' with a few privileged in charge and the others being the underpaid have nots ...

I see us in a comparable situation when the US economy transitioned from a rural to an industrial one ... the transition from the industrial economy to the info age/service economy seems to have recurring/similar characteristics ... people are working for less; getting fewer benefits; some are working sweat shop hours: those with beepers, cell phones, laptops seem to work 24/7 ... people deserve to be free from any fear from turning those telecommunication devices "off"

"be glad you have a job" isn't motivation; it's a threat

as one who challenged my corporation, one of the most powerful and richest in the world, standing alone on issues which affect the whole ... I can tell you, the process (not to mention cost, financially and health-wise) would have been much better if there was a union to stand with me

[OneTwentyoNine]

27. Always,always blame the Union for a companies troubles....

It couldn't ever come down to piss poor mangement,overpaid CEO's and others at the top get million $$$$ bonus's could it????? Nah,always that favorite whipping boy,THE UNION.

Example: Boeing Ex Pres Phil Condit. Average total compensation over the last 6 years, 5.4 MILLION PER YEAR. His grade on Forbes for $$ vs performance?? F. Yet the idiots that write to our paper always jump on the UNION bandwagon as to why Boeing has troubles.

Back 40-50 years ago the CEO to average worker pay ratio was about 40 to 1. In Japan it used to be about 10-15 to 1. You make 25K per year the CEO gets $250,000 or 300,000.

In the USA the ratio is around 411 to 1--and they have the GUTS to call some union guy who gets $15.00 per hour OVERPAID??

Mike Dell gets 87 Million per year,Orin Smith at Starbucks,38 million on and on and on....

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

36. yep

That's SOP, isn't it? Surely, there is some union at fault for Enron's collapse!

[Lab Owner]

41. Yes, but--

--if the company has a stock plan then its employers are part owners and have a voice. How many "regular" people vote Board members in or out? If the boards of directors are giving huge bonuses to incompetent CEO's then toss out the boards! I don't mean to make it sound simple, because I know it isn't. But if you haven't done what YOU can to improve the situation, then don't complain about the situation.

[pmbryant]

43. That is not realistic

I've been in companies with stock plans, and thus been a partial-owner myself.

But I saw how those work: the top executive get thousands of times more individual shares than the employees under these plans, so there is no way employees would have the power to vote Board members in or out. Especially since these employees ultimately owe their jobs to the top executives and thus will face intense, if not always overt, pressure to vote the way the executives prefer. But the lack of voting strength relative to the top executives ensures that the employees have no voice even if they had the strength to try to mount an opposition campaign.

--Peter

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

45. that's a fantasy, do you know anything about how this works?

"if the company has a stock plan then its employers are part owners and have a voice"

The institutions, not the retirees, get the votes - and often it's shares without voting rights.

Sorry, try again. Why don't you say that union people are all mafia? That one usually works.

"But if you haven't done what YOU can to improve the situation, then don't complain about the situation."

That's why they join a union!

[no_hypocrisy]

32. Unions are a lifeline for all workers. Needed MORE THAN EVER.

My only experience is with the musicians' union in the NY metropolitan area.

The union has lost its teeth. Some claim it started when Reagan fired the unionized air traffic controllers and the disenfranchisement spread throughout all unions.

All I know is I work three times as hard and I am paid 1/5 of what I got 25 years ago. The contractors get my pay and keep 4/5 of it and the unions let them get away with it. BTW, if you don't have a contract with an orchestra, etc., you are an independent contractor and you rely heavily on contractors to get you playing jobs. But they don't get agents' fees of 5-10%. And most don't pay you for months, and then it's a fraction of the original fee (if they don't declare bankruptcy before they pay you . . .).

On top of it, the union does not prevent the 1/5 that I get from being depleted of deductions like travel expenses ($6-12 for the bridge(s); $35 for parking to go to a job), laundry, meals, lodging, etc. I can end up with only $50 for a night's work and that's with a Masters from Juilliard.

And when there are hearings for violations brought by contractors, the union is toothless and does not offer much protection.

I want my "old" (i.e., better) union back and I want all unions to grow a backbone and become a force to be reckoned with . . . and soon.

[Punkingal]

40. I come from a family of union members....

My dad was a Teamster, so were 3 of my brothers, 2 brothers-in-law, and quite a few of my cousins are UAW. (One of them narrowly lost an election for UAW President in Louisville a few years ago.) My husband is the political director of a local construction union. So needless to say, I was brought up to believe in unions, and that has never changed.

I find it extremely hard to understand how any working person would be opposed to unions, since they are there for the worker, period. Everyone in my family who is retired is enjoying health benefits and pension benefits that they wouldn't have gotten, were it not for the Unions. Not to mention that safety regulations pushed by unions keep people alive in dangerous jobs.

I worked at American Airlines as a reservationist prior to losing my job because of 9/11, and we were actively attempting to get a Union for reservations, and I was working on that very hard. But then 9/11 came along, and that was out the window, because of fear.

I boycott Walmart because they are so anti-Union, and I only wish the people who work there would realize they have the power to change that.

[pmbryant]

42. I'm in a completely non-unionized field

I am not a member of a union, as the field I am in is completely non-unionized. Yet I feel that unions are urgently needed. Without them, individuals are completely at the mercy of their employers' good will. I know from experience that this can change on a dime.

Any company that actively fights unionization is not to be trusted. By doing so, they are essentially demanding complete control over their employees, to do with as they see fit, and depriving the employees of any strength in bargaining position. This total lack of respect for employees' interests is a very bad sign for the long-term, even if this company otherwise treats its individual employees well at the moment.

Alas, a union organizing drive in my field seems so far away that I can scarcely comprehend it ever happening. I would be very supportive of this, though. Those doing the organizing activities risk losing their jobs and their livelihood, and I am not sure if I would be able to participate at that level. I like to think I would.

I have very little direct personal experience with unions and their activities. But to me, it seems like the 'union movement' these days is generally about preserving unions that have been built in the distant past, and not nearly enough about building new unions. No doubt in large part this is due to the political climate of the last 20-25 years. But unfortunately there is a feedback effect here, in that the lack of new organizing success reinforces the political climate that falsely regards unions as old-fashioned, out-of-date, and irrelevant.

Changing this should be a top priority, if it isn't already. We need to get back on the offensive somehow. What efforts are being made in this direction? I, unfortunately, am not very knowledgeable about this at the moment.

--Peter

(PS Thanks for the acknowledgment! :-) )

[randr]

44. The growth and spread of unions in America

is a history lesson depicting the very best of what America represents and promises to its' citizens.
The rise of Union organizations is one reason America developed a strong middle class, creating a true sense of community where future generations were afforded the sense that they would continue to prosper and improve the world around them.
The decline of Union strength over the last few decades is a lesson of what happens when we fail to educate ourselves to our history. The laws that have been passed diminishing worker rights of organization were the result of corporate and big business intervention in our governing process. The scandals and corruption of a minority of Union leaders did not help.
Notice that many of the manufacturing jobs moving out of the country are in industries with Union representation. It will not take long before the workers in the new third world sweat shops start to organize and demand the same dignities the American labor movement fought for and won decades ago.
This is why we must demand that fair trade in the world must include fair and equal treatment of the workers.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is a war going on between the classes and that the very rich would be happy to live in a world where there is no middle class.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. Closed shops

One of the worst things about the union movement is the concept of a closed shop. I've encountered this and despise it. If the union wants to negotiate for those who ARE its members, that's fine by me. But don't make me join or work against me.

Americans have a strong streak of individualism and mandatory joining of a union goes against this.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

47. What about exclusive contracts? Are you against those too?

I suppose that a corporation that signs an exclusive contract with a temp company - thus making a "closed shop" - is bad too?

Or is it just anything that helps unions that you are against?

Corporations make "closed shop" type agreements among themselves ALL THE TIME - but I never hear the anti-union people complain about that. Why?

Edit: And on "individualism" - that's a joke. Corporations want "team players" don't they? American individualism is what made the union movement.

[LincolnMcGrath]

48. Closed shops are a myth

Anyone can exit a union after they are hired. Often as little as a letter to the international will get you out. You can also join the management side.

Unions on the other hand, are FORCED to represent workers who don't pay dues. I work in a RIGHT TO WORK FOR LESS state right now. When "Johnny Individual" gets his ass in trouble, he runs right to the union and demands to be represented.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

50. "Johnny Individual"

"When "Johnny Individual" gets his ass in trouble, he runs right to the union and demands to be represented."

Ain't that the truth!

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. Nice fantasy

Some of us "individuals" would rather be left alone. Management is enough to deal with and we would rather not add a layer to the bureaucracy.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

58. so, you will never hire a lawyer then?

After all lawyers, like union representation, is just another layer of bureaucracy. Wouldn't that go against your "individualist" spirit, hiring those lawyers with their staff?

No? Sometimes you need and want professional representation, and you'll pay for it?

Is it the democracy in unions that you can't stand?

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. False comparison

Unions are there 24-7. Like it or not, they are part of the day-to-day operations of the business.

Lawyers, like doctors and other professions, are called in when there is a need. Unions stay whether there is a need or not.

What is democratic about forcing me to join, forcing me to pay dues and forcing me to have you represent me?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

61. false comparison

"Unions are there 24-7. Like it or not, they are part of the day-to-day operations of the business."

So are temp companies, so are suppliers, so are lawyers.

"Lawyers, like doctors and other professions, are called in when there is a need. Unions stay whether there is a need or not."

Unions are there because they were voted to represent employees, and they are gone when workers vote to not be represented by them anymore.

"What is democratic about forcing me to join, forcing me to pay dues and forcing me to have you represent me?"

You were FORCED to work at a union shop? I ask again - are you AGAINST exclusive supply contracts with other corporations? Are you AGAINST exclusive labor contracts with a temp company? (I bet you aren't). Why FORCE me to join a particular temp company if I want to work for the client? Why FORCE me to work for a supplier if I want to supply a client? Well?

Some people hate democracy, which is what a union is based on. Some of us - many of us - think democracy is good.

[LincolnMcGrath]

64. All three not true

You can exit the union, you don't have to pay dues, and you don't have to have them represent you.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LincolnMcGrath]

62. Not fantasy, it is the LAW.

Unions are forced to represent non dues paying employees.

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. My point exactly

I don't WANT unions representing me -- at all -- ever.

[OneTwentyoNine]

135. But you'd take the Union negiotated pay scale right??

See that here in Wichita all the time,this is a right to work state so you don't have to join or belong to the Union to work at Boeing,Cessna etc..

Nope..just opt out of the Union but you still have your job--at the high pay scale that others have stuck their neck out for. Funny,they hate the Union but go apply where they DAMN well know there is a Union. Humm,wonder why??

David

[LincolnMcGrath]

142. Scabs of the highest order.

They are.

[Muddleoftheroad]

153. I apply where there ISN'T a union

So, that theory doesn't apply to me.

[mac56]

98. Not a fantasy.

I used to be a Teamster organizer and saw it happen more times than I can count.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Not hardly

Sure, you might be able to "exit," but the reality is they still control the work rules, still negotiate for you and still take dues.

Unions are one of the reasons I moved to Virginia.

[LincolnMcGrath]

59. They do NOT take dues

Exit means Exit

The COMPANY and the UNION control the work rules. Don't be hating the UNION for work rules and salaries that the the COMPANY agreed to.

I may have to change the Sig line to MYTH KILLER.

[cryofan]

90. yeah, that's why the commuters prefer to cut their own roads to work,

instead of taking the same roads together.
Also, why each home has its own well, its own trash dump, its own wheat field, its meat packing plant, its own power plant, etc....

[LincolnMcGrath]

91. rotflmao

[prolesunited]

92. What are you?

Some kind of socialist! ;-)

[Muddleoftheroad]

105. It depends on your definition of common good

For too many unions, that definition seems to be what is good for the union, not necessarily good for the workers.

[LincolnMcGrath]

108. Oh good grief, not this old salt again.

[Muddleoftheroad]

115. Oh, I forgot

Unions are all perfect and never harm the processes of a business.

I missed that page of the dogma handbook.

[LincolnMcGrath]

117. I have got a pretty good idea what handbook you

are reading from, muddle. NOWHERE have I ever mentioned perfection. Try not to switch the subject.

[Muddleoftheroad]

125. What handbook would that be?

[IrateCitizen]

126. It's the libertarian handbook, Muddle

You may not realize it, or want to admit it, but your views are much more right-libertarian than anything else.

- You favor a flat income tax
- You vehemently oppose an estate tax, even on the richest of estates
- You favor private school vouchers
- You express no problem with absurdly high CEO salaries, and defend them to anyone who does
- You have expressed your personal antipathy toward unions on this thread, even if you talk of your general support for collective bargaining

All of these are classic right-libertarian points of view.

[Muddleoftheroad]

127. My views are very much a mixed bag

You see a sample of them here and, unless you spend all day tracking my posts, you don't even see that whole sample.

Heck, I've even taken that silly assed libertarian test. I never show any decided support for their views either.

As I explained in one post, I am a radical moderate. I like positions from both sides and compromises and such. It goes with the territory.

More than anything, I am a pragmatist. That especially impacts some of what you cite more than any hint of libertarianism.

To respond:

* A flat income tax -- You left out a pivotal point, one with a HUGE floor of about $30,000 or so. That makes it a progressive tax, just far simpler than the mess we have now. It also makes it equally fair to all.
* I oppose, in general, laws, taxes and the like that do NOT treat people as equals. We should be equal, you know.
* I favor private school vouchers because the public schools in the urban districts suck. If you have ANY other quick solution to this problem, let me know. They killed another student in a D.C. school this past week, while we were doing nothing. Failing that, vouchers are the quickest way to get poor youth out of those schools.
* You are wrong about CEO salaries. I have issue with salaries that don't reflect achievement. That achievement is determined by the owners. If they don't agree, they should either cut the salary or fire the CEO. If they do agree, it's their money to spend.
* And yes, I don't like unions, again because MY PERSONAL experience has been negative. In publishing, unions are dinosaurs that have hurt the industry, not helped it in recent years.

Unlike many here, I am NOT dogmatic. I might like one thing that is conservative, another moderate and a third leftwing. I am free to choose. It is a situation that sometimes finds me at odds with those I agree with on other topics or in agreement with those I am often at odds with.

I am entirely OK with being a conundrum.

[IrateCitizen]

128. If you say so, Muddle. If you say so.

I just see a consistent emphasis on the "individual" from you, coupled with your positions, that pushes you more and more each time I see you toward right-libertarian.

Then again, that's just my opinion. Several other people would have to see the same thing for it to even approach being considered a theory.

[Muddleoftheroad]

130. Knock yourself out

Perhaps someone should do a thesis.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

139. "I am NOT dogmatic"

"I am entirely OK with being a conundrum"

I don't have any problem understanding the a platform calling for a flat income tax, private school vouchers, corporatism, and anti-union. In fact, I think it's a rather dogmatic platform, very simple, not really a conundrum at all.

But I agree about laws treating us as equal. That's why I'm opposed to laws and regulations that keep us unequals, like corporate health care systems and privatization and unequal distribution of wealth. So we have something in common :)

[cryofan]

121. Let each man or woman choose his/her own dogma?

So, if you can call our arguments dogma, where do you get YOUR dogma?

Each of us has to take shortcuts on the path of life. Not every position can be investigated and mapped to a fare thee well.....

Being quite the contrarian, I prefer to think for myself, however. And your position is one that I have held in the past. You live and learn. You get older and wiser. You start to see the patterns in the undergrowth. In the undergrowth, tiger stripes are hard to see, and there is a good reason why.....

I encourage you to visit my sig url and read the page on social democracies, especially the american-pictures link therein.

You seem to think yourself a paragon of logic, like most every right-libertarian GOP type I have seen. You consider most lefties to be touchy feely types, bereft of all logic. Well, you may be surprised at how lopsidely logical many lefties can be.

My experience as a late-converted lefty is that the real lefties are creatures of cold logic, and are generally more educated than righties, and not just in the liberal arts. Myself, I have well over 200 hours of college credit and a couple of degrees, including one that is basically a degree in applied logic.

And those righties who are well educated often take a rightwards path in order to better serve themselves, i.e., their education provides them with an above average salary at some point in their lives, and so, voila--they are now part of the low taxation right. How convenient!

[Muddleoftheroad]

154. Hubris

So, does it get drafty in that ivory tower?

I mean, can you come across more contemptuous of other points of view?

I too prefer to think of myself and sufficiently old and wise for my own tastes with multiple degrees just like you. That and a couple of bucks can get me coffee at Starbucks.

I personally don't claim to be a paragon of anything. You are welcome to believe what you wish, but "to thine own self be true." I am. I have no super elevated opinion of myself. I am right sometimes and wrong others. That's why I would debate that which I disagree with others than celebrate that which I agree. How else can one grow?

I don't consider "most lefties to be touchy feely types, bereft of all logic." I think there is a special class of the uber left that while meaning well is not grounded in the real world. The uber right has its own brand of this insanity and, perhaps, it means well. Though I doubt it.

My experience as a radical moderate is that people who take a consistently extreme track either left or right are often wrong. It's only by picking and choosing issue by issue that you find any true understanding.

[cryofan]

170. But just where is the middle of the road?

Look at the western european nations and Canada, NZ, and AU.

THey are ALL well to the left of America. WELL to the left. In fact, their rightists are the LEFT of the Democratic party of the USA.

So, I would assert that America is in the grasp of a corporatist regime that is in control of both the GOP and the Dem party.

As far as being grounded in the real world, I think I have that covered....

[Muddleoftheroad]

173. I live in America

I am focused on the road I am driving on. I generally land somewhere on the pavement and not on the shoulder. In other parts of the world, they actually drive on the other side.

As for Canada, NZ and Australia, they can all afford to have different politics than America. America is a superpower, that has an impact on its choices.

[cryofan]

182. being a superpower == brainwashing citizens so that they will pay for

....corporate imperialism and arm-twisting and invasions of countries that have socialist policies. The corporations and the plutocrats and investors brainwash Americans so that they will be filled to the brim with hollow nationalistic pride in their "superpower" status. THat way they will ignore the fact that citizens of other western nations have strong social safety nets and universal healthcare. Not too mention that those other nations do not have to foot the bill for these military endeavors that are used to increase corporate profits.

[enki23]

53. more than ever

we have *huge* organizations of "employers" that we call corporations. even individually, they're huge. and they work together, at least when it comes to determining the value of labor. not always expressly, but they do. they're employers, of course, because they control the means both of production and of service. whether that *should* be the case is a question for another sort of debate. right now, they *do*. and the idea that these very large, very powerful organizations have the right to negotiate the cost of labor, while workers somehow shouldn't do the same, is complete shit.

those with the capital are, and always have been, very well organized. you can't bargain with them individually. not effectively. and you shouldn't have to.

and even national isn't big enough. these corporations aren't limited by the usual political boundaries. they're worldwide, and the workers unions need to be worldwide as well. because right now they have been, and are, setting themselves up with the capacity for excess production. they can defeat worker demands in any given place and time by covering their needed production somewhere else. so they can play one labor pool against another. this isn't accidental, it has been made an express goal. some jobs are limited enough in space, or time, that they are immune to such a scheme (it's hard to ship waitressing jobs to indonesia.) however most, including the vast majority of those requiring skilled labor, are not.

and legislation is controlled by them, and superceded by them. they've written laws protecting them, wherever they might be based, from the democratic control of the people who live there. they are above national sovreignty. they can't be legislated away without somehow prying their grip from the reins of power. that won't happen. not soon. in the meantime, we need unions. huge ones, and worldwide. as close to worldwide as we can be.

[leftofthedial]

67. needed more than ever

the underlying issue behind all the evils being perpretrated by the neocon movement is a class war.

It is the wealthy and the corporations against the rest of us. Divided we fall. Unions can unite us.

[skippysmom]

68. I'm in a union

For state workers here in Mass. This is my first union job, though I am the daughter of a proud retired member of the teacher's union.

I make the most money I have ever made. I will be getting a raise next month. If I work more than 40 hours a week, I get comp time. I have a traditional insurance plan, NOT an HMO (though if I wanted to pay lower premiums I could join an HMO instead). I get every major holiday off (and a few obscure Massachusetts ones, like Bunker Hill Day) and four weeks vacation. And if I stay for a certain length of time, I'll get a pension.

Now contrast that to the non-union job I held previously. I made considerably less money. There were no raises in sight. Our HR people almost never let you take your comp time, even if you'd earned a significant chunk. We had a crappy HMO. We got some holidays, and two weeks vacation. And our only option for retirement was to have money withheld for a 403b (we were a non-profit) -- but any retirement was fully funded by us.

Now, perhaps I'm a dreamer, but I think every American workplace should be like mine. And it's that way because of collective bargaining.

If I had gone up to my previous employer and told them I was entitled to that comp time, at best they would have laughed at me. At worst they would have fired me, as it was a case of "employment at will." But if the union goes to the state and demands comp time, the state will listen because the voices of thousands are much louder than the voice of one.

Yeah, I think unions have a place in this country. Yes, there are bad unions. But to dismiss them out of hand is short sighted and ahistorical. Without unions, I would hate to think what our workplaces would be like.

[Cat Atomic]

73. Capital is more organized than ever.

That's why individual unions, like the grocery workers, can simply be starved out. Enormous conglomerates simply absorb the cost of a strike in one area of the business, and wait the workers out.

We need MUCH more union organization, and they need to be structured to match the new reality of the mega conglomerate. Strikes need to be able to hit every vital part of a conglomerate's business.

[IrateCitizen]

81. You're talking general strikes, right -- like before Taft-Hartley?

Before Taft-Hartley, unions used to be able to engage in general strikes. I.e.: if the stockroom workers of a department store were engaged in a dispute with management and went out on strike, the teamsters could also engage in a strike on the store by refusing to deliver goods to the store.

It's the idea behind the more militant unions of the past, like the IWW. Sadly, it seems to be a long-forgotten strategy.

The only way to get back at this strategy is to repeal Taft-Hartley. There is one candidate for president who has clearly advocated this, I'll let you guess as to which one (as I also don't want to violate the forum rules).

[Cat Atomic]

116. Yes- exactly.

And I support that candidate who shall remain nameless. :D

[K-W]

74. Not so much dying as being killed.

Capital has waged a war on Unions and is winning handidly. But the worse things get, the more people are going to be looking for solutions. We just have to hope it doesnt have to get Dickens bad before people wake the heck up and fight corporate power.

[BiggJawn]

88. I'd join again in a heartbeat.

We're not Union here, and I doubt the majority would go for it. they think Ol' Johnny P. takes good care of them (S'Yeah, right)
I belonged to a Union when I was younger, too young to understand what it was all about. Sure, I knew about Walter Reuther and John Lewis, but until I got laid off , then Ray-Gun "de-certified" the ATC Union, and I worked the next 12 years in the kind of shit jobs the "recovery" is now bringing us, I didn't fully understand what it meant to "Be Union".

We COULD have evolved to the point where a Union would no longer be needed, but, Capital *WILL* be Capital......

I think we need them now more than ever, as much as they were needed in the 20's.

[Xithras]

95. Answers

Are you a member of a union?
Yes, CSEA.

Do you work in a field that is unionized at all?
Sorth of...I'm an IT person in an educational environment. Education is a union stronghold. Technology isn't.

How do you feel about unions in general?
Somewhat indifferent. I've belonged to three different unions/employee associations now, and none has really done much to affect my work environment (my vacations are state mandated, my pay raises are capped at the yearly state defined minimum, we're losing our 100% health coverage and the union isn't really fighting it).

How do you feel about working for companies that actively fight unionization?
I wouldn't. Employees have the right to organize as they wish.

How would you react to a union organizing drive at your workplace or in your field?
See above.

Would you actively support it, go along with it, or would you be indifferent or even hostile?
See above. The only thing I don't support is closed shops...people should always be free to join or not to join.

[ContinentalOp]

120. We need new unions...

Both of my parents are in the teacher's union so I was raised with a strong respect for unions. I work in the internet/design/entertainment field where there is no union presence and a lot of liberatarian IT types who are openly hostile to unions.

A problem I see now and moving into the future is that well-paid professionals in creative and technology fields for example don't feel the need for unions and probably consider it something that applies more to blue collar jobs. Yet there are all sorts of problems within these industries that unions could certainly help. I think too many people assume that organized labor is only about wages without recognizing its role in issues like ever increasing working hours and workloads, intellectual property, or discrimination.

Unions need to reach out to the white-collar 21st century cubicle worker and find a way to show them the necessity of organization or else unions will probably disappear completely as the last remaining manufacturing jobs move overseas.

[IrateCitizen]

122. The only way more people will realize the importance of unions

is if they are squeezed dry by management. Most people today have no idea the kind of hell that factories and textile mills and the like were just 80-100 years ago. Most people think that we always had the weekend and the 40-hour work week.

Just wait until the weekend starts disappearing more and more, and as wages are cut more and more, and as more people are forced to compete for fewer, lower-paying jobs. That's the only time the vast majority will come to see the importance of unions, and we'll have to go through the whole bloody organization struggle all over again.

[kcwayne]

124. Unions cannot fix the problems in the US

There is no value in collective bargaining when the party you are bargaining for (labor) has no value to the people sitting across the table from you. Companies today are more than happy to abandon the US, they have no interest in establishing relationships with employees here. The best thing unions can do right now is get over to China, India, and South America and get the wage levels raised there. Unfortunately, corporations have already paid off the governments in those countries and unions will be kept out by the military. Walmart has 16000 employees in China that are not unionized, even though it is a law in China for employees to belong to a Union. The Chinese unions are sock puppets for the government/companies and don't represent workers, but even that is unacceptable to Walmart, and they managed to get the Chinese to agree to their terms.

Although I like the theory of unions, my experience with them led me to detest their methods. In the late 70's, I worked for General Electric as a supervisor in a UAW machine shop. The union did everything it possibly good to keep productivity down in the plants because they wanted the company to run more shifts and more overtime, both of which added to union revenues through a higher dues base. As a supervisor, I was constantly being set up by the union which created events they could file grievances over. The union had to create disturbances so that the workers could see the union was "fighting" for them.

We supervisors had no authority to discipline people for rules violations. Everytime we tried to exert management control of procedures or enforce work rules, the union would file a grievance, and the higher level management would concede because they were so intent on getting product out they would not take action that would lead to walk outs.

One night on my shift, a union employee reported to his machining center totally wasted. His supervisor told him that he could not work drunk, and he would have to leave. This resulted in the supervisor getting punched in the face so hard his nose and cheekbones were broken, and when he fell to the floor unconcious, he cracked his skull. He was in the hospital for a couple of months and in therapy for a year.

When we tried to discipline the employee, the union protested that the supervisor was at fault for goading him, and they said they would walk if we fired him. They would only agree to a 3 day suspension.

I felt at risk of harm every day on the job at that plant. I have had 3 different union stewards threaten me physically, and threaten to damage my home or hurt my family.

I could go on and on with war stories, but the bottom line is this. The unions action expedited management's planning to move those jobs away from a work force that was unmanagement and hostile. I am not claiming that management was pure and well intentioned. They had no interest in the welfare of the workers, but management could point to endless incidents of absurd, destructive, and threatening acts by union employees as justification for why they could no longer depend on that work force and were so highly motivated to get the hell away from it.

Even in that environment in 1978, I remember a plant manager saying that we could not pick up and move the entire plant to Mexico because we (General Electric) had commitments to the community. That guy was definitely old school. Today's plant manager is totally focused on going anywhere that unions don't exist, along with labor laws, liability, environmental constraints, or livable wages.

Unions are a non-factor in planning out a plant today. You simply will not build one where unions have a foothold, unless there is some very unique reason why you are bound to a specific geographical area and the union is already entrenched.

Governor Dean is right about one thing regarding unions. Corporations have negotiated world wide rights to operate. We need world wide labor, environment, and liability laws to balance the labor force and stop the exploitation of people all over this planet by corporations. The best thing that could happen to American workers today is for the UAW to unionize China and India, and stay ahead of the corporate flight from those countries to the next lowest cost labor market.

But practically speaking, this job is way too huge for unions. And in the long term, the union practices that I experienced from 1977-1980 are too destructive to workers and companies to be repeated.

[LincolnMcGrath]

131. Thats a real sad story

I know of two managers/supervisors who repeatedly physically assaulted workers, they were never fired, just moved to different depts.

I bet I could go on all day with stories of terrified secretaries and other female employees too. Most of these "endless incidents of absurd, destructive, and threatening acts by union employees" turn out to be Urban Legends in the end though.

Companies spend billions trying to break unions and have been at it for 70 years. Google union avoidance some time. Thousands of firms who only goal in life is to take food off my table.

[kcwayne]

133. Their goal is not to take food off your table

their goal is to make a profit. Your needs are not a consideration to that goal other than the company wants to negotiate the lowest possible cost for your contribution while still meeting the needs of the end product. That adversarial relationship is the core premise of capitalism. If you think that your labor contribution to a company's profits is entitled to more, then you need to examine whether communism or socialism is a more appropriate form of social structure. In capitalism, if you have not taken the risk by application of capital in the enterprise, you have no interest or rights to the enterprise. That's just how it is.

As regards to urban legends, surely some stories are. I know in fact my coworker who was almost killed was not. I know that the HR manager who had a shot from a high powered slingshot whizz by his head and strike the building nearly killing him wasn't, I know that the supervisor at Applicance Park who had a 50 gallon drum of paint diliberately poured on him, the shock of which caused him to inhale paint into his lungs wasn't. You can surely count a bunch of stories that are legends.

What is clearly not a legend is the vacating of America's shores by companies that want nothing to do with the American work force. In the time I lived in Milwaukee (1979-1982) I saw Allis Chalmers, Pabst, and Schlitz leave the city over union contract dispute. Around 20,000 jobs were eliminated over hardline negotiating practices of the union put up against management that could see a way to lower cost by leaving. The union held fast, the workers lost out completely, and management won. Management will always win this fight as long as there are hungry people that are willing to provide labor as a service on whatever terms management dictates.

[LincolnMcGrath]

143. That is a grand vision for America you got there.

Refusing to give concessions after the company has spit out millionaire after millionaire are not HARDLINE NEGOTIATING TACTICS.

I saw 12 workers killed in twelve years by a company that refused to adhere to basic safety laws. That ain't no myth either my friend.

Non Union factories are flying the coup as fast as Union jobs, so clearly unions are not all that ills the American workforce.

[kcwayne]

146. I am not articulating a vision

I am talking to my direct experience, and what I am seeing happening to the structure of our economy.

The hardline negotiating tactics I am referring to include the union making demands on Allis Chalmers over a single issue that was non-negotiable as far as management was concerned. The union would not budge, so Allis Chalmers said OK, then we will leave Milwaukee, and the last 900 employees in Milwaukee lost their jobs. They did this in the face of seeing the company shrink from 12,000 to 900 over the space of 4 years, so the writing was on the wall. I don't remember what the issue was, other than it was insignificant to the workers, and management just used it as an excuse to get out of town.

Another one was when Schlitz wanted to use local trucking companies to deliver beer to the grocery stores and liquor stores in Milwaukee, and they wanted to lay off the union truck drivers they had on the payroll. The union said no way, and Schlitz said fine, we are closing the brewery and they moved to Detroit. 2000 people lost their jobs over the union's hardline over 20 jobs.

In both of these cases the unions lost out to a multi-millionare management team. And the union members lost big. Management won big.

The unions were trying to stop the job loss bleeding, but they were doing it by cutting at their wounds with a chainsaw. You can't negotiate with someone that doesn't want what you are selling. The unions did not operate in recognition of that principle. In the long term, those jobs would all be gone even if the union had been more flexible. The benefit to the union members would have been higher pay and benefits for a longer period of time.

I am not taking the sides of management in this argument. I am pointing out that the tactics used by the union don't work. Management wants the excuse to get away from the American workforce, whether it be union or not and use slaves for labor.

The American workforce has no value to a global corporation that sees access to an abundant supply of $80 per month labor, global laws that allow that corporation to cross borders with a sense that their investment is secure, and a majority of Americans that allow their government to spend billions on defense (offense actually) and views the application of military force to secure the assets of corporations to be a patriotic duty.

[LincolnMcGrath]

147. You say the jobs would be gone either way,

Yet it is still the Unions fault? huh

"And management just used it as an excuse to get out of town" And yet it is still the unions fault?


The American work force of "no value" built this country and created more rich men than any other country.

[kcwayne]

148. There are multiple balls in play

You say the jobs would be gone either way. Yet it is still the Unions fault? huh

Those jobs would have left anyway because even if they survived the first migration from the Rust Belt to the right to work Southern States, they would be gone now because of globalization.

And management just used it as an excuse to get out of town" And yet it is still the unions fault?

Yes it was the unions fault that those jobs were lost. Those jobs would have survived for some period of time if they hadn't taken the position they did. Management would have stayed if they could have come to a contract agreement. The minute management could come away from the bargaining table saying we negotiated in good faith and could not come to an agreement, they were free to blow town. The union thought they were bluffing, and they weren't. The union thought they were bluffing for 20,000 jobs worth. It was stupid negotiating.

The American work force of "no value" built this country and created more rich men than any other country.

That's true, but the point is that the American work force has no value to capitalists today. Those rich men are going to get even richer by letting Chinese and Indian workers make their products and not hold them to any labor, environmental, or liability standards. They are slapping Americans in the face and walking away from the investment Americans have been coerced into making in infrastructure in this country that created the economy allowing these corporations to collect wealth. That wealth is now being moved to other nations, and we are going into decline.

I am just pointing out that unions are powerless in the current situation we are in to change the fate of workers, especially if they use the tactics of playing hardball with companies as they have done over the last 30 years. The companies won this war because they put themselves into the position where they simply don't have to play.

My position is that neither unions and corporations can or are helping the American worker today. They (workers) have been abandoned by corporations, and unions are futile voices whispering into a hurricane with nostalgia for days when they had a tenable position to bargain from. Unions have had alot to do with their own demise, and corporations have had alot to do with that as well. Unions cannot regain power by making demands against corporations that do not want or need the labor unions are representing

[LincolnMcGrath]

155. I can not let the spin slip through.

"Yes it was the unions fault that those jobs were lost."

Brush up on your union avoidance tactics my friend.

Those jobs were gone years before they ever went to the table. We are to believe they uprooted a billion dollar manufacturing plant overnight and hauled it off shore over 20 jobs? Hogwash, it was a done deal before the company ever made a first offer. I have no doubt that the local media and businesses wanted that out there though.

"Unions have had allot to do with their own demise" Phooey, Unions never were the giant monolith the some have been led to believe. Only 35% of the workforce at their peak in the fifties. For the minority of workers who gave so much, the other folks were handed the modern work era as you know it. Unions were even proven by the US Gubmint to be more on the level the American businesses, at a rate of 12 to 1!

8 hour day
40 hr week
Family Leave
OSHA
medical beanies
401K
Pension
Per Diem (ain't seen one in a while though)
minimum wage
Overtime
Too name only a few

[kcwayne]

157. I don't think I am making myself clear

Those jobs were gone years before they ever went to the table.

This is absolutely true. We are in complete agreement.

We are to believe they uprooted a billion dollar manufacturing plant overnight and hauled it off shore over 20 jobs?

I don't think this is what I said. The union gave an ultimatum over the 20 jobs, and management used that as the legal excuse to break the contract and leave earlier than they would have otherwise.

Phooey
All I can say is what I saw and experienced in management meetings and in working in that hell hole. What I experienced at GE was a very hostile management/labor standoff, and this was true in the three separate divisions I worked in. Labor hated management. Management hated labor. The union was totally committed to keeping the plant productivity down, so that more people would be hired, and management was totally focused on figuring out how to get out of the union contract so that they could control labor and process costs.

The reason I say the unions caused their own demise is because they kept fighting and negotiating to exert more control and influence seemingly oblivious to management's goals if getting rid of them. Unions took loss after loss after loss at the negotiating table, and seemingly felt the only way to show the membership they were doing something for them was to fight highly visible, but futile battles. These series of battles hardened both sides, but played into right into management's hands to let them win the war.

The game is over for unions in the US. What can they possibly offer to a company that looks at their demands and says, yeah, but I get get this done for 2 cents on the dollar in China, with a subservient labor force that will do anything we say. Why in the world would we want to negotiate with you?

[LincolnMcGrath]

166. You think there is no labor mgmt strife at a non union factory?

"All I can say is what I saw and experienced in management meetings and in working in that hell hole."


No non union trade worker ever threw a punch at a straw boss?Management hates all labor, not just union. Labor laws, enviro laws, regulation of any kind.

Union worker's production out pace non union workers about 30%, According to many studies. I ain't buying the old "holding production down" bit. I have seen front line supers, and on up the ladder make, multiple mistakes, miscues and generally toss money down the drain. Hell, CEOs are rewarded for running companies into the ground.

Guess what, the china fad has more to do with state sponsorship than wages. Steel was a perfect example, Free power, free raw materials, free shipping, GEE I guess it was my high wage and stupid work rules that lost that century old stalwart.

[kcwayne]

169. Sure there is strife at non-union plants

I keep saying repeatedly that corporations are abandoning the American worker. I have never said they are abandoning just union workers.

I ain't buying the old "holding production down" bit.

Have you ever worked in a union? I had a worker that came into the machine shop off a training program that hated shuffling around looking busy, and preferred to run her machine to make the time go faster. The union pestered the crap out of her to slow down. She wasn't wired to fuck off all night long, and didn't realize what they would do. The first warning was after she spent a couple of hours retooling a multi-spindle drilling machine, someone came by with a ball peen hammer and broke all the drill bits off.

She slowed down (in her mind) but it wasn't enough. Someone called her at home and threatened to break her leg if she didn't get with the program. Her productivity dropped miraculously from 65% to 30%. She asked for a transfer, but I left before she got it.

It doesn't matter at this point that unions are more productive than non union workers (if that is indeed the truth). You can count on one hand the number of companies that are planning expansion of operations in this country, and I would guess there is no plant coming on line with a union contract. As I keep saying, management has taken the ball and gone home. They are not playing here anymore.

If you think China is a fad, you need to spend more time reading about what is going on over there. I have two friends that are merchants that are buying furniture from China. Neither one of them is getting state sponsorship, they are simply buying containers of goods through a broker, shipping them here and selling them at huge markups. China has an unlimited supply of $80-$100 a month labor that builds furniture among other things. Do you think that .50 per hour as compared to $18.00 per hour is compelling? Furniture executives do, and they acted quickly.

Over the last 5 years, every major furniture manufacturer in the US stopped producing here and either moved their plant to China, or contracted with Chinese companies to manufacture their products for them. The complete and total loss of an entire industry that had been in the US for over 200 years in less than 10 years.

That's not a fad. Its a sea change.

Here is some "good" news. A French semi conductor plant in India that needs to retool has decided to pull out of India and go to Thailand. Why? Because Indian engineers at $5K per year, and fab labor at $9 per day are too expensive. That, my friend, is what the American worker is competing with, and the union platform has no answer to this any more than any worker, politician, or concerned citizen does.

[LincolnMcGrath]

174. Yep, Never worked NON

How is your sad story any different from a non union shop? You sure have witnessed a ton of horrors. You think they don't happen at non union shops?
When the dam construction is done in china, labor will have a foothold already. Let them run around the globe, They are only outing themselves with every move.

[kcwayne]

175. I am not real sure about non-union shops

My experience convinced me not to spend my career in manufacturing. I went to work for Texas Instruments (a non-union shop) and worked on automated material handling systems and then on avionics software. I had limited contact with the factory floor while I was at TI, so I can't say for sure what the labor climate was. The limited experience I had with people that did work on the floor led me to believe that there was a much more cooperative attitude, and it was clearly not like GE in Milwaukee.

That was at a high growth time for TI, and most people are happier on a rising boat. The company is at least half the size it was when I worked there, and my guess is the 90's caused alot of stress fractures.

[pmbryant]

156. "Unions are futile voices..."

unions are futile voices whispering into a hurricane with nostalgia for days when they had a tenable position to bargain from.

If this is true, and I am afraid there is a possibility of this, at least in certain industries, what is your solution? Certainly we can do something to improve the situation?

--Peter

[kcwayne]

165. No one wants the solution

we have to ask ourselves what do we (workers without corporate level capital) have that corporations want. We have to bargain with that asset.

The sad truth today is we don't have anything that they don't already control.

We could use our limited control of government to enact laws that make it illegal for companies that violate US labor and environmental laws outside of the US to sell those products in the US. I don't see that ever getting through this corporate controlled government.

We could withhold our buying power from companies that are deemed to be unlawful or unethical. I put chances of a grass roots movement like this getting off the ground at less than zero.

There are numerous ideas about taxation and trade policy that are coughed up by politicians and others, but these ideas don't address the crucial point that I have made here regarding unions. That problem is that corporations only want access to the US market, and have no use for American society as a living entity. When policies are proposed, the lobbyist scare everyone into thinking that it will be harmful to trade and that we will be worse off if we cut into the profitablity of corporations. Meanwhile we are being stripped of wealth and left without assets to bargain with. Our march to poverty is assured, it will just come slower.

In the past these calamities were resolved with force. Aristocracies have all been overthrown and replaced, but generally without significant change to the fortunes of the unprivileged.

Either we have to get rid of this parasitic capitalism under which 97% of the wealth of this country is controlled by 1% of its population, or we are all headed towards lifestyles similar to those found in India and China.

[Jose Diablo]

168. The end game

It seems to me 'capitalism' works very well at building the infrastructure but becomes counter progress when the growth levels to 'sustained' operations.

When corporations become oligarchies, then its time for some heavy regulation.

[Ksec]

129. Nobody has the right to tell me not to assemble

and bargain from labors side.

Its cyclical I think and it will be a growing trend now that the corps have been fking the worker for a few years. You get kicked enough and you then realize that stregnth in numbers are imporatnt

[prolesunited]

134. Myths and facts about unions

Just to dispute some contentions made on this thread about unions. Granted, this is from the AFLCIO, so it is biased. If you have any sources or links to prove these statements false, I would be happy to take a look.

Myth: Unions force workers out on strike often.
Fact: Workers vote whether or not to strike in most unions. Ninety-seven percent of contract negotiations are settled without a strike. No one ever wants a strike.

Myth: Companies close due to unions.
Fact: Companies close for economic reasons—and the vast majority of companies that close are nonunion. Some companies, however, like to keep this myth alive. Half of employers illegally threaten workers who form a union by saying the plant will close, though only 1 percent of newly organized plants do close, according to Cornell scholar Kate Bronfenrenner. Studies have shown that, in fact, unions help decrease employee turnover and can increase efficiency.

Myth: Unions used to be effective, but they’re not anymore.
Fact: Unions are still by far the best way for working people to win economic security and have a voice on the job. The numbers tell the story: Union members make 25 percent more in wages than workers who don’t have a union. Women and African American workers with a union make 30 percent more, and that union difference rises to 45 percent for Latino workers. Union members are much more likely to have a defined-benefit pension plan and health care than workers without unions. Unions also curb discrimination on the job, keep the workplace safe and give workers a much-needed voice.

More here:
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutunions/joinunions/myths.cfm

[OneTwentyoNine]

137. LearJet tried a little experiment back in the mid-eighties...

Why...they just weren't going to pay that damn ridiculous Union pay scale to put LearJets together--never mind those Lears were about 5-10 MILLION back then. Nah..they also had the non-union plant in Tucson that did interior installation and I think paint jobs.

Well...they shuffled off a bunch of tools and let the workers in Tucson making a buck or two an hour more than your average burger flipper have a go at a 5 or 10 million $$$$ jet.

LOL,that lasted about six months at the most and all assembly was moved back to Wichita because the quality was so piss poor. They learned their lesson real quick and never tried that stunt again.

David

[dawn]

151. I'm in a non-unionized industry.

I'd LOVE to be able to join one. We need them now more than ever!!

[Lost4words]

152. needed now for the same reason they were needed then!

And I have always have been anti union for the most part! The robber barrens are in full control. Its time to reverse this trend. IMHO.

Power to the people.

[Cary]

158. I have many small business clients who have been screwed by unions.

These unions don't give a damn about their workers. All they care about is collecting their union benefits from the company.

This part does not please me.

However, there is no doubt that in the past unions made manufacturing jobs into a decent, livable wage with benefits. And it would not have happened without unions.

Unions have failed to organize service workers. Today there are hardworking service workers who are working poor. They work long hours for low wages under lousy conditions. The fact that they endure these conditions is clearly more political than economic. These service workers need to unionize.

So despite the downside, I favor unions. In fact I think it's essential to the long term welfare of our nation.

[Cleita]

160. Farm workers make double minimum wage in my area.

This is because of the Farmworker's Union started by Cesar Chavez. They also improved on the job conditions forcing the argribusinesses to provide, worker's comp. insurance, sanitary facilities and housing when necessary. The also stopped the exploitation of child labor in the fields.

[LincolnMcGrath]

167. How are theese SBs coming into contact with labor?

Unions made all your jobs and lives better.
Not just factory workers.


Unions have been activly seeking service workers for decades.

[Cleita]

159. I always made more money working in a union job, but

I really didn't like going out on strike although I did and I put in my time on the picket line. Going on strike seemed to negate all the monetary gains I made so I wasn't ahead in the long run. I often wondered if there wasn't a deal between the company and the union management to go on strike to even out salary expense to make the union companies more competitive with non-union shops.

I think the problem is that we need to reinvent the model. I think I would favor having guilds for similar jobs. Then I would favor the guild providing industry with workers for a set wage and benefits that they bargain for with each company. In many countries I don't think workers go on strike, but they wear arm bands or other such signs so that the management knows the workers aren't happy. I don't know if it's effective at the bargaining table but it could be looked into as an alternative.

[Nikia]

161. It could be a good thing or bad thing at my plant

Really, the divide is between the owners and everyone else. The managers often try to help the employees.
Employees would benefit by having a union since the rules can be changed by the owners at any time and often are. People can be fired for any reasons. We aren't getting benefits like paid sick leave like we want. The pay scale is not beneficial to people who have been there for a long time.
There would also be drawback. Employees with high seniority would get better positions over employees with experience at other places or who are talented overachievers who have not been there for as long. Management would be unable to help out with production when we are short handed like they do now. Strict rules may not follow common sense in some situations.
Overall, I think that if the owners respected and listened to employees more that we could solve most of our problems without a union. Our business is under 80 people and management directly interacts with employees constantly and the owners see employees regularly and everyone works in the same building.
For large businesses, it depends on their approach. For businesses that run on strict hierarchies like the military, a union is vital. For businesses that value every employee's contribution and really try to make employees happy, a union could be detrimental.

[pmbryant]

163. Some questions

Thanks for posting your thoughts, Nikia. But I was confused by some of the things you wrote.

There would also be drawback. Employees with high seniority would get better positions over employees with experience at other places or who are talented overachievers who have not been there for as long. Management would be unable to help out with production when we are short handed like they do now. Strict rules may not follow common sense in some situations.

I don't understand this. Why would having a union cause all these things to happen? I don't see the connection. The union is simply a tool to increase the bargaining power of the employees in negotiations, to give employees some degree of power in what would otherwise be a completely powerless situation for them. From what I understand, nothing about a union necessarily implies strict rules or treating high-seniority employees worse or barring management from helping out with production.

For businesses that value every employee's contribution and really try to make employees happy, a union could be detrimental.

Again, I don't understand this. If the business really values the employees, how would having a union cause problems that wouldn't exist otherwise?

:shrug:

--Peter

[Nikia]

177. Perhaps I don't fully understand unions

I make these statements from what I have heard and the way that the Teamsters union operated at a plant that I worked for briefly (5 months). Perhaps that is not the case.
In that union and others which I have heard about, when an open position was posted, the person with highest seniority automatically got the position regardles of work performance, aptitude for the position, or prior experience in that area. At our plant, the best person for the position is given the posted position. For example, we had a woman get a machine operators position who had only worked for the company for 1 year even though some people who had been there longer wanted the position. She had been a head machine operator at another company. The union that I worked with before and others which I have heard about would automatically give that position to the person who had been there the longest.
At that place and others with unions that I have heard about, management was not permitted to do any tasks assigned to employees. There were very strict job descriptions and hourly and management employees were not permitted to cross those boundaries.
These and other strict set rules, which in some cases could be beneficial, sometimes violate common sense. They do not allow for human judgement. Of course such rules do promote fairness.
If a business is willing to work with employees and keep their best interests in mind, strict rules are not necessary nor is formal collective bargaining because the business is already listening to and respecting their employees. There does not need to be an us vs. them mentality.
Perhaps there are unions which do not base everything on seniority, have strict rules, and do not put definite boundaries between management and hourly employees. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

[LincolnMcGrath]

179. No one in this world

want to see unions go away more than me. They can go when they are no longer needed. It hurts to ask my brothers (and sisters) to dig deeper only to be outspent 20-1 in recent elections.

Union and non union job postings usually have a TRAIL period. And skilled jobs have a pre-test on both sides as well.

Then again some "NON" shops just let the bosses kid get all the good jobs. Not everything is a "seniority or without merit pay" system as you have been led to believe.

If it comes down to two guys packing widgets, and both pass an trial period, the job goes to the older worker, he earned it.

As for bosses working, hey, they were hired to LEAD, not do. I got no problem with them picking up after themselves, but if they are dumb enough to start doing hourly workers work, they better not whine when they lay off the hourly worker and REQUIRE the boss to do it thereafter.

[Nikia]

184. They are under pressure to keep labor costs down

Most of the work we do is time dependent with each person needing to be involved at each step. It is not possible for an hourly worker to cover two jobs because they cannot be at two places at the same time. If a few people call in sick, the boss covers until we can get the on call temps in. Perhaps, we should not run so tight staffed. The nature of it is though that the extra people would just stand around though if everyone showed up. No one has been layed off except a couple of temps when we had to run an extra line for a while because we got behind. We do not have enough warehouse space to run all the lines at the same time on a regular basis. Unlike the bigger corporations, the owners have pledged to take every other cost saving measure before laying people off and did not lay off even when they suffered losses several quarters in a row. The company is making money again but cannot afford to hire people that usually would not have anything to do.

[LincolnMcGrath]

185. You are under-staffed indeed

Hey, I got no problem with a fill in now and then. I do have a problem with skeleton crews that require it all the time. Proper scheduling and staffing levels would eliminate most of these problems.

Everyone has to keep cost down, form the paper-carrier, to the family farmer.

On time order filling is a horrible after effect of the taxing inventories. (Happy B-day "Dutch" :mad:)

Sounds like you got a decent employer. BTW During the down times did they cut CEO/Upper Mgmt pay?

[Nikia]

188. Well.

Perhaps, we are understaffed. I think that is why they are so against giving us paid sick leave. They fear that more people will unexpectedly not show up.
As far as upper management pay, that is not common knowledge that they shared with us. My boss got a pay freeze the worst year. The owners fired the relatively highly paid plant manager who had a rather condescending arrogant attitude, told the other managers that everyone else was doing very well, and divided his responsibilities betwen themselves and the other managers. The majority owner also decided to give everyone Christmas bonuses two Christmases ago, probably totally $30,000-$50,000 which usually come out of profits even though there were none, thus coming from the owner's pocket.
The company has been successful for the past two quarters and everyone got a decent raise this year.
In ways, they are very decent. In other ways, there are some problems and I do have personal work related problems with them. Some problems a union could help. I don't know if my problems could be fixed as I have a sort of in between position with no direct coworkers.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

178. Businesses aren't supposed to "really try to make employees happy"

Businesses are required by law to try to make money. Workers happiness is now and will always be far down the list. That's why unions are always necessary.

Some of your concerns are true - a bunch of bureacracy and ridiculous regulations isn't going to help anyway - but you get that with management most of the time anyway, it's best to avoid it in the union.

[Nikia]

181. Making employees happy is a "new" management strategy

The whole idea is motivating employees by giving them more information and giving them more decision making and breaking down barriers between management and employees, breaking down hierarchy. Some businesses go with that because workers do end up more motivated and productive and thus the business makes more money. My father works at a plant where they have plant wide production meetings where employees have full participation. While it is a relatively small plant, it is owned by a larger corporation that has such things in all of their plants. Employees are also encouraged to call management on their own rule compliance such as wearing safety equipment.
Other businesses have strict hierarchy anyway where you do what the boss says because he is the boss even if he is wrong. Such places do need unions.
We have somewhat fair flexible managers but dictorial owners who like to micormanage. They think that they are being fair because they pay a living wage, which although low is about the best that anyone can get around here with no skills and work first shift.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

183. no, they've been saying that forever, at least since the 1920s

It's irrelevant. We are not children that want our managers to act as parents and make us happy. We are professionals and we need organizations that are accountable to us, just as management is accountable to the shareholders.

Whatever new "management strategy" they come out with is irrelevant to the need for unions.

"The whole idea is motivating employees by giving them more information and giving them more decision making and breaking down barriers between management and employees, breaking down hierarchy. "

Let's list these:

1. Giving more information.
2. Giving them more decision making
3. Breaking down barriers between management and employees
4. Breaking down hierarchy.

Honestly this sounds like corporate jargon to me. Certainly, a flatter organization, decentralized decision making, and the like, can make an organization run more efficiently - I'm all for it.

It's doesn't change the fact that managment, shareholders, and workers all have different interests. Management and shareholders do have organizations that are accountable to them and represent their interests, obviously workers should as well.

[LincolnMcGrath]

187. BAM WCTV

kickin it up a notch.

[LincolnMcGrath]

186. Can you do your job well?

Then YOU ARE NOT UNSKILLED!

Employee empowerment is great. If it is real. ESOP programs were the same spin, only they corn holed every worker who ever fell for them. (Except the car rental joint)

[spanone]

171. An era like this is what created the unions.. more than ever.

[Violet_Crumble]

176. Unions...

Are you a member of a union?

Yes. The CPSU

Do you work in a field that is unionized at all?

Yes, but I think most fields are unionised over here...

How do you feel about unions in general?

Without unions we wouldn't have the pay and conditions that we've got. Individual employees don't have any power on their own to negotiate for better conditions, and to anyone who is opposed to unions, all I've got to say is get out of the fantasy world yr in where employers would give employees reasonable conditions with no pressure from unions. Employers are out to make $$$ and if that means driving their employees into the ground, they'll do it without blinking....

How do you feel about working for companies that actively fight unionization?

Never been in that situation, but my current employer, as is the nature of conservative governments, has been busy trying to take away any power the unions have. Then again, we have collective bargaining, and my employer negotiates agency agreements with the union, even though there's been attempts to have us all sign onto individual work agreements, something I'm totally opposed to...
How would you react to a union organizing drive at your workplace or in your field?

Would you actively support it, go along with it, or would you be indifferent or even hostile?

I'd be quite hostile to it...

Violet...

[Eroshan]

180. Definitely needed more than ever

If it wasn't for unions none of us would be enjoying the standard of living we have. Everyone would still be working in sweatshops. Collective bargaining is the only way to obtain fairness from employers that hold all the power otherwise. Lets face it employers need us as much as we need them. But since Reagan's union busting years everything has gone downhill for the middle class.