All those who think unions have outlived their usefulness, need

[B Calm]

to take a long look at this mining accident! I pray that this filthy coal mining company gets sued to the hilt!

[northzax]

1. they can't be

West Virginia law limits their liability to the lost salaries of the killed miners to the age of 60. To break this ceiling, the plaintiffs would have to prove that the company deliberatly sent the miners into a situation where they knew, not should have known, but KNEW, they werld be killed.

that's tort reform for you. This accident will cost the company less than a million dollars. and maybe a couple of $120 fines.

[Lindacooks]

2. Can they sue in federal court?

eom

[northzax]

5. it would be tough

It's not a federal matter, unless there were proven violations of federal law that are not covered by state law. Traditionally, worker's compentation claims end up in state courts, I believe. Federal courts also traditionally decide on much lower punitive awards than state courts, it's why companies like the Federal courts.

[Realityhack]

47. Weren't there some federal violations though?

In the recent past at least. Violations of national mining standards. Didn't they get shut down several times or something?

[China_cat]

14. I would think that the miners' families would have a good

case with 208 health and safety violations ON RECORD in 2005 and, from what I can see, no attempt to address or fix any of them.

[northzax]

19. nope, prior health and safety violations aren't legally relevant

under west virginia law.

[Realityhack]

48. how about federal law?

Personaly I hope this gets said VA law overturned or at least gets it repealed. What a load of BS.

[roguevalley]

23. someone reported a week before this that there was fumes in the

mine. it was broadcast on the radio by someone's wife. they blew the miners off. hanging is too good for them.

[Ilsa]

33. I hope the families take revenge, then.

And that they all have an alibi. I posted a comment last night that I bet there were liability limits for payables to the victims.

[in_cog_ni_to]

68. They had over 100 health and safety citations in 2005 ALONE

and DID NOTHING but pay a $250.00 fine for a majority of those citations. They DID send those people into that mine knowing they could die because of their lack of response to the citations. I hope their asses are sued off.

[DPirate]

88. The company will fold

I doubt that is all it will cost them, I think this company will go under from fighting legal battles

[KarenS]

3. I believe that with all the Corporate sins these days,

a whole new generation of unions will emerge.

[Ksec]

6. I agree

wholeheartedly'

Unions will be back and stronger this time.

[CrispyQ]

15. Unions should push for personhood rights like the corps. have.

If we can't revoke the personhood rights of the corporations, maybe we could balance them with personhood rights for unions.


Why is it that only corporations get personhood rights? Just an out there idea that I've wondered about.

[undeterred]

4. I think there is a negative side to unions

I've never been in one, but I have worked in places where the union protected really lousy employees from becoming unemployed. They just kept moving some of the clerical workers from one job to the next, and the supervisors had no choice but to take them. That's one of the reasons a lot of people hate unions- a person without a union can get fired for no cause, but a person in a union gets a million chances to improve their performance.

Its a shame that it takes a union to make companies correct safety violations- that seems like it should be a law enforcement issue to me. If the owner doesn't correct the violation, the mine should shut down and the owner be put in jail.

[LSK]

9. on the other hand, if the company is not doing well, lay off thousands

Regardless of how hard they work, they all get laid off. Meanwhile the CEO maintains his million dollar salary. Thats fair?

I have seen others use the lazy worker excuse too. I have seen PLENTY of lazy workers in NON-UNION places.

[ProfessorGAC]

67. Yeah, But That Happens In Unionized Companies Too

So, i don't get your point. The CEO at United kept his job while in BKO but they laid off 4,000 or something workers. So, unions don't protect against that possibility. How does that invalidate the other poster's statement?

There's probably nothing a union could do about that no matter how well run or organized. The company always has the right to reduce workforce if finances force it. So, the union wouldn't see that as an issue to fight over. They would be unlikely to, and rightfully so, take on a fight over an issue they know they can't win.

Seems they would be serving their members better by assuring those that still have those jobs that they will do everything to stabilize their employ, secure a good wage, and insist on good working conditions. The fight over who gets laid-off is probably one they can't win.

I'm not anti-union, and i haven't said they've outlived their usefulness. (I question unionization of certain professions, but that's not about the union, it's about individual competence & professionalism.) But, getting good people to work with and for decent companies for a good living doesn't necessarily include protecting the jobs of slackers. I think unions creating a simpler path for discharge of incompetent or inept workers would be awfully good PR.

The Professor

[papau]

10. I have been in union jobs - and non-union - and agree the defense of the

lousy employee is bad.

But in the non-union workplace, the brillant employee gets tossed for the nieces summer job.

The latter will never change (contrary to Econ BS, folks do not maximize profit - they maximize family take home in status, money, and any other category)

The unions in the last 50 years have begun to let bad employees go - after a fair procedure.

As a former manager I know that union firings are just not all that hard to do.

[Ksec]

13. That argument is only good if one believes

that throwing out the baby with the bathwater is OK.

All organisations have a few negatives. If you want you can focus on the few negatives or you can focus on the mountains of positives unions bring to this country.

[papau]

24. I agree - the non-union world is grossly unfair to good workers - and ave

workers.

But folks forget about that.

And the corporate world pays for the job anyway - not the quality of the worker - so good folks are underpaid.

I have done the annual interviews where you explain we love you but no raise - or a 2% raise - or whatever. And then we discuss what you need to advance - meaning we say words to keep you quiet for another year.

[PATRICK]

66. Exactly

Lousy management never seems able to discipline bad employees, but give them any kind of blank check and the targets of abusive power are indiscriminate.

You have to get rid of the notion that the "good guys" have to be perfect in some morally balanced world where such behavior is naturally rewarded and always successful. I admit those illusions give a lot of background comfort, but if you are going to argue against unions based on the fact they protect ALL workers, management inefficiency at discipline dismissed, it has a whiff of the kind of prejudice the really bad guys love to divide the majority with. All workers, all normal humans, need unions.

After seeing a segment of offended members desert(dues is always a curious subtext, spite toward officers or individuals the melody) and then prosperous, leisure time rich and job secure members becoming apish Republicans, you have to realize that unions only exist because they have to. Good unionists walk the line between human nature and its collapse because besides hard work you need solidarity to survive.

Those who think they can shrug off the irritations of unions and go it in rugged, prosperous, good will, individualism will probably discover their employer thinks they can go without salaries and benefits and jobs- whenever.

[AllieB]

12. What you describe can happen in non-union shops also

Nepotism and cronyism is usually the cause of bad employees remaining on the job. I've experienced it firsthand. And I've never worked in a union shop.

[LincolnMcGrath]

17. Unions are NOT now,

nor have they EVER been a 'get out of jail free' card.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

20. Hi! I'd like to reply to your statements. :)

The union doesn't protect lousy workers, it protects ALL workers. If the worker is lousy management has to do their job and fire the person. The union makes sure the rules are followed when it comes to discipline and termination. I can tell you from personal experience that where I work, without having a union people would get screwed around all the time.
This doesn't mean management is out to get the worker. But managment is comprised of human beings, as is the union, who like to cut corners and take the easy way out.

You also say: That's one of the reasons a lot of people hate unions- a person without a union can get fired for no cause, but a person in a union gets a million chances to improve their performance.

I'd think this would make people like unions and want to join them, so they could also have a million chances.

Finally, no business owner, and especially no corporation is ever, EVER, going to fix, repair, or correct any defective policy, procedure or practice unless forced to. That is a fact of life in corporate America. At least as I see it.......

[LincolnMcGrath]

26. Well Said

Where I work, Last year MANAGEMENT failed to hand out written warning slips for attendance SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT of the time. They have to be given to the worker within 5 working days. Yet all we heard at the last co-union meeting was how hard it was to enforce the attendance policy. :rofl:

[Bill McBlueState]

49. yes, you'd think people would like unions

Unions level the playing field for workers, so you'd think people who *work* would like that. But it's fashionable these days to identify with people who are ten times richer than you are. That's why so many white working class males vote for Republicans, too. People think they're just a couple lucky breaks away from being rich.

[EC]

21. And how many "good" employees did it protect?

So I guess you would endorse not protecting ANYONE just because a few bad employees may not be fired? Even unions provide for that, the bad employee gets so many chances before even the union says, can't help you. Don't fall for bull-shit...that is a corporate excuse and bad press. The Union my husband belonged to AFL-CIO Autoworkers, only stood up for you 3 times, plus the employee was punished in one way or another, but if they goofed off after the 3rd time they were out, so how is that different than non-union where you get 3 write-ups and you're out?

[undeterred]

30. Wow- I'm not against unions

I was just pointing out one of the reasons that a lot of people don't like them. The only kind of unions I am familiar with are clerical unions in an academic environment. I saw several situations where a clerical worker who couldn't get along with anyone or couldn't get to work on time because of a drinking problem and was simply shifted from one position to another for a matter of years instead of being fired. The supervisors felt helpless, like the union was their enemy, and I could see their point.

On the other hand, there have been times when I wished there were an organization for me to turn to. When you have a mixed work environment where some of the employees can't be fired for even outrageous behavior, while others can be fired at the drop of a hat- there are lots of unfair situations.

In terms of the safety issues- I wish employers would take direct responsibility. In my case I used to work with a lot of chemicals (lab tech) and my supervisors went out of their way to make the environment safe for us. There was no outside pressure needed.

I don't think that unions are a good thing or a bad thing- it depends whether they are needed or not and what role they play. Unions play a very different role depending on whether the occupation is low or high skilled, hazardous or not, in a large company or in a small one. I know some people in unions who feel that it does nothing for them except suck off some of their salary. I don't think they can all be lumped together as the same thing.

[CrispyQ]

39. When I worked with a union, it was difficult to fire an employee, but

if the manager had done their due diligence on the employee's violations, it could be done. That included verbal warnings, written warnings & clearly defined standards of performance that had to be monitored & recorded. For example, an employee would be given a verbal warning with the stipulation that the next violation would be a written warning. Even written warnings had an 'expiration' date so to speak; if the employee had no more problems with that particular issue prior to that date, their record for that offense was cleared. Employees were usually granted 1 verbal warning, 2 written warnings & after that, further violations could result in suspension without pay or termination. Amazingly, some of the employees I knew were in trouble for more than one issue, but because they did not exceed their defined 'violation' limits on any of the issues, they did not lose their jobs.

The key though, was that the manager had to monitor very closely the employees issues & keep on top of them. If they did that & had their paperwork in order -- verbal warning, written warnings, suspension, it was not difficult to fire an employee. I think this is just. Managers should have to do this type of monitoring & diligence of their employees to get rid of them.

BTW, there were some violations that were simply "firing offense" right off the bat -- like stealing.

[undeterred]

41. I've been fired a couple of times from an employee position

over the years, but I've never had a single verbal or written warning and I've never done anything outrageous.

A manager who was determined to fire someone condenses 6 months worth of procedure into 10 minutes, rules be damned.

Where there is no union I seldom see managers go through the steps to work with an employee- they just get rid of you because they can. Basically that means they can do it for personal reasons that have nothing to do with work performance, because no reason is required by law.

[CrispyQ]

43. My union experience was prior to "at will" employment clauses.

Not sure if the "at will" clause makes a difference in a union. I know it makes a huge difference in non-union places. They can pretty much get rid of you for whatever they want. Their favorite way is to downsize your position or in some cases upgrade it so you no longer qualify (make a non-degree position a degree position). If they need your position in the future, I beleive they have like 9-12 months & they can add your exact position to their organization again - no penalties. You're out, they went through some minor inconvenience, in the end they get what they want. :puke:

Corporations have more rights & power than WE THE PEOPLE. Our lawmakers are beholden to them for getting them in office, so they pass laws that favor the corporations over WE THE PEOPLE. I wonder how long WE THE PEOPLE are going to tolerate this travesty? How long before WE THE PEOPLE wake up & take back our government?

[undeterred]

46. I totally agree with you on that

I do mostly contract work, and as the years have gone by I have to sign more and more paperwork as I start and sometimes even as I finish an assignment. Whatever lingering rights I may have, I sign them all away when I walk in the door. Amazingly some of the managers in these situations still appeal to concepts like "loyalty" and "teamwork", not realizing that they have undone the possibility of anything but looking out for yourself as a guiding idea.

[MercutioATC]

52. Unions are like our legal system. They exist for our protection (ideally)

Sometimes a murderer is found innocent. Overall, though, the law that let him go protects all of us from being falsely convicted of murder (again, ideally).

Unions aren't perfect, but they're necessary, IMO.

[Djinn]

85. not a reason to hate unions

That's one of the reasons a lot of people hate unions- a person without a union can get fired for no cause, but a person in a union gets a million chances to improve their performance.

I don't actually put too much store in the "unions protecting lazy workers" meme but instead of complaining union workers get better protection, the best bet would be to join a union, getting their members better protection is kinda their raison detre

[rman]

96. there are many more negative sides to not having unions,

except for big corporations - hence union busting.

[B Calm]

101. I've seen more dysfunctional lazy worthless employees on the side

of the company, than I ever did in the union. That's why we need protection from these idiots that make the decisions. Look at the decision they made at this mine.

[truth2power]

106. Nothing is perfect, but I think

a union's benefits to the working person far outweigh its faults.

Unions are the only hope for the workers.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. progressives are always on the side of unions

this is beyond the scope of debate

[Critters2]

8. Amen!!

Soldarity Forever!!:applause:

[papau]

11. Amen!

:-)

[lostinacause]

29. I find this both a judgmental and foolish thing to say.

I find it judgmental because it assumes that someone has to support a certain view to be a member of a political persuasion. This is not true so long since unions are an institution. I would go further but the philosophical arguments regarding this are somewhat complex and confusing. It follows for the similar reasons that Bush saying things such as "If you are against the war you are against the troops" is wrong.

It is a foolish thing to say because it implies, if not out right saying, that it doesn't matter the effect that unions have on the welfare on people. Even if they are harmful to society (based on a liberal valuation of societal gains and losses) we should still support them. This is where I believe that the view is foolish. There is no intrinsic value behind an institution that says they are fighting for our benefit if they don't provide any. The benefits and costs associated with unions in not beyond the scope of the debate. If they are not beneficial it is very important that this is known.

There is very strong evidence that the bargaining power, and by extension the benefit that unions have is decreasing with increased globalize. It is also possible that given a certain institutional framework, certain alternative options for firms, and a certain valuation of the time values of money that union can have a net negative effect over the area they cover. Because of this whether unions are currently beneficial and will be beneficial in the future are both critical things to discuss.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. I don't think the benefit is much in doubt

I don't have very many litmus test, really I don't



but beyond these tangible benefits, I view the right to bargain collectively and to have truly independent advocacy and power in ones work place as equally important as any other basic human right. I hope some day the U.S. will follow many other advanced industrialized societies into codifying those rights into law.

http://www.uaw.org/publications/jobs_pay/02/no3/jpe05.html

[lostinacause]

54. Why do you believe collective bargaining is a right?

Would you believe it was a right if it was detremental (Given your preferences to equality) to society?

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. because the alternative is powerlessness

unless we want to completely ignore the entire history of modern democracy. There are plenty of societies without strong and independent unions, just compare.

[lostinacause]

65. So then wouldn't equality be the human right? Unions being perceived

as the best available method to get the right? Or is there something that I am missing that makes collective bargaining critical?

[Douglas Carpenter]

71. it certainly has played a large role in achieving equality

and so far there has never been a society that created relative equality and human rights without unions and along with it collective bargaining playing an important role.

[lostinacause]

82. You haven't answered my question

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. legislation has its limits

as we see in the recent coal mining disaster. If he mining company had been following the law passed by legislation this disaster most likely would not have happened. There is a huge difference between the enforcement of safety standards in a unionized work place than in a non-unionized work place. The pressure of collective bargaining must certainly have a lot to do with this.

furthermore it is quite doubtful that such legislation would ever have been passed without the massive lobbying efforts of the only mass organizations to represent workers interest--the unions.

also given the importance that unions play in motivating voters and lobbying for the interest of working people, without the unions the progressive movement and much of the Democratic Party would simply collapse

[lostinacause]

89. Law requier both the proper incentives and enforcements. It is not

simply the case that writing a law will solve the problem. This would be the same of any union contract. They can both be made, so long as the enforcement institutions exist, to do the same thing.

As far as the political influence that unions have, I must disagree. If this was the case then Canada would have more relative inequality and labor issues then America has. In Canada the NDP was the one with union ties. The Liberals who are the centrist by Canadian standards have been in power for the majority of the history of the party. The Conservatives have been in power for the rest. Canada has much greater income equality then America has with less union involvement in the governing parties.

[Douglas Carpenter]

105. Canada has 32.8% unionized work force//US 13.8%

unions in Canada enjoy considerably more political influence than in the U.S. this is highly evidenced by Canadian law which is considerably more pro-union than the U.S. both in its content and enforcement.

The very fact that Canada has a major political party which is to a large degree a labor party shows the extent of union influence in the Canadian body politic.

Both the legislating and enforcement of law whether safety laws or any other requires a vigilant constituency to lobby and exert pressure. The only major lobby for fair treatment of workers in modern society are unions.


http://www.dti.gov.uk/ER/emar/errs29.pdf

http://www.justlabour.yorku.ca/Livingstone_Raykov.pdf

[lostinacause]

55. From public policy perspective all of these things could be achieved by

legislating them. Just because unions are able to achieve them doesn't necessarily mean that they are beneficial. If for example there is a way to achieve these things at a lower cost then unions would not be beneficial. Unions do not take into account the costs they impose on society. They are typically assumed to maximize the payoff of there members (or a selection thereof). Thus there is no reason to think that they would necessarily provide the lowest cost equality.

The costs that unions impose on society are

1) Dues towards the union: Union dues do not provide any benefit beyond the equality gained through their actions. The strike pay goes back to the workers. Any money going to the people employed by the union could be made by them in other jobs.
2) Inefficiencies associated with striking: Capital left idle has a cost associated with it
3) Costs associated with firms trying to increase bargaining power: Firms will behave in a way to limit the power that the union has. These decisions lead to ineffective allocations of labor and capital.
4) General costs of pursuing equality: These are the general cost associated with pursuing equality not specific to a union. Because they are the same as every other policy that pursues equality I won't bother listing them.

(Note: I do realize that unions provide more then equality. Treating all gains as equivalent financial gains prevents duplication of analysis.)

Costs 1, 2, and 3 relate to the costs associated with government implementation. Cost 4 is common. For unions to be beneficial the costs of the union implementing equality would have to be greater then the costs associated with the government implementing equality. It also has to be assumed that society wants the equality at the given cost. If either is not the case then unions are harmful to society.

I’m not certain that unions are beneficial. But given the nature of the costs they impose I don’t believe that any one can be certain that they are and will remain beneficial.

(Notice that I used a model that values equality)

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. only looking at what actually exist in the real world

There simply has never been a single case in the history of the world of a meaningful democracy with a relative level of equality without unions, given the lop-sided power capitol has by its very nature.

Can this be achieved legislatively without unions? Who would push such legislation if unions are the only mass organization or ordinary working people representing their legislative interest?

[druidity33]

72. cost involves perspective.

i'm sorry that i'm gonna be brief, but i need to step out for a bit in about 10...
glad you're open to "discussing" the benefits and costs of Unions...
as I see it....

"1) Dues towards the union: Union dues do not provide any benefit beyond the equality gained through their actions. The strike pay goes back to the workers. Any money going to the people employed by the union could be made by them in other jobs."

Union dues often go to things like a Dental Fund, or Emergency Loan fund, outside expenses, office expenses, dues to National Organisations, and yes occasionaly to support an action. Strikes are generally a LAST resort. Nobody wants them, everyone sacrifices... as for money being made in other jobs, well i don't know when you last looked for a job or had to pay bills, but if i could get a highly sought after Union job, it would be the only one in the area paying me a living wage.

"2) Inefficiencies associated with striking: Capital left idle has a cost associated with it"

Again, i say, stikes are only effective as a LAST resort. Of course they're not "efficient"... that's not their point. As for Capital left idle... what are the costs to the healthcare system when a worker is forced to work a 10 hr shift while suffering severe back pain, because he has no Health Ins and is an at will employee? Look to CostCo...

"3) Costs associated with firms trying to increase bargaining power: Firms will behave in a way to limit the power that the union has. These decisions lead to ineffective allocations of labor and capital."

The corporate state has ALWAYS been against worker solidarity, fair wages, etc... when the bottom line is your goal and Profit is your imperative, there needs to be safeguards where people can ENSURE their worker's rights are not being violated. Do you expect the company to ensure that for them?

"4) General costs of pursuing equality: These are the general cost associated with pursuing equality not specific to a union. Because they are the same as every other policy that pursues equality I won't bother listing them."

Do you mean to say that a thing is not worth pursuing if it's already being pursued somewhere else? Not sure i get this one.

"I’m not certain that unions are beneficial. But given the nature of the costs they impose I don’t believe that any one can be certain that they are and will remain beneficial."

Sounds like doublespeak to me... can you clarify?

More if i can...

[Douglas Carpenter]

73. thanks for your points

[lostinacause]

86. Dental funds and emergency loan funds are true gains.

We could assume that the benefit of the programs outweigh the costs.

Everything else you mention is a cost associated with the transfer of wealth.

I disagree with you about strikes. The way unions maintain and increase bargaining power is through the strike possibility. If they try to avoid strikes bargaining power is lost and unions are less effective. The way firms maintain and increase their bargaining power is to not give in to demands. Both parties have an incentive to strike. It is not a last resort for either party though both will claim that it is.

“Do you mean to say that a thing is not worth pursuing if it's already being pursued somewhere else? Not sure i get this one.”

Regarding this and all of the benefits you pointed out: clarifying maximization with respect to two goals should be sufficient to explain why the benefit are irrelevant unless compared to the cost and the cost of other implementable strategies. I have assumed that for all intense and purpose unions provide equality. The gains that you mentioned with the dental fund and emergency loan fund can just be consider extra gains. They are small associated with benefit from the gains in equality and the inefficiency and for the sake of this discussion can be ignored. (If one where doing an advanced evaluation of this, gains and losses would important.)

When maximizing with respect to two variables, the gain has to be greater then the cost associated with the gain for more of the unit to be purchased. For equality the cost is efficiency. Thus for unions to be beneficial the benefit associated with them has to be less then the reduction of efficiency. If no other equality generating institutions were in place then most people would consider unions beneficial. Another condition that has to be met is that there are no lower cost options available. Thus if unions have a higher cost then the most efficient alternatives for all level of equality then unions would be detrimental because it would be possible to do better in terms of both efficiency and equality in their absence.

“Sounds like doublespeak to me... can you clarify?”

I made a mistake. The correction has a double negative but it should now be clear as to what I am trying to say.

I’m not certain that unions are not beneficial. But given the nature of the costs they impose I don’t believe that any one can be certain that they are and will remain beneficial."

[druidity33]

100. more...

As for strikes, the THREAT of striking is a powerful tool, but the IMPLEMENTATION of a strike is the last resort... costs the union too much money.

"When maximizing with respect to two variables, the gain has to be greater then the cost associated with the gain for more of the unit to be purchased. For equality the cost is efficiency. Thus for unions to be beneficial the benefit associated with them has to be less then the reduction of efficiency."

Sounds like your talking about a PRODUCT and a MARKET, not at all what Unions are. Unions are a LINE OF DEFENSE. They are not meant to be "cost-effective" more like "human-effective". The cost cannot be weighed until you consider future generations and the gains they recieve from the Union establishment. That being said you mention efficient alternatives, and i'm wondering if i've ever seen an efficient alternative, can you give an example?

To be honest, all this talk about cost is a little disconcerting. How do you define "cost"? The biggest and most valid complaint i've heard about Unions thus far is that they force the market overseas because they demand a living wage... but this is not the fault of the Unions, this is the fault of gov't policy. Why shouldn't we demand a living wage and health care? "Free" trade has decimated our worker base, and is destined to become the lament of Union workers.
Again i see "gains and losses" in your post and wonder whether we have a completely different idea as to what Unions are here for. A Union is NOT a business. It has to maintain a budget to keep it alive, but it is there first and foremost to REPRESENT its members, not to make a profit off of them or the company. What discipline are you citing with the terms cost, gains, losses? It sounds like Economics. Unions and their impact i believe belong more in the realm of Public Policy or the Social Sciences if you are to determine losses and gains.
I am freely willing to admit that my ideal is an egalitarian society and that personally i plan on living in an income sharing community, so our mindsets may be disparate to begin with. What i don't understand is why when it is immediately apparent that Union workers recieve far more than their non-Union counterparts in the way of wages and benefits, you seem to be bent on investigating "the costs" and beneficiality of Unions? Sorry, but it feels like you're just "stirrin' the pot"... arguing for arguing's sake, if you know what i mean...

Anyway, peace to you...

[B Calm]

76. With close to 300 OSHA violations at this non union mine in the

last three years, I find it hard not to believe that if they had been a union mine, they would have never been sent down there!

[lostinacause]

91. What exactly are OSHA violations?

[B Calm]

94. Occupational Safety & Health Administration find usafe

things in your workplace that can hazardous to workers. Their only goal is to improve working conditions and to protect workers.

[fishwax]

84. I don't buy your arguments about the "costs" of unions

1) Dues towards the union

I'm not clear how union dues are a cost to society in a way that, say, health club membership dues or money put into a savings account wouldn't be ... union members pay money to keep the organization that represents them operational ...

2) Inefficiencies associated with striking

That cost is not the cost of unions, it's the cost of companies that fail to treat employees fairly or bargain in good faith. Without unions, these costs (in terms of public health, crime, etc.) would be even higher.

3) Costs associated with firms trying to increase bargaining power: Firms will behave in a way to limit the power that the union has. These decisions lead to ineffective allocations of labor and capital.

So unions are responsible for the expenses that management employs in order to minimize the union? This strikes me as a blame the victim mentality.

It also has to be assumed that society wants the equality at the given cost. If either is not the case then unions are harmful to society.

I think that's a bogus argument too. Aside from the difficulty of determining whether "society" wants equality at the given cost, or what cost "society" is willing to pay for equality, this argument is not a model that, as you claim, values equality. After all, by extension, you could say that if "society didn't want equality" in the late 1950s, then the Civil Rights movement was harmful to society.

I just don't see extensive costs to unions. Most of these costs I attribute to the greed encouraged by unbounded capitalism, as it is this greed, this desire to maximize profits (often requiring reducing protections for the worker) which is why unions are necessary in the first place.

It would be great if all of this could be handled through legislation, and if (as the CEO of the liberal and labor-friendly Whole Food Markets has proposed) unions weren't necessary. But I've seen little or no reason to believe that we're anywhere near the point where that's practical.

[lostinacause]

90. Think of unions as an institution that creates certain incentives.

The presence of unions creates these issues with bargaining and striking. People tend to justify their own beliefs with whose fault it is when it is the institutions that create these situations.
Regarding the individual points:

I'm not clear how union dues are a cost to society in a way that, say, health club membership dues or money put into a savings account wouldn't be ... union members pay money to keep the organization that represents them operational ...

Health clubs do not transfer resources. (They add value but have a resource cost associated with the capital and labor). Unions transfer resources the costs associate with transferring resources are the things that I mentioned. The people managing the union and resources involved in administration are costs that would not be imposed in its absence. In the strictest sense these are costs (in total output) associated with acquiring equality.

think that's a bogus argument too. Aside from the difficulty of determining whether "society" wants equality at the given cost, or what cost "society" is willing to pay for equality, this argument is not a model that, as you claim, values equality. After all, by extension, you could say that if "society didn't want equality" in the late 1950s, then the Civil Rights movement was harmful to society.

What the model assumes is that at some point it is not worth while to pursue more equality because the benefit of it is below the value of the lost equality. People value equality to certain point.

The Civil Rights movement is a social movement. The equality spoke of there is of different nature then economic equality. The economic component of wealth generation that would have correlation with the Civil Rights movement is opportunity. Opportunity is different in nature then (economic) equality. Opportunity can be achieved with a fair amount of income inequality so long as very good public education programs are in place. Although your average conservative will claim that capitalism creates opportunity, they are wrong. Opportunity is a function of economic determinism.

[fishwax]

98. no, that still doesn't work

The presence of unions creates these issues with bargaining and striking. People tend to justify their own beliefs with whose fault it is when it is the institutions that create these situations.

Unfair or dishonest labor practices create these issues with bargaining and striking. That's as true as saying unions cause it. The fact is, when a company treats its workers fairly and workers are happy and satisfied and don't feel they are getting a raw deal, they aren't likely to organize. You say "people tend to justify," as you do the exact same thing. It's the institution of capitalism/corporatism that creates the need for unions. (You demonstrated this yourself when you said companies will always seek to minimize the power of the unions/workers.)

Health clubs do not transfer resources ... The people managing the union and resources involved in administration are costs that would not be imposed in its absence.

It what way don't they transfer resources? Health clubs, too, may be involved in advertising, political activity, etc., and, of course, they also have management and administration. Are you speaking simply of the strike fund, which was the example in your earlier post? Of course, these are individual costs, either way. Society doesn't pay union dues.

The people managing the union and resources involved in administration are costs that would not be imposed in its absence. In the strictest sense these are costs (in total output) associated with acquiring equality.

Okay, obviously there are expenses associated with the union, as there are expenses associated with any institution. And while I don't buy the social costs and am certainly not convinced that unions are the root institution to blame for strikes, etc., even if you do buy all of that, there is a multitude of costs that DON'T exist because unions exist (many of these are spelled out in books like The Jungle, In Dubious Battle, etc. ;))

What the model assumes is that at some point it is not worth while to pursue more equality because the benefit of it is below the value of the lost equality. People value equality to certain point.

Fair enough. It doesn't change the difficulties I raised, though. But just for fun: if we're arguing from a "free market" perspective, when we reach the point where people no longer desire "more equality," the unions will simply disappear, since it will no longer be worth it to be part of one.

The Civil Rights movement is a social movement. The equality spoke of there is of different nature then economic equality.

The unions, too, are a social movement. The Civil Rights movement, too, was an economic movement. I don't think it's accurate (though often convenient) to simply categorize either one. And while we're on the subject, I've never heard a union argue that pure and total economic equality was an objective.

[flyarm]

103. because progressives are usually the blue collar worker or middle class

worker..the guy who usually gets screwed if he stand up to the corporates when they are dangerous to the mass public..and unless that joe public is allowed to stand up without the possiblity of loosing his job ..for the safety of the masses..well then we are no better than all the third world nations...

and do remember..when the union worker gets a raise usually the white collar worker in mgmt gets a raise as well..
when the union guy gets a benefit usually mgmt gets the benefit as well..where the union guy/gal goes so does the well being of others within a corporation!

so when the union guy gets screwed so does everyone else..except the ceo..

unions are what have separated the USA from the rest of the thrid world nations...its called democracy!

fly

[Critters2]

16. Support for unions will help

but Dems will keep losing, and Repugs will keep looking more populist to the average voter, as long as Dems keep saying the hateful things about the faith of these miners and their families found in too many DU threads today. There's more to Populism than unions.

[LincolnMcGrath]

18. Hateful things about the faith of miners?

Link?

A strong labor movement is THE foundation of a strong populist movement.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. I think you are referring to people who make broad anti-religious comments

I find that distubing myself and very unliberal--even though I do not personally hold religious beliefs -- it alianates us from those we claim we want to help. In a society where 94% of the population believes in God/80% are certain and only 1% are convinced atheist it is ludicrous to imagine that a progressive majority can be built without the support of lots and lots of religious people. See Gallup poll:http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292

Furthermore, many progressive Christian groups are decidedly on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum. This is the reality.
Religion may not be my thing. But that's besides the point. The abolition movement, the civil rights movement, the peace movement and almost every other movement for social change in American history could never ever have gotten off the ground without their help:

Again I hope that progressive religious people always feel welcome here on DU. the progressive movement and the Democratic Party

[Critters2]

35. Thanks for making my point

but I must admit, as a Progressive Christian, that I don't really feel welcom here at DU. And I don't think Dems will start winning elections until the anti-religious rhetoric goes away.

But some people would rather feel superior to working people than win elections or help people, I guess.

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. as Bill Clinton would say

"I feel your pain". I have found the whole thing terribly unfair

[davsand]

51. I think that part of that anti-religion stuff is keyboard bravado.

I do think that no matter WHAT website you look at you will see people say stuff there that they'd NEVER dream of saying in person. I call it keyboard bravado, but maybe a better term is online bully--I dunno.

Anyhow, on any given day I get on here and see stuff that makes me flinch. Stuff like union bashing, or comments that are not only anti-military, but hurtful to armed services personnel and their families. I see anti-Christian statements too, along with statements that bash anyone that is not (insert whatever you want to here.)

I don't think that these isolated statements really represent the attitudes of most DUers (except for maybe the anti-Rush Limbaugh ones--he seems to be universally reviled.) I DO see times when people get called on statements that are too sweeping or too over the top, and while I appreciate them I also feel sad at the NEED for them. As DU has grown, so has the "signal to noise ratio."

I do think that the last 20 years has seen a public upswing of radical fundies--and that really seems to be what has pushed a lot of otherwise sane progressives over the edge. I also feel that the fundies represent Christians just about like the KKK represents all white people. Hate is hate no matter what name you hang on it.

Try not to let it get to you. Frankly, knowing you, I have every confidence that you will distinguish yourself in any discussion--be it about religion or politics. You are made of some stern stuff.

Tolerance seems to be a prized commodity no matter where you are. I do hope we can all do better on here at least. We are supposed to be the good guys.



Laura

[Douglas Carpenter]

74. keyboard bravado - like that phrase

I have wondered if forums and blogs have picked up where the "old fashioned" Internet flaming habit that emerged from chatting a few years ago.

I know the rules clearly call for civility. But it just does not always hold together.

The question that crosses my mind is, could some of this stuff such as Christian or labor bashing or the more far-out speculations harm the progressive cause or turn people off? I don't know. But, I hope not. But I find it a little embarrassing. But then again maybe people who read blogs and forums are used to it.

[liberalhistorian]

57. I'm a progressive, liberal Christian and I've

always felt welcome here. This whole business about Dems being anti-religious is pure bullshit. I know many religious Dems who would beg to differ. That's nothing but a right-wing talking point lie and I'm amazed you'd fall for it.

[LittleClarkie]

36. It's one of the few allowable prejudices left

It's also fair to comment on the girth of a person as long as they are Republicans I've noticed.

But then I've noticed that many atheists are a touch grumpy. The ones I used to hang with on alt.atheism were, anyway. Not that I could blame them some days. They used to get some very weird theist trollage on that group. There were only two theists on the group that they could even tolerate, me and one other person. I was their token Christian :)

If I start a prayer thread, I try to be inclusive (prayers, karma, happy thoughts, positive energy all gratefully accepted). In turn I hope to not see "So why do you people worship some make believe sky daddy?" Hey, if it's a prayer thread, and you're not a prayin' person, then skip the thing, ya know? But no.

Even stickier is the question of whether liberal Christians should try to stand up to the Religious Right, or keep the fuck out of politics so as not to become like the Religious Right. One starts to feel like a pushmepullyou.

Nevertheless, prejudice of any kind sucks swamp water through a straw.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. well the girth one gets to me too...even when it's about Republicans

I made this list of progressive Christian groups, by the way. (not bad for a non religious person aye)

Websites:

Sojourners Movement:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm

The Christian Alliance:

http://www.christianalliance.org

The American Friends Service Committee

http://www.afsc.org/

The Catholic Workers Movement:

http://www.catholicworker.com/

[LittleClarkie]

42. You missed one

www.catholicdemocrats.net

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. thanks -- I will save it on my list

[Bill McBlueState]

50. here's another one

Prejudice against non-believers is also one of the few allowable prejudices left. Christians dominate all three branches of the federal government, all fifty state governments, and the vast majority of local governments. How many places in the country could an out-of-the-closet atheist even get a third of the vote?

[Appalachian_American]

56. Amen brother!

[leftstreet]

22. Labor must organize globally

The Corporatists have "organized" globally, it's time for Labor to do the same.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. certainly, organizing right need to be taken up in trade agreements

[lostinacause]

92. That is unlikely as of now. Trade agreements don't have policies

for competition laws and there has been a push to get this type of thing in to place. These are both similar in that they would be really difficult to negotiate.

[rman]

95. Opposite is happening because unions are considered to be "trade barriers"

that need to be removed so that so called "free trade" can prosper. Same with environmental protection and like issues. In the end it's only the big corporations that prosper from so-called trade agreements while local populations suffer under collapsed economy.

[Dongfang Hong]

27. This is one of the few reasons why I still support unions.

Job safety. It all comes down to job safety. I can think NYC transit employees are a bit selfish to shut a city down, and I can think AMFA is a bit pigheaded for both poaching and striking against the wishes of other NWA unions, but when it comes down to it, there is nothing more important than on-the-job safety, and when left to their own devices, employers tragically trade lives for profits.

[LincolnMcGrath]

28. A. NYC was not shut down

[fishwax]

87. and even if it had been, it would be the fault of management

for failing to bargain in good faith with the transit workers. Treat your people like shit, lie about not having enough money for payroll and then show up later with massive profits, and things like that, and eventually workers will get fed up. It has been a major success of the right wing in the last thirty years to get the public to default blame to the unions when a strike causes inconvenience. In my opinion, when one is inconvenienced by a strike, one shouldn't think "the union made it so I have to drive all the way to the other end of town to get my groceries," but rather "Freaking management treating their employees unfairly made it so I have to (etc.)." That's my opinion, anyway.

[leftofthedial]

32. tort reform and deregulation, don't you know

if sued, liability would cost them far less than having the mine shut down during the search did.

[hamerfan]

38. K & R!

Why does it seem to take a tragedy to get workers to think that, maybe, the company doesn't have the workers' best interests at heart....
dumpbush

[Skidmore]

45. And the administration and congress get sued to for lack of

oversight and weakening the regulatory agency.

[B Calm]

53. amen

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

59. My union experiences

Have just suck because they where weak unions without any balls.

I worked at UPS for a month and half (The average employment is 2 weeks at this location) quit the place after being wrote up one night 3 times in 15 minutes by some pimply face country boy half my size who some how became a supervisor after being there 3 weeks. He tried to tell me I worked to fast unloading the trucks for the sorters on the other end (That's first time I've heard that at a job), I blew him off he got in my face, I said screw it I wasn't getting paid anything anyways there, told him to home have his way with some farm animals and also I quit. The union didn't do jack for me I had to fight for my last paycheck of like $175 dollars and after about a month of the union and UPS pulling my leg I had a friend call them up say he was my lawyer, 20 minutes later I get a call saying please come pick up your check.


I was working under the teamsters union at my last job, Our hours consisted of the standard 8 hour work day with mandatory over time, not like an hour or two, try how ever long they wanted you to work telling you when to go home, most guys there where working 16 hours straight with just 2 breaks and a half hour lunch. I got in trouble for leaving early (After 12 hours) once, and I didn't like how I'd work 14-15 hours and then they'd want me back in there in like 7 hours time, with a hour round trip from home and back I got 6 hours to sleep and eat a meal at home. They'd worked us 6 days a week like this then half day on sundays (8hrs LOL). It was good money with the overtime but no life at all, and an extra kicker we'd have to work thanksgiving along christmas eve and day! What type of union would allow that type of stuff to happen, especially one take $45 union dues a week out of your Check. Not for me so I told them to shove it.

[B Calm]

60. Didn't UPS go on strike in defense of part time employee's?

[bleedingheart]

61. I have heard this before and I think it may be due to the fact

that a lot of people who run for union officer positions do so for their own advancement and not in the interest of their fellow union members.

My advice to any young union workers is...Run for Union officer positions to help make them better.

[B Calm]

62. I totally agree! The union is only as strong as their membership!

When you see a neo con within your local running for union office, run against him!

[bleedingheart]

63. I think this was one of the reasons the SEIU broke off from the

AFL-CIO because they were tired of the cronyism and the focus on political lobbying instead of growing the membership.

[hamerfan]

80. Do the math correctly...

Indy_Dem_Defender writes:
"What type of union would allow that type of stuff to happen, especially one take $45 union dues a week out of your Check."

My union takes one hour of my wages per 80 hour pay period, with or without overtime during that pay period. One hour of pay per two week period. You're saying your union took $45./week. Were you making $90./hour or did you just make this figure up to pad your rant?
As for all the overtime you hated, those conditions must've been spelled out before you took the position. Why did you agree to them if you had no intention of living up to them?
Unions are not fix-alls. Whatever is stated in your collective bargaining agreement with the employer is what is required of you as an employee.
I'm glad you decided to quit that job. It sounds like you weren't happy (life's too short for that), and you may have given the good workers a bad name. Good luck to you,
dumpbush

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

93. reply to dumpbush

Your union had a better deal then we had, UPS was similar to yours on union dues. It was actually like 44 dollars and so many cents, I wish I was making 90 dollars hour if that was the case I would still work there. Starting pay was just under 15 for forklift in the warehouse. I don't know about other states but in Indiana if you can find a forklift job over $10hr you've gotten lucky, most non-union are 8 or 9. When I took the job, I didn't agree to those kinds of crazy hours, I wouldn't of taken it if that's what they told me. I was told that it would be 40 hours a week a long with about 1 week out of the month working an extra 8 hour day. There was nothing spelled out in any of the union paperwork I received after getting hired stating we only had to work X amount of hours of the day. The union seemed to be a dying breed there anyways, as most newer workers where just from a temp agency. They wouldn't work the temps past 8 hours, so the union workers picked up the extra hours of not having enough people to cover all the work. In return this weakened the union by working them to death and out the door along with giving them an excuse to hire temps for 9 dollars without any benefits. The one nice non-union supervisor told me the place was a revolving door, if you make a year and half that's something special. As far as hating the overtime I didn't hate it, I just wanted to know how many hours am I going to work tonight to mentally & Physically prepare myself. 10 hours of work is a lot different than 16 hours, After 10 hours of work doing anything your reflexes start demising. That kind increased the chance for an accident and when one happens people get fired and lose their jobs.

On the life is to short to be unhappy I agree, I'm going back to school now to major in political science (so I'll be posting on DU alot from now on) I want to see where that takes me and maybe into law school if I can make it. I've seen what I've been thru with employers along with what I've witness and heard from others. I went to school for aviation maintenance till the whole aviation industry went upside down after 9/11, I knew alot of people who got screwed over by the airlines destroying their lives. I just don't think there's enough people out there fighting for employees. I want to be one of those people, because I know I have passion to fight with my past experiences.

[Greyhound]

69. disUnited Serfs of Amerika

United in Desperation, Powerless in Poverty. What will you submit to before you stand up?

[savemefromdumbya]

70. UNIONS NEED TO BE MUCH STRONGER

seems to be a lack of membership of unions in the USA

[Douglas Carpenter]

75. absolutely

In my work with unions 99% of complaints from ordinary members were about how the union didn't stand up and fight enough. Of course the union can't be any stronger than the solidarity and determination of its members.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

77. whoa - some unions HAVE outlived their usefulness.

The ones that fail to protect their members, the ones that continue to pad their own caddies and BMWs while insuring their own little power structures, at the expense of their members.

[B Calm]

78. You have any examples of this in the last ten years, or are you just

repeating right-wing propaganda? Unions are closely watched, too bad the corporations aren't!

On a whole, do you think Unions are more corrupt than corporations?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

79. hell no. Chicago is a union town. Most, not all, are decent. but for the

indictments we have here.
Spewing RW props? no. Just realism. And there is no comparison. Corporate regulation is far more important than union regulation. And under this administration, far less likely. Which are more corrupt? no contest.

But the point is not a comparison. It is recognition that some, a few, union leaders have stolen millions, have sold their members short and do not do the best job for their brothers. We cannot afford to hide the fact that people err, and in response to call for change. If we fail to do that, we become almost as bad as the crazies we oppose.

[melissinha]

81. if regulatory agencies were allowed to enforce

is just as important....


DOn't get me wrong and Rachel Maddow explained that this mine didn't have union workers, thats what I thought. But if you have no means to seriously punish and get mining officials to comply.... conditions will not improve either..... We need to get a Democrat in the White House as SOON as possible to put this house in order before more people fall victim to special interests.....

[Strawman]

97. Has any of the media coverage even mentioned the unions?

And how they're the ones who had to fight for decades for the workplace saftey regulations that do exist? Or is this just being framed as an unfortunate isolated episode where "God" didn't come through? Has it provided any background on how this is about corporate profits being valued above protecting lives?

All the people who come home safe everyday, I guess that's just the "will of God." Has nothing to do with the regulations that unions fought for. All those who die in preventable accidents, well I guess that's "God's will" too, not a preventable result of corporate greed. :sarcasm:

[B Calm]

99. The media has been very quiet about placing blame on this

filthy non union company. They like to mention that this (multi billion dollar) company ICG just recently bought this mine and a lot of the problems were there before they bought it. My question is, if they knew of the problems, why in hell didn't they fix the problems before reopening the mine? Could the answer be, they were more in a hurry to make huge profits than worrying about the workers life's.

[flyarm]

102. alaska air is a perfect example as well3 incidents with non union

out sourcing union work...highly qualified union workers...replaced by out sourced workers ..

do you want to crash because an airline hired out to incompentants who bang the side of an aircraft..gash the fuselage .. and don't notify the airline or crew??

where safety is required the only way to assure safety is a union..it protects the worker to speak up and fight for the safety while protecting their job..

from a life long apfa union member

fly

[Pavulon]

107. AA and US AIR

have had major incidents caused by union personnel.

This issue is not that union people are always better or that union shops are safer. Everybody screws up. The issue is that people should be free to organize and join unions if they want to.

[Mutley]

104. That and Walmart, and several other retail chains

where I know they could use it.