Labor Unions? (NRR)
jlee
1,539 Posts
I know this might be like throwing gas on a fire, but how many of you strongly vouch for current[/b] labor unions?i must say, this is probably the one area where my democrat/liberal-pass gets revoked. it's not to say that i am against the theory of unions (fair working conditions and benefits for workers). nor do i negate the many positive things they have done for the working class. but a large part of me thinks that there has been a shift in the balance of power over the past 30-40 years that has lead our country down an unfavorable path with respect to how much power unions have. i can't really site too many specifics for pros or cons. but my overall sentiment is that unions have to some degree kept the US working class from reaching its full potential.is anyone up on good books/articles that support the current[/b] labor union movement? if so, please let me know/hit me off with links. i realize an anti-union position may not go over so well on the strut, so i would like to hear some good info.by no means am i trying to doloyounge the board with this post. it's just with the current activities going on in the world, i feel this is a pretty pertinent issue. i figure many of dudes/ettes probably have some decent thoughts on this issue too.btw, this was the article that sparked my desire to post this question/thoughthttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aCRwRYakxQSI&refer=usFYI, it's not an article really schitting on unions, but kinda of points out the (obvious) fact that when push comes to shove, unions representing hundreds of thousands will win out over bondholders representing a much smaller collective.
Comments
At one time unions were needed to protect workers.
Once that was accomplished many of these unions became corrupt and remain that way today.
I don't think every union in this country is bad or unnecessary, but a lot of them are.
[/management sucker]
Rock, This is an interesting interpretation of the history of unions. Unions are had to corrupt themselves (use the mob for muscle, bribe politicians, etc) to achieve the protections they won. This is part and parcel of the game. Anyone who thinks that unions or corporations are going to get their way political without corruption is kidding themselves.
I helped found a union at my old job in a mental health clinic. I had an up and down experience with organizing and negotiating the labor contract. I think that unions are not very creative in the ways that they think about dealing with gov't/corporations which leads them to look the other way when we need change. But they also are incredibly helpful in keeping management from running rough shod over workers which management is more than happy to do. The biggest upside to unions is their willingness to spend money on the political process. They are a tremendous counterbalance to corporate dollars. I can't even imagine what our country would be like without unions' political money.
I think they only work effectively in closed systems. Obviously US labor unions have little effect on foreign competitors. Hence, those that can move production to cheaper foreign sources will.
Unions lose their leverage as they don't have a monopoly on labor. And the country loses jobs.
No doubt.
Labor history is very interesting.
At the dawn of the 20th century there was an idea that if all working people united together into one union the abuses of the owner classes could be curbed.
War raged between factory/mine/mill owners and the unions.
By the 1930s the government needed to step in.
Some basic labor laws were passed, like the end of child labor.
On the other side the idea of one big union was killed and replaced with "shop" unions.
With the one union idea, if one mine/factory/mill went on strike they all did.
But with shop unions, only some employees in some mine/factory/mills could strike at one time.
All this, and much more, was enshrined in labor laws.
Labor laws limited the power of unions.
Other laws governing overtime, work hours, work conditions, protected workers for the first time.
From the end of WWII until 1981 unions represented most non-management workers.
This is the period of the greatest union corruption and the greatest prosperity in our country.
Unions were flushed with money, the young men who fought and compromised to establish unions in the '30s were now old and powerful.
In 1981, Ronald Regan declared war on the unions again.
And won.
Today few people are represented by unions.
Those who are tend to be both better paid and more professional than their non-union peers.
Just a short synopsis of the history, you might want to read a book or something.
One of the truly bad things that Unions have caused is a reduction in the quality of the work they produce.
And while I recognize the corruption that BOTH Government and Unions operate within I am not a fan nor endorse it.
You can believe I will NOT be purchasing a car from a company that has these two corrupt entities as their majority owner as at least one "bail-out" plan suggests.
I CAN imagine what our country would be like if NEITHER Corporations or Unions could "buy" political corruption and THAT is what we should be striving towards.
I dont have an informed opinion of labor unions, just though it would be an interesting anectdote to post here...
I bon't believe this at all and have plenty of first hand stories through my union family members that dispute it.....and these are stories from guys that support unions but recognize some of their shortcomings.
The fact that it's difficult to get fired when you're in a union allows those who want to take advantage of this system to do so.....and to hear tell, plenty of them do.
The building trades would be a good example.
Stories of unethical roofers, electricians, painters and plumbers ripping off little old ladies and doing substandard work are common.
Stories of union roofers, electricians, painters and plumbers doing the same are rare.
Union people in the building trades tend to have been trained and apprenticed.
Non-union people in the building trades tend to be picked up on the day labor corners.
(For the record, I am not and have never been in a union. I have been management.)
Yes, unions are corrupt. But, so are the people who run these companies! Everyone is complaining about how the union crippled Chrysler. You know what else did, right? Bad management. Poor planning. Zero foresight.
Now, I feel like we're in a period where the prevailing attitude is, "Thank god I have a job!" But, to me, this leaves the employee open to being taken advantage of- work overtime, take a furlough, lose your weekends, take a paycut... hey, at least you have a job!
And, if you have a problem, you go to HR. Who hires HR? Management.
If you are truly grieved, you can sue. But, who has more money and attorneys? You, or the management, represented by the company?
I have watched plenty of disgraceful union men take advantage of their membership cards. But, I've also watched plenty of disgraceful managerial tactics.
I think that unions are a necessary evil to combat another evil that I am convinced is FAR more wasteful: management.
It's like anything else...there are reputable non-union companies that provide good workmanship at reasonable prices and there are crooks.
You can sue the crooks and they have to defend themselves.
The union protects those "crooks" within their ranks.
The concept that unions are in place to protect the end customer is unique.
Educate me on this.....
I'm not aware of any building trade union that do work on little old ladies homes.
All of the building trade unions I'm familar with are in the construction industry, not aftermarket.
There are "licensed" electricians, plumbers, etc. that have to answer to a State Board but are not "union".
And then there are the fly by night dudes that are not licensed and get their workers off the street.
If you do business with the latter, buyer beware.
Most train/study to become union officials, and use family/party connections to get into a union, spend years towing the line and moving up the rank, they are professionals in a sense.
In Australia the Unions are part of the ALP (our democrats) so the union is seen as a way into politics and something like 60% of ALP politicians worked with a union before entering politics.
What they need to do is create a new system where you cannont hold a paid poisition in a union unless you have spent X amount of years working in that industry, and afetr a certain period of time (say 5 yrs) you must return to work in that field for a period (say 2 yrs) before being allowed to hold office again.
But the other side of the coin is alot of wrokers dont care what the union is doing or how its done (and sometime you got to fight dirty to beat the rich) as long as they get their benefits, so alot of these unions where not just corrupted from the top but from the bottom as workers dont regulate and scrutinise their own union as they do the bosses....
And unions aint always left wing either, thats something ppl tend to forget, in Australia it was the Unions and the ALP that pushed for, created and enforce (for almost 100 yrs) the 'white australia policy' to keep non white workers out of the country.
Personally I prefer the anarcho sydicalist approach (like the old Spanish unions in the 30s, more direct action and involvement by the workers )
I still pay my union dues though, cus w shit hits the fan having a dodgy union on your side is better than having no one, although I make sure I keep one eye on them and one on the bosses....
That's generally true.
In most markets unions have priced themselves out of the residential market.
Because we didn't have a union, thanks in large part to corrupt practices by the then private ownership against unionizing efforts, when the company that bought us out ten years ago started to go in the shitter, they were able to run roughshod all over the employees, decimating entire departments, outsourcing work when and wherever they wanted.
The company does not have your best interest at heart. Thanks to thirty years of anti-labor propaganda employees are now stuck in a position where they are basically thought of as no more important to the businesses they work in than any consumable resource, i.e. machinery, paper and toner.
No matter how "corrupt" unions are assumed to be, they are nowhere near as deadly as unbridled, deregulated corporate America (as the collapse of our economy illustrates).
I have some stories I'm still uncomfortable telling, but if the members of certain unions knew what their "representatives" were doing they would probably kill them.
We had numerous "ghost' workers, whose job was to do the work a union guy was allegedly doing. In fact, I hardly paid attention to the union guys - either their foreman was making sure they worked (rare), or they just weren't going to do anything.
The Steamfitters were a notable exception, they were total pros and their tough-as-nails foreman made sure of it.
All of our own (non-union) workers were well paid, well treated, and happy to be working for us. The best workers moved up the ladder, and several of them started their own companies, all with loans from my boss, who didn't charge them interest.
Between the unions and the mob, I figure construction costs in NYC during that time were close to double what they should have been.
Overall, I was pretty unimpressed with the unions.
So, if the construction trades are rife with gangsters, this should disqualify unions representing say health professionals, educators, retail workers etc?
Where did I say that? I didn't, so don't put words in my mouth.
Every word I said was true, and I never made any claims outside of what I directly experienced.
In Australia the head of the Western Australian arm of the CFMEU (national construction industry) owns a hotel/pub in partnership with one of the heads of Multiplex (country's largest construction company).... but the memebrs kept voting him back in, even when he came out bragging about owning the hotel.
To combat this, I propose:
1) All officials must be elected.
2) All elected officials should be subjected to immediate recall.
3) Rotation of bureaucratic tasks to prevent an entrenched, self-serving bureaucracy.
4) No elected official to be paid more than the average worker.
Those four rules were expanded upon in Lenin's Transitionary Programme (if I remember the title correctly).
Furthermore, I'd like to hear someone quantify what they mean when they say "union leadership is corrupt." I'm not disagreeing, but I'd like you to share what this means to you. As someone who supports union and is quite left-wing, I am also against corruption, however, I don't believe it's an inherent aspect of unionization.
This is not true in the USA.
Unions are so demonized in this country that any one aspiring to political office would avoid ever working for a union.
The only exception I can think of is Reagan who was once head of the Actors Guild but renounced all unions before running for public office and spent his time in office destroy unions.
The reason Joe Biden is VP (despite having low-level brain damage due to multiple strokes) is that he could deliver the union vote.
The union vote is a major force in U.S. politics, more so with the current administration than it has been in decades.
Hardly demonized.
In the USA only the unions in NYC are corrupt.
Places like Chicago and Phiily......Cleveland and Pittsburg.......Miami and Boston.....etc., etc........no corruption at all.
horse...thats pretty impressive that you were in charge of projects like that and now youre running a record shop. no dis at all, i loev the career switcheroo.
there was some street work by my house last week where they were digging up an intersection to replace trolley tracks. i rolled by at midnight and watched for an hour as two big machines...driven by one guy methodically dug shit up. meanwile, i counted 17 other guys watching and chewing gum, looking bored. i dont know if they were union or not, but the whole scene was kind of funny.
i'm all for strong labor unions, but not when they get close minded, corrupt and resistant to progressive changes