Let's talk about Unions.

ThoughtEx. · May 19, 2017

Whenever someone mentions unions, one of two things usually comes to mind.

1. Unions are political machines that create laws favorable to themselves, that hurt both employee and employer. They force businesses to pay unfair wages, and keep on employees who aren't pulling their weight. They are an example of why socialism is inferior to capitalism.

2. Unions protect the common worker in a world hostile to the common worker. They allow for collective bargaining and ensure each worker gets fair compensation in the form of wages and benefits. That without unions, jobs keeping many people comfortably in the middle class would drop to near minimum wage.

In my opinion, both sentiments are accurate. Unions do exist to protect the common laborer. The problem is, they are way to effective. And their effectiveness has upset the equilibrium in their respective markets. One side effect of this equilibrium upset is business are now considering undertaking the high initial cost of automating much of their production and distribution. In favor of the low operating costs the shift would bring in the future. Some see this shift as inevitable, and the only question is when will the bulk of our manufacturing and service industries pull the trigger.

The ones still left in the US that is, because even cheaper than dealing with unions or shelling out for the automation. Is transporting your existing capital to a cheaper labor market. And with 2 billion people half of whom live well under the poverty line already, China can't be beat in the labor market. But the one drawback to Chinese labor is lack of certain infrastructure. High Tech production infrastructure to be exact. A great deal goes into making certain things, like planes, and while China does have some of its own. Most of their valuable infrastructure is state controlled. And if you built your own down there, the state could take that to. Communism sucks like that.

I think it's to late to save certain industries, and near impossible to bring any back. But there are ones for lack of a better term, still stuck here. That we can expand. With our ultimate goal fending off automation for as long as possible while ensuring a fair market value for labor. And I think Unions easing off is a necessary step towards that. The most obvious concession Unions should make is on Terminations. Businesses should have a right to set a certain level of productivity. And if that level isn't met consistently, they should reserve the right to terminate. And employee compensation in total should equal the fair market price for the job in question. Businesses shouldn't be forced to pay for Cadillac insurance plans on top of an inflated salary. And finally, everyone should fund their own retirement. It's not difficult when your being fairly compensated for your work and you take appropriate steps.

I do not mean to imply that the businesses should always be at an advantage. But rather, an equilibrium sought between the Unions ability to bargain on what fair market compensation is and the businesses right to maintain standards and a certain level of profitability. Finding this equilibrium will take a fair amount of patience and practice from everyone involved. And a great deal of thought, for anyone familiar with Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. I recently stumbled on this article going into a different take on Smith's views. It claims Smith called for an equilibrium as well.

How would you like to see the way Unions operate change? And what are your thoughts on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations?

Lord Tammerlain · May 19, 2017

Overall union membership is at historic lows yet they are too effective and strong?

Wage gains for the income levels that used to be in union (again not so much today) has been stagnant or declining for decades.

In the US private sector unions are not a problem for US manufacturing or for US service sector jobs. They are not the ones driving automation or off shoring.

ThoughtEx. · May 19, 2017

Lord Tammerlain said:
Overall union membership is at historic lows yet they are too effective and strong?

Wage gains for the income levels that used to be in union (again not so much today) has been stagnant or declining for decades.

In the US private sector unions are not a problem for US manufacturing or for US service sector jobs. They are not the ones driving automation or off shoring.

Ya, they are at lows because businesses are refusing to play with them at all. And why many conservative states are busting up unions in favor of the temp agency model. Which will hurt their constituents in the long run. And they are a factor, did not mean to imply they were the sole driver, in decisions to move offshore or automate.

Lord Tammerlain · May 19, 2017

ThoughtEx. said:
Ya, they are at lows because businesses are refusing to play with them at all. And why many conservative states are busting up unions in favor of the temp agency model. Which will hurt their constituents in the long run. And they are a factor, did not mean to imply they were the sole driver, in decisions to move offshore or automate.

You did say they were too stong, yet their power is probably at pre WW2 levels. Certainly much lower than during the 1950's. It is significantly lower than in the 1970's as well.

With right to work srates being as common as they are I don't think private sector unions need to be weakened anymore than they already are to provide a balance. Weaken them anymore and they might as well not exist as they would not provide any benefit's ar all and yes they do. Income and benefits are generally higher at Union jobs

ThoughtEx. · May 19, 2017

Lord Tammerlain said:
You did say they were too stong, yet their power is probably at pre WW2 levels. Certainly much lower than during the 1950's. It is significantly lower than in the 1970's as well.

With right to work srates being as common as they are I don't think private sector unions need to be weakened anymore than they already are to provide a balance. Weaken them anymore and they might as well not exist as they would not provide any benefit's ar all and yes they do. Income and benefits are generally higher at Union jobs

I failed to complete that thought I think. I think the things I mentioned in the OP should be adopted by Unions, not as a means to weaken them. But as a bargaining chip to get businesses not to leave the table, they are already at, for greener pastures. That their current postures and ideas of what they should be fighting for should be changed to seek an equilibrium.

And when I said they are to strong, I am referring to places they are entrenched. And yes looking to history and what has been their downfall. I am not trying to favor business over union with this position. I'm trying to promote a balanced relationship.

Lord Tammerlain · May 19, 2017

ThoughtEx. said:
I failed to complete that thought I think. I think the things I mentioned in the OP should be adopted by Unions, not as a means to weaken them. But as a bargaining chip to get businesses not to leave the table, they are already at, for greener pastures. That their current postures and ideas of what they should be fighting for should be changed to seek an equilibrium.

And when I said they are to strong, I am referring to places they are entrenched. And yes looking to history and what has been their downfall. I am not trying to favor business over union with this position. I'm trying to promote a balanced relationship.

Right to work does not do that.

Allowing companiesto lockout and hire replacement/scab workers as a means of pressure can

Henrin · May 19, 2017

Union laws can't be based on balance between the parties. Union laws will always be a one sided affair because they are designed to provide unions with power they wouldn't otherwise have by limiting the power of business.

ThoughtEx. · May 19, 2017

Lord Tammerlain said:
Right to work does not do that.

Allowing companiesto lockout and hire replacement/scab workers as a means of pressure can

I want to get past the point where pressure needs to be applied at all. And I think to do that, concessions need to be made on both sides. Unions need to seek more reasonable compensation and allow for company employment standards, and employers need to pay fair compensation.

LetsGoBrandon · May 19, 2017

ThoughtEx. said:
Whenever someone mentions unions, one of two things usually comes to mind.

1. Unions are political machines that create laws favorable to themselves, that hurt both employee and employer. They force businesses to pay unfair wages, and keep on employees who aren't pulling their weight. They are an example of why socialism is inferior to capitalism.

2. Unions protect the common worker in a world hostile to the common worker. They allow for collective bargaining and ensure each worker gets fair compensation in the form of wages and benefits. That without unions, jobs keeping many people comfortably in the middle class would drop to near minimum wage.

In my opinion, both sentiments are accurate. Unions do exist to protect the common laborer. The problem is, they are way to effective. And their effectiveness has upset the equilibrium in their respective markets. One side effect of this equilibrium upset is business are now considering undertaking the high initial cost of automating much of their production and distribution. In favor of the low operating costs the shift would bring in the future. Some see this shift as inevitable, and the only question is when will the bulk of our manufacturing and service industries pull the trigger.

The ones still left in the US that is, because even cheaper than dealing with unions or shelling out for the automation. Is transporting your existing capital to a cheaper labor market. And with 2 billion people half of whom live well under the poverty line already, China can't be beat in the labor market. But the one drawback to Chinese labor is lack of certain infrastructure. High Tech production infrastructure to be exact. A great deal goes into making certain things, like planes, and while China does have some of its own. Most of their valuable infrastructure is state controlled. And if you built your own down there, the state could take that to. Communism sucks like that.

I think it's to late to save certain industries, and near impossible to bring any back. But there are ones for lack of a better term, still stuck here. That we can expand. With our ultimate goal fending off automation for as long as possible while ensuring a fair market value for labor. And I think Unions easing off is a necessary step towards that. The most obvious concession Unions should make is on Terminations. Businesses should have a right to set a certain level of productivity. And if that level isn't met consistently, they should reserve the right to terminate. And employee compensation in total should equal the fair market price for the job in question. Businesses shouldn't be forced to pay for Cadillac insurance plans on top of an inflated salary. And finally, everyone should fund their own retirement. It's not difficult when your being fairly compensated for your work and you take appropriate steps.

I do not mean to imply that the businesses should always be at an advantage. But rather, an equilibrium sought between the Unions ability to bargain on what fair market compensation is and the businesses right to maintain standards and a certain level of profitability. Finding this equilibrium will take a fair amount of patience and practice from everyone involved. And a great deal of thought, for anyone familiar with Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. I recently stumbled on this article going into a different take on Smith's views. It claims Smith called for an equilibrium as well.

How would you like to see the way Unions operate change? And what are your thoughts on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations?

Personally, for the most part, I think labor unions suck. They were a force for good back in the days of out of control sweat shops, however today, they are a negative force. While I do not have a problem with collective bargaining, I don't think it's right for any worker to be forced to join a labor union as a condition of getting employment at a specific company.

ThoughtEx. · May 19, 2017

ObamacareFail said:
Personally, for the most part, I think labor unions suck. They were a force for good back in the days of out of control sweat shops, however today, they are a negative force. While I do not have a problem with collective bargaining, I don't think it's right for any worker to be forced to join a labor union as a condition of getting employment at a specific company.

That's reasonable, and I don't disagree. Companies should be free to hire whomever they choose, union or not. But, I have noticed that companies today when given a cost effective option prefer to outsource hiring and HR. Unions giving up hiring exclusivity is a fair concession on their part I think. As most companies if offered a fair deal by unions would probably forgo using outside labor of their own free will.

Cigar · May 19, 2017

This Country was built by Unions, and so was the Middle-Class.

I can understand why the Rich doesn't like them, but why anyone who couldn't buy the Rich's toilet water doesn't like them is a mystery to me.

Nickyjo · May 19, 2017

ThoughtEx. said:
I failed to complete that thought I think. I think the things I mentioned in the OP should be adopted by Unions, not as a means to weaken them. But as a bargaining chip to get businesses not to leave the table, they are already at, for greener pastures. That their current postures and ideas of what they should be fighting for should be changed to seek an equilibrium.

And when I said they are to strong, I am referring to places they are entrenched. And yes looking to history and what has been their downfall. I am not trying to favor business over union with this position. I'm trying to promote a balanced relationship.

I used to work as a union official, and have some experience investigating employment discrimination for a state agency. As such I got to talk a lot to employers, some hostile, some not so much to unions and workers rights. Some employers didn't care that their workers were unionized, so long as their competition was unionized. I heard "When are you going to organize THOSE guys" several times from bosses. Others were philosophical about unions, the saying being "Anyone who gets a union deserves one," given the ease with which you could avoid unionization by simply treating your workers right. And European friends pointed out how in their countries, there is not the antagonistic relationship between labor and management they saw here. Don't know if that is true, but our labor history was pretty violent at times. We don't teach it, of course: several striking miners were killed at Ludlow, Colorado in a pretty brutal exercise of state power against workers. No monument, naturally. The Haymarket incident, centering around the fight for the 40 hour week, is well known in other countries by labor leaders. There's a monument to the police killed in the riot, for which some innocent labor leaders were hanged, but only recently has there been a monument set up to the workers as well. May Day, considered a commie holiday for years in the USA, is celebrated in most countries of the world, but not here. Even the Catholic Church, no Commies they, celebrates May 1 as the feast of St. Joseph the Worker.

My point is that we are not a culture that values worker solidarity, labor history,etc. Our media, that might have given sympathetic coverage to a charismatic labor leader like Cesar Chavez, generally ignores labor disputes and issues. Several years ago, many workers in a chicken processing plant died when they couldn't escape a fire since the doors were locked. It got some coverage, but probably few politicians commented besides Jesse Jackson. When I as a civil rights employment investigator asked workers who were clearly mistreated (but not illegally discriminated against) if they could turn to a union for help, more than once they told me, "Oh, we voted against unionization." Right-to-work laws are a perversion of capitalism, but they are celebrated by conservatives, otherwise not prone to champion worker interests, as a liberating principle. Lesson not learned by many in our culture: you don't need a union til you need one.

There are reasons why the gap between workers and those at the top has increased in recent years. Workplaces are changing in previously unimaginable ways, and that is one reason. Another one is the decline in unions.

Exquisitor · May 19, 2017

Back in the thirties, the "I AM" didn't like unions they said they were tools of the sinister force to deprive promote strikes and deprive people of income and that they should instead call to the Mighty "I AM" presence to get management to improve. If so then the patriots should have done this to King George instead of mounting a revolution. This consciousness has spilled over to the Religious right who influence the Republican Party. This propensity to destroy unions is balanced by the Democrats and Greens who would give too much power to Unions who would run everything and there would be no job that wasn't union.

It would be nice to have a President and Congress that rule from a balanced point of view rather than achieving balance from opposition.

Neomalthusian · May 19, 2017

ThoughtEx. said:
How would you like to see the way Unions operate change?

45% of municipal government workers are represented by unions. The next most unionized subsector of the workforce is state government. The next three after that are federal government, education, and utilities.

There should not be unionism in any of those sectors of the economy. There is no perverse profit motive in these sectors in the first place. Compensation and working conditions should be set by law, not closed door negotiations with unelected managers. Even FDR, our most liberal president ever, felt this way.

So much support for unionism references corporations and profit motives but ignores how infested the governmental sector is with unions.

ThoughtEx. · May 19, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
45% of municipal government workers are represented by unions. The next most unionized subsector of the workforce is state government. The next three after that are federal government, education, and utilities.

There should not be unionism in any of those sectors of the economy. There is no perverse profit motive in these sectors in the first place. Compensation and working conditions should be set by law, not closed door negotiations with unelected managers. Even FDR, our most liberal president ever, felt this way.

So much support for unionism references corporations and profit motives but ignores how infested the governmental sector is with unions.

That's between the government and those unions. They aren't producing anything, marketing anything, or competing. They don't matter as much, lets focus on the ones that do.

Neomalthusian · May 20, 2017

ThoughtEx. said:
That's between the government and those unions. They aren't producing anything, marketing anything, or competing. They don't matter as much, lets focus on the ones that do.

What is this comment even saying? Everything you just wrote makes no coherent point. "That's between the government and those unions?" Everything involving a union is between that union and whatever organization upon which that union imposes itself. "Oh, that's different, that's between THEM, not relevant to a topic that is about unions..." What?

"They aren't producing anything?" Every organization that buys and sells labor produces some sort of good or service. Public sector entities produce public goods and public services. They very much do produce things. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist, would they?

"They don't matter as much?" There is more unionism, in every respect, in every subsector of the public sector than there is in any subsector of the private sector. What justifies any unionism in the public sector at all, let alone this dramatically higher concentration of unionism in the public sector? What justifies it, when the government itself can set its own policies?

You are just in avoidance mode, avoiding facts because they are inconvenient in light of your personal feelings about unions. You want to be able to continue to feel that all unions do is fight a noble fight against sociopathic corporate profiteers, even as unions primarily focus their energies and investments on the goal of eviscerating state and local government budgets.

Neomalthusian · May 21, 2017

Cigar said:
This Country was built by Unions, and so was the Middle-Class.

No it wasn't. Unions thrived once upon a time when our economy was roaring, which pretty much everyone else did too, because our economy was roaring.

I can understand why the Rich doesn't like them, but why anyone who couldn't buy the Rich's toilet water doesn't like them is a mystery to me.

I want them out of municipal and state government. Getting them out of municipal and state government doesn't provide some massive windfall for "the rich." Unions have flocked to the public sector where there is no competition, which is what they need.

Neomalthusian · May 21, 2017

ThoughtEx. said:
I want to get past the point where pressure needs to be applied at all.

Sense can't be made of this. Either buyers of labor can buy labor under whatever terms they want, or something imposes a restriction on it. A restriction, if one is to exist, should be in the form of a law that regulates the purchase of labor. We have a number of these types of laws already.

And I think to do that, concessions need to be made on both sides.

How can you force a concession? Normal and fair negotiation is such that either side can walk away. How can a non-governmental entity force another party to contract with it when the other party doesn't want to? To apply this sort of force, you need the government to back you up, in which case, why not just have the government apply the force?

Unions need to seek more reasonable compensation

Too bad. They don't think so. They don't have to be reasonable. They have no incentive to be reasonable. Their goal is to extort more and more and more indefinitely. Their only way of being able to do this over the long run requires the legal ability to coerce employees into their (financial core) membership, and to coerce employers to sign their contracts. You can wag your finger at them and say "you need to be reasonable" all you want. They disagree, and they will continue being as unreasonable as possible, assuming their coercive powers are protected by state law.

ThoughtEx. · May 21, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
What is this comment even saying? Everything you just wrote makes no coherent point. "That's between the government and those unions?" Everything involving a union is between that union and whatever organization upon which that union imposes itself. "Oh, that's different, that's between THEM, not relevant to a topic that is about unions..." What?

"They aren't producing anything?" Every organization that buys and sells labor produces some sort of good or service. Public sector entities produce public goods and public services. They very much do produce things. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist, would they?

"They don't matter as much?" There is more unionism, in every respect, in every subsector of the public sector than there is in any subsector of the private sector. What justifies any unionism in the public sector at all, let alone this dramatically higher concentration of unionism in the public sector? What justifies it, when the government itself can set its own policies?

You are just in avoidance mode, avoiding facts because they are inconvenient in light of your personal feelings about unions. You want to be able to continue to feel that all unions do is fight a noble fight against sociopathic corporate profiteers, even as unions primarily focus their energies and investments on the goal of eviscerating state and local government budgets.

You are reading what you want in my comments. I see no point in bickering with you.

Cigar · May 22, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
No it wasn't. Unions thrived once upon a time when our economy was roaring, which pretty much everyone else did too, because our economy was roaring.

I want them out of municipal and state government. Getting them out of municipal and state government doesn't provide some massive windfall for "the rich." Unions have flocked to the public sector where there is no competition, which is what they need.

Major BS

Neomalthusian · May 22, 2017

Cigar said:
Major BS

What is? I refuted your notion that unions are the only reason anything productive in this country has ever been done, and then I shared my belief that no labor union should exist in state and local government. Federal either, really. Or education.

Cigar · May 22, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
What is? I refuted your notion that unions are the only reason anything productive in this country has ever been done, and then I shared my belief that no labor union should exist in state and local government. Federal either, really. Or education.

Too Bad, you lose :mrgreen:

Neomalthusian · May 22, 2017

Cigar said:
Too Bad, you lose :mrgreen:

Not really though. I can continue to point out to small municipalities everywhere that they're not actually required to agree to union security clauses, and shouldn't because it doesn't benefit them whatsoever to do so. This gives every municipal employer the right to make itself de facto Right To Work. I can continue reminding local city councils that arbitration over collective bargaining isn't binding on them. I can continue reminding public sector managers and employers that they are entitled under federal law to permanently replace workers striking for economic gain. I can continue putting pressure on city councils to pass ordinances that say they will not voluntarily submit to any arbitration proceedings unless compelled by a higher level of government or court of law. Hopefully a Friedrichs or similar case is reconsidered by a full Supreme Court, and hopefully more state pass laws prohibiting union shop security clauses. I don't see those things as "losing."

Meanwhile union apologists will continue pretending what unions are all about is fighting the good fight against those evil rich corporations. That's not what unions are busy doing.

All I'm doing is talking about unions, like the threat topic suggests.

Cigar · May 22, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
Not really though. I can continue to point out to small municipalities everywhere that they're not actually required to agree to union security clauses, and shouldn't because it doesn't benefit them whatsoever to do so. This gives every municipal employer the right to make itself de facto Right To Work. I can continue reminding local city councils that arbitration over collective bargaining isn't binding on them. I can continue reminding public sector managers and employers that they are entitled under federal law to permanently replace workers striking for economic gain. I can continue putting pressure on city councils to pass ordinances that say they will not voluntarily submit to any arbitration proceedings unless compelled by a higher level of government or court of law. Hopefully a Friedrichs or similar case is reconsidered by a full Supreme Court, and hopefully more state pass laws prohibiting union shop security clauses. I don't see those things as "losing."

Meanwhile union apologists will continue pretending what unions are all about is fighting the good fight against those evil rich corporations. That's not what unions are busy doing.

All I'm doing is talking about unions, like the threat topic suggests.

The last time my Father worked in a Union, was for The Illinois State Police. The reason why he left was because the racism within was greater that the racism in the street.

reinoe · May 22, 2017

Where unions are strong just look at their product.

Police Unions
Non Law Enforcement Public employees
Casino Workers (Las Vegas)

I don't think anyone would agree that Non- LE Public Employees or Police put out good quality work. I can't speak to the quality of work that comes out of the Las Vegas casinos, but I can tell you that they are rife with political corruption.

Let's talk about Unions.

Educator