The Almighty Unions

[JimC]

Coito Ergo Sum wrote:

Moreover, other means do exist. We have minimum wage and overtime laws that are applicable to nonunionized workers, as well as leave laws protecting people who take leave for family and medical reasons, to engage in jury duty, to care for a sick relative, to have a baby, to serve in the uniformed services, and the like. We have laws that protect people from adverse action for filing workers compensation claims and for engaging in other protected activities. We have laws protecting people from racial, sexual and other discrimination, and there are mechanisms including filing charges (at no cost to the employee) before the EEOC and equivalent state agencies and filing civil suits in court (which can often be handled on a contingency fee basis such that not much out of pocket money is spent by the employee in trying to vindicate their rights.

In most industrialised countries, certainly in Australia, those basic rights (certainly the ones involving the workplace) were established, inch by inch, by tenacious union action over many years, usually in the face of vehement opposition by the big money end of town. The fact that those rights are applied to non-union folk now does not change the history. Of course, others were involved in this process of protecting workers, but unions were at the heart of it.

I'm union, always have been, always will be. Simple as that.

I suspect that this attitude is much more common in Oz than in the US, where there seems to be a great deal of demonization of unions...

I wouldn't call it "demonization" of unions. But, I do find that unions tend to want to grab all the credit and all the virtue in the debate. Union folk tend to the self-righteous and to grab for the high ground of the debate - and there are plenty of union folks in the US who demonize nonunion folk, suggesting that opposition to anything a union supports or wants is tantamount to a crime, and certainly immoral. Heck, people just need to agree with Franklin Roosevelt's view that public sector unions ought not be able to strike against the public interest, and we're told we might as well want children to labor 16 hours a day in factories for tuppence a day. If that's not "demonization" then what is?

And, I'll direct you to the example I gave above, where I happened to stumble into the crosshairs of pissed off union workers on strike. Damn! They tried to star nail my tires so I'd get a flat. I kept the nails as a souvenir.

I don't blame unions for the ills of the world, and I 100% support their existence and the right to collectively bargain under the law. I do not, however, think that means I have to support every demand and ever bit of fist-shaking I see on the part of union folks. There is a sense of entitlement there that I find distasteful - like in my example where it was assumed that I, a third party to the dispute, had to support the strikers. What if my father was the manager of the store? What if I had stock in the company? What if I just didn't feel the matter important to me? The assumption the union folks had that I had to comply with their demands and support them, or there would be CRIMINAL reprisals was disconcerting to me. And, look at some of the goings-on regarding the teachers in Wisconsin - lying to their employer and taking "sick" days to engage in protest activities...

Sure, one can always find examples where union members have behaved the wrong way, and some powerful unions in Australia have crossed the line into rather thuggish behaviour on work-sites. In that case, the law should follow its course, unions can't expect to be above the law... Unions are often going to ask for more than they know they are going to get, as happens in many bargaining positions.
My own union in the education sector is fairly low key, but it does an excellent job of collective bargaining for us, and, just as importantly, it represents members who are in dispute with their employers, making sure that due process is followed.

What is ridiculous, of course, is the assertion by some in this thread that unionism is automatically marxist in nature. One can be a strong supporter of unions as one of the vital checks and balances in our economic system, without wanting to abandon free enterprise...

[Warren Dew]

A manager hiring an employee is the same. The manager has a need of a worker. He will pay as little as he can to fill the need. Why would he pay more than that?

I once offered someone a starting salary about 40% higher than what they asked for. They were only looking for a job paying more than the telemarketing for a nonprofit that they had been doing, and their physics degree hadn't been helping them find other jobs, so their expectations were low. I knew from the degree, school, and interview, though, that they'd be good at the job being offered and with the experience they would soon gain, would almost instantly be worth much more than they could presently get. Why not pay them what they were going to be worth, and likely get some loyalty in return for the good treatment?

Of course, I tend to tip fairly well at restaurants, too, even though I don't have to.

[Coito ergo sum]

A manager hiring an employee is the same. The manager has a need of a worker. He will pay as little as he can to fill the need. Why would he pay more than that?

I once offered someone a starting salary about 40% higher than what they asked for. They were only looking for a job paying more than the telemarketing for a nonprofit that they had been doing, and their physics degree hadn't been helping them find other jobs, so their expectations were low. I knew from the degree, school, and interview, though, that they'd be good at the job being offered and with the experience they would soon gain, would almost instantly be worth much more than they could presently get. Why not pay them what they were going to be worth, and likely get some loyalty in return for the good treatment?

Of course, I tend to tip fairly well at restaurants, too, even though I don't have to.

Obviously, it can make sense to do that. There are a number of reasons - one - someone might come on board and soon learn that they undersold themselves, and "should" be making more and then become disgruntled. It costs money to replace an employee and it may well be important to the employer to retain a good person. Doing that engenders loyalty, and is of value to the employer in that regard. Of course there are situations where that is important and where, as in your case, you may want to do that.

The thing is, you didn't do it for charity or because the person "deserved" it. You paid value to someone that you assessed was worth more and you wanted to engender loyalty. In the conversation I've been having, people seem to be under the impression that regardless of the person's qualifications or how much you assess them to be worth, it would be unfair to pay anything but equal wages.

I tip extremely well, too.

On the issue of wages, I recall one employer who hired me when I was a young pup. I was hired at the same time as another guy with literally, eerily, the same education and qualifications - even the same grades in college, roughly - we laughed because our resumes were so similar. We both got hired by a small company - I made about 15% more than him to start. Why? The only thing I surmised explained it was that I am typically outspoken and unafraid in interviews, and when it came to money I negotiated. He didn't. Is that "unfair?" - What if the job is one where negotiation skills and hard-nosedness is considered a virtue? (it was) - couldn't an employer justifiably reward a new hire, young pub, showing some fire and vinegar at the outset?

[Warren Dew]

The thing is, you didn't do it for charity or because the person "deserved" it. You paid value to someone that you assessed was worth more and you wanted to engender loyalty. In the conversation I've been having, people seem to be under the impression that regardless of the person's qualifications or how much you assess them to be worth, it would be unfair to pay anything but equal wages.

I would contend that while I may not have paid more because the person "deserved" it in the sense that progressives seem to mean, I absolutely paid more because she deserved it in any reasonable sense. She was responsible, intelligent, had some of the skills needed to succeed at the job, and had the willingness to pick up the other skills needed in short order. What people truly deserve is based on their experience, the skills they've taken the trouble to learn, and their own hard work - not on whether they happen to belong to a labor union.

[Seth]

Coito Ergo Sum wrote:

Moreover, other means do exist. We have minimum wage and overtime laws that are applicable to nonunionized workers, as well as leave laws protecting people who take leave for family and medical reasons, to engage in jury duty, to care for a sick relative, to have a baby, to serve in the uniformed services, and the like. We have laws that protect people from adverse action for filing workers compensation claims and for engaging in other protected activities. We have laws protecting people from racial, sexual and other discrimination, and there are mechanisms including filing charges (at no cost to the employee) before the EEOC and equivalent state agencies and filing civil suits in court (which can often be handled on a contingency fee basis such that not much out of pocket money is spent by the employee in trying to vindicate their rights.

In most industrialised countries, certainly in Australia, those basic rights (certainly the ones involving the workplace) were established, inch by inch, by tenacious union action over many years, usually in the face of vehement opposition by the big money end of town. The fact that those rights are applied to non-union folk now does not change the history. Of course, others were involved in this process of protecting workers, but unions were at the heart of it.

Right, but having achieved the goal of enshrining those basic rights in law, where they equally protect all workers, what then is the need for the unions? When you've won the war, you generally retire the army.

The problem is, of course, that unions, while they began with rational and legitimate objectives, have lost sight of what is good for society and now look only to the power of the union bosses, often to the detriment of the interests of their own members, and at the expense of members who do not wish to be members (closed-shop states/countries) or who do not hold the same political or philosophical views as the union leadership, and therefore do not wish to have their union dues spent on political machinations having nothing whatever to do with their jobs or salaries.

Unions have outlived their usefulness insofar as workplace safety and working conditions are concerned, and their only remaining utility to the membership is that of collective bargaining, which is fine for private sector unions, although not for public sector unions, which should not exist in the first place.

[Seth]

Coito Ergo Sum wrote:

Moreover, other means do exist. We have minimum wage and overtime laws that are applicable to nonunionized workers, as well as leave laws protecting people who take leave for family and medical reasons, to engage in jury duty, to care for a sick relative, to have a baby, to serve in the uniformed services, and the like. We have laws that protect people from adverse action for filing workers compensation claims and for engaging in other protected activities. We have laws protecting people from racial, sexual and other discrimination, and there are mechanisms including filing charges (at no cost to the employee) before the EEOC and equivalent state agencies and filing civil suits in court (which can often be handled on a contingency fee basis such that not much out of pocket money is spent by the employee in trying to vindicate their rights.

In most industrialised countries, certainly in Australia, those basic rights (certainly the ones involving the workplace) were established, inch by inch, by tenacious union action over many years, usually in the face of vehement opposition by the big money end of town. The fact that those rights are applied to non-union folk now does not change the history. Of course, others were involved in this process of protecting workers, but unions were at the heart of it.

I'm union, always have been, always will be. Simple as that.

I suspect that this attitude is much more common in Oz than in the US, where there seems to be a great deal of demonization of unions...

Three words for those of you who think unions are evil entities: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory

That was then, this is now. Where workplace safety, zoning, building and fire codes control workplace safety, and government agencies like OSHA regulate worker safety and health, unions are redundant and unnecessary, and are a waste of money. That far back in history the force of unionization was necessary to create laws to protect workers doesn't mean that they have any legitimacy today.

[Seth]

My own union in the education sector is fairly low key, but it does an excellent job of collective bargaining for us, and, just as importantly, it represents members who are in dispute with their employers, making sure that due process is followed.

Are you a public employee, or are you employed in the private educational sector?

What is ridiculous, of course, is the assertion by some in this thread that unionism is automatically marxist in nature. One can be a strong supporter of unions as one of the vital checks and balances in our economic system, without wanting to abandon free enterprise...

It's not the union concept that's Marxist, it's the way labor unions are run, particularly in the United States, where they are being used as tools for Marxist revolutionary overthrow of the system by the UNION BOSSES. The average union worker has no real say in what people like Richard Trumka do with their dues, and many of them object vociferously to having their dues, which were paid so that the union would support the individual worker in his job, used for funding political parties, campaigns and Marxist political agendas.

[JimC]

Coito Ergo Sum wrote:

Moreover, other means do exist. We have minimum wage and overtime laws that are applicable to nonunionized workers, as well as leave laws protecting people who take leave for family and medical reasons, to engage in jury duty, to care for a sick relative, to have a baby, to serve in the uniformed services, and the like. We have laws that protect people from adverse action for filing workers compensation claims and for engaging in other protected activities. We have laws protecting people from racial, sexual and other discrimination, and there are mechanisms including filing charges (at no cost to the employee) before the EEOC and equivalent state agencies and filing civil suits in court (which can often be handled on a contingency fee basis such that not much out of pocket money is spent by the employee in trying to vindicate their rights.

In most industrialised countries, certainly in Australia, those basic rights (certainly the ones involving the workplace) were established, inch by inch, by tenacious union action over many years, usually in the face of vehement opposition by the big money end of town. The fact that those rights are applied to non-union folk now does not change the history. Of course, others were involved in this process of protecting workers, but unions were at the heart of it.

Right, but having achieved the goal of enshrining those basic rights in law, where they equally protect all workers, what then is the need for the unions? When you've won the war, you generally retire the army.

The problem is, of course, that unions, while they began with rational and legitimate objectives, have lost sight of what is good for society and now look only to the power of the union bosses, often to the detriment of the interests of their own members, and at the expense of members who do not wish to be members (closed-shop states/countries) or who do not hold the same political or philosophical views as the union leadership, and therefore do not wish to have their union dues spent on political machinations having nothing whatever to do with their jobs or salaries.

Unions have outlived their usefulness insofar as workplace safety and working conditions are concerned, and their only remaining utility to the membership is that of collective bargaining, which is fine for private sector unions, although not for public sector unions, which should not exist in the first place.

If unions were abolished tomorrow (which ain't going to happen), we'd all be deafened by the cheers fom employers, owners and capitalists the world over...

Without unions to help working people resist pressure from a big organisation on an isolated individual, the hard-won gains in industrial conditions would be eroded. As for industrial health and safety issues, unions need to monitor that companies are indeed following the rules - government agencies are often not big enough to inspect all work places.
Unions are here to stay, whether you like it or not!

As for bosses of big unions becoming corrupt, there is always the potential for that to happen, the same as there is for leaders of business. In Australia, at least, rank and file members keep an eye on their union leaders. Union elections are often very hard-fought battles, something you should approve of...

[Seth]

Coito Ergo Sum wrote:

Moreover, other means do exist. We have minimum wage and overtime laws that are applicable to nonunionized workers, as well as leave laws protecting people who take leave for family and medical reasons, to engage in jury duty, to care for a sick relative, to have a baby, to serve in the uniformed services, and the like. We have laws that protect people from adverse action for filing workers compensation claims and for engaging in other protected activities. We have laws protecting people from racial, sexual and other discrimination, and there are mechanisms including filing charges (at no cost to the employee) before the EEOC and equivalent state agencies and filing civil suits in court (which can often be handled on a contingency fee basis such that not much out of pocket money is spent by the employee in trying to vindicate their rights.

In most industrialised countries, certainly in Australia, those basic rights (certainly the ones involving the workplace) were established, inch by inch, by tenacious union action over many years, usually in the face of vehement opposition by the big money end of town. The fact that those rights are applied to non-union folk now does not change the history. Of course, others were involved in this process of protecting workers, but unions were at the heart of it.

Right, but having achieved the goal of enshrining those basic rights in law, where they equally protect all workers, what then is the need for the unions? When you've won the war, you generally retire the army.

The problem is, of course, that unions, while they began with rational and legitimate objectives, have lost sight of what is good for society and now look only to the power of the union bosses, often to the detriment of the interests of their own members, and at the expense of members who do not wish to be members (closed-shop states/countries) or who do not hold the same political or philosophical views as the union leadership, and therefore do not wish to have their union dues spent on political machinations having nothing whatever to do with their jobs or salaries.

Unions have outlived their usefulness insofar as workplace safety and working conditions are concerned, and their only remaining utility to the membership is that of collective bargaining, which is fine for private sector unions, although not for public sector unions, which should not exist in the first place.

If unions were abolished tomorrow (which ain't going to happen), we'd all be deafened by the cheers fom employers, owners and capitalists the world over...

Indeed. And economies worldwide would flourish, the economic tide would rise, and everyone would benefit. Right now, only the union members benefit, at the expense of everyone else.

Without unions to help working people resist pressure from a big organisation on an isolated individual, the hard-won gains in industrial conditions would be eroded.

Nonsense. Comprehensive workplace laws now exist that would not change merely because union bosses were not there funneling membership dues into the coffers of leftist politicians.

As for industrial health and safety issues, unions need to monitor that companies are indeed following the rules - government agencies are often not big enough to inspect all work places.

Any individual can do that. All they have to do is to call the EEOC or OSHA. Unions are unnecessary to worker protection these days.

Unions are here to stay, whether you like it or not!

Tell it to the public sector unions in Wisconsin.

As for bosses of big unions becoming corrupt, there is always the potential for that to happen, the same as there is for leaders of business. In Australia, at least, rank and file members keep an eye on their union leaders. Union elections are often very hard-fought battles, something you should approve of...

I do, but it wouldn't be necessary if union bosses weren't feathering their own nests, and were even a fraction as "socialist" as they claim to be, in which case they would not be paid more than the highest paid union member. Funny how that doesn't happen, isn't it? Now it may be different down under, but here in the US, union bosses are primarily fundraisers for left-wing politicians and policies, and have little interest in caring for the working conditions or compensation of their members.

[egbert]

That was then, this is now. Where workplace safety, zoning, building and fire codes control workplace safety, and government agencies like OSHA regulate worker safety and health, unions are redundant and unnecessary, and are a waste of money. That far back in history the force of unionization was necessary to create laws to protect workers doesn't mean that they have any legitimacy today.

Of course they're unnecessary! And, with all this regulatory oversight, why, who has EVER heard of a mine owner demanding his workers carry on under dangerous conditions? Seth is so right -I mean who has EVER heard of any miners dying recently with all the oversight from the regulatory bodies! What a ridiculous notion! I mean, with all the financial regulatory bodies, have you EVER heard of ANYTHING going wrong in the financial world? The best thing that could ever happen would be to put Bernie Madoff back in charge of NASDAQ.

[egbert]

That was then, this is now. Where workplace safety, zoning, building and fire codes control workplace safety, and government agencies like OSHA regulate worker safety and health, unions are redundant and unnecessary, and are a waste of money. That far back in history the force of unionization was necessary to create laws to protect workers doesn't mean that they have any legitimacy today.

Exactly! Just compare China's coal mining industry with the West. China hasn't had input from the nefarious Unions, and, as a result, has what must be the world's lowest fatality rate among miners!
Kudos to them....and all without exhorbitant pay cheques.
Compare their enviable track record with that of the West - almost daily reports of fatalities!
Just goes to show - when you eliminate the greedy gluttonous Unions, the kind, loving nature of the mine owners will always prevail!

[egbert]

[egbert]

I will listen to any Union basher very carefully.

Once they have given there weekends back.

[egbert]

One of my current schemes is to build a Pyramid on the Moon (honestly)......at a profit

Gov't subsidy/Grant?

[egbert]