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.
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.
What union job did Joe Biden ever hold? What union official has ever held a state wide or national office?
None I know of.
If the union vote was that important certainly Obama would have picked the head of AFL or SEIU as his running mate, and not Biden.
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.
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.
What union job did Joe Biden ever hold? What union official has ever held a state wide or national office?
None I know of.
If the union vote was that important certainly Obama would have picked the head of AFL or SEIU as his running mate, and not Biden.
Of course there isn't a union head running for major office.
Ever hear of conflict of interest? You would if the head of the AFL ran for office.
Besides, they wield plenty of power where they are, with WAY less public scrutiny.
I'm in a union and I have a love/hate relationship with it.
I love my benefits and my hours, but I hate how my union protects shitty teachers. And we still get paid 31st out of the 33 school districts in San Diego County.
I'm in a union and I have a love/hate relationship with it.
I love my benefits and my hours, but I hate how my union protects shitty teachers. And we still get paid 31st out of the 33 school districts in San Diego County.
One of this country's biggest travesties is what we pay our teachers.
And the Teacher's Union never has the education of children at the forefront of their agenda.
They have been ineffective in getting teachers the pay they deserve and the level of education has not improved during their watch.
Their apathy towards performance discourages many young, idealistic teachers which is sad.
I love how so many on this list are ready to chuck one of the few advantages that labor has in terms of negotiating with management. Oh my, a concentration of power can corrupt and organization, shocking!
So, the solution is to destroy unions because managers and government are free of such horrors.
The solution is the same as it is for the financial industry, regulation of such entities to minimize corruption. You will never have perfection if that is what you are looking for.
First of all, I'm not sure anyone here has actually said, "let's do away with unions." At worst, we have Rock painting with a very broad brush, suggesting that union-dom, in general, is rife with corruption. I dispute that assumption but absent some better empirical evidence, I can't definitely say he's right or wrong.
As a union member, as someone with friends who are labor organizers, I think unions - in principle - are good and necessary entities. That is not to say they are - in practice - perfect or above criticism or regulation.
BUT, I'd much much much rather live in a society that is pro-union than one that is not. I can't think of a compelling argument to think otherwise unless things like worker rights are meaningless.
Blaming the teachers union for the decline in the quality of our schools is very suspect. While I agree unions need to be open to getting rid of bad teachers, this is hardly the biggest problem we are facing in the school system. The (incredibly small) amount of resources we are committing to the most important public institution in our society is criminal. It is a prescription for failure. Low pay, a lack of relevant curriculum (which leads to lack of student interest), poor training of educators and an incredibly short school year/day are a much bigger problems that are affecting our kids right now in every classroom. I am very involved in schools, both at the policy level and the day to day operational level. I am always appreciative of how hard teachers work, how little they are giving to work with (resource wise) and how well they do despite these constraints.
it is true; crappy teachers exist everywhere but getting rid of all of them wouldn't even come close to making a dent in the problems we face without radical change at the funding, operations and curricular levels. We are never going to attract real talent to the school system without making these kinds of changes. Without talent we can't have a world class educational system. But to Rock's point I can't think of single person I have ever met who decided against becoming a teacher because of the skill level of other teachers nor can I think of one who has quit because of it either.
Rock does make a point that unions often have a disincentive toward greater productivity but this could be readily solved by making workers partial owners in the companies they work for. This is an absolute no-go for management unless the gov't just bailed you out and is now running the show (check the latest Chrysler deal).
I really wonder where this strange idea that unions exist for the benefit of labor in general has come from. It would certainly be news to the pioneers of unionism. The webbs for example in their most celebrated work "the history of trade unionism" describe the purpose of a union as to protect its members from the menace of "pauper labour".
Unions were designed to benefit higher skilled labor at the expense of lower skilled labor by preventing competition on price, which is exactly the effect they had then and today.
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.
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.
If you don't think unions have been demonized in this country then you're not paying attention (or are being willfully obtuse).
I'll always remember that Simpsons' episode with Homer talking about, "I always wanted to be a Teamster," then leaning back against a van and yawning, with the other Teamsters trying to out-yawn Homer. Saw that as a youngster and didn't understand until a few years later.
I love my union (New York Reporters Guild). My pay practically doubled from my last, non-union job. A day doesn't go by that I don't appreciate that fact.
However, I remember reading the union paper one time and it had a picture of some morbidly-obese woman holding a gigantic cup of Dunkin' Donuts coffee and hugging a coworker after the union fought to get her job back. She was fired for cussing out people on the phone too many times. The union got her job back because the company didn't follow procedure. She very well should have been terminated but bureaucracy wins again. Thought that was kinda bogus.
She was fired for cussing out people on the phone too many times. The union got her job back because the company didn't follow procedure. She very well should have been terminated but bureaucracy wins again. Thought that was kinda bogus.
There's a myth that union employees can't be fired. We've seen it mentioned a number of times in this thread.
Union contracts provide a procedure that management must follow before firing an employee. There is almost always an appeals process as well. No manager can fire an employee on the spot for, swearing at an customer, working too slow or showing up drunk. Nor can the manager fire an employee for working for the union, sleeping with the managers wife, or being obese.
The manager must document the infractions. Include the infractions in the employees review. Explain to the employee what she did wrong. Let the employee know the right way to do it. Provide, training, mentoring and oversight to give the worker a chance to improve. If the worker does not improve the manager can document the lack of improvement and present them at the next review. After that the manager can start the procedure to terminate the employee.
In other words, the manager must manage the employees.
Since most managers are just as, or more, lazy, corrupt, drunk, obese than their workers this rarely happens.
Instead managers look for easy ways out. Like transferring the worker to another department, yelling, complaining or I recently learned, hiring ghost workers to do the job of the people you can't manage.
I think once again, you are tackling something you don't understand very well LW.
Here's another real like, "only in NYC" union story for you.
My dad used to work with a guy who was in the Hell's Angels....had his "Union Card".
When the union would send him out on a job the first thing he told the foreman was "I don't work on Mondays, and I don't work on Fridays. The rest of the time I'll give you 110% and I'm getting a weeks pay"
Most foremen accepted it and the dude had a 3 day work week......those who had the balls to call the union and complain got their wish and he was taken off their job.....and assigned to another location.
Getting "fired" while a union member is NOT like "getting fired" in the real world.
Blaming the teachers union for the decline in the quality of our schools is very suspect. While I agree unions need to be open to getting rid of bad teachers, this is hardly the biggest problem we are facing in the school system. The (incredibly small) amount of resources we are committing to the most important public institution in our society is criminal. It is a prescription for failure. Low pay, a lack of relevant curriculum (which leads to lack of student interest), poor training of educators and an incredibly short school year/day are a much bigger problems that are affecting our kids right now in every classroom. I am very involved in schools, both at the policy level and the day to day operational level. I am always appreciative of how hard teachers work, how little they are giving to work with (resource wise) and how well they do despite these constraints.
it is true; crappy teachers exist everywhere but getting rid of all of them wouldn't even come close to making a dent in the problems we face without radical change at the funding, operations and curricular levels. We are never going to attract real talent to the school system without making these kinds of changes. Without talent we can't have a world class educational system. But to Rock's point I can't think of single person I have ever met who decided against becoming a teacher because of the skill level of other teachers nor can I think of one who has quit because of it either.
Rock does make a point that unions often have a disincentive toward greater productivity but this could be readily solved by making workers partial owners in the companies they work for. This is an absolute no-go for management unless the gov't just bailed you out and is now running the show (check the latest Chrysler deal).
I know so many teachers, and have worked in a number of elementary schools.
Someone might think, from all the complaining and whining, that bad teachers are the norm, or common or not rare.
In the schools I have been in bad teachers are very rare. Tired overwhelmed competent teachers are the norm. Great teachers are common.
A bad teacher, is a bad thing. 1 or 2 or 5 bad teachers will not make a school bad. One bad principle will make a school bad, despite good teachers. Bad principles, in PPS, are as hard or harder to get rid of than bad teachers.
Jefferson's problems (PDX related) can be blamed on the exit of a wonderful principle and a long line of bad ones. The crack wars and new transfer policies did not help.
Here is my bad teacher story. I first encountered Badteacher the first time I did a booktalk as a county library volunteer. About 5 minutes into my booktalk the teacher left the room, she returned 25 minutes later with a nice fresh cup of coffee when I was finishing up. It was against district policy, common sense and the law to leave her class alone with a volunteer. I later ended up working in the same building and with some of the children from Badteachers classroom. I continued for years to believe she was a bad teacher. She yelled at students, her terms of endearment for the students with insulting; "little monkey", "monster"... Then, slowly I discovered 2 things. The children in her class learned. When older children came back to visit the school Badteacher was the first teacher they always went to see, there were often teenagers hanging out in her class sweeping the floor, or straightening desks, because she had been a special teacher to them.
I wouldn't recommend her, but she must have been doing something right.
Which brings up a bigger issue. Few, perhaps no, teacher is good for all children. For some children one teacher might be good and another bad, but for a different child it might be the reverse.
I have a friend who says he could be a good teacher if he had no family or social life and an apartment above his classroom.
So I would rather applaud good teachers, and the unions that allow them to do their jobs and earn a decent wage than complain about the rare bad teacher and the unions that make them hard to fire.
Oh yeah, that reminds me, I know 2 teachers who were fired from their districts.
Getting "fired" while a union member is NOT like "getting fired" in the real world.
But, that was LW's point.
I could get fired right now for being on Soulstrut, having a messy desk, farting the wrong way, whatever. Really, I work at the whim of my employeer.
If I get fired, I could call HR after I leave and file a complaint. And, do you know what will happen with that?
NOTHING.
But, if I get fired and I am in a union, I can have an appeal, have a hearing, go through a review and grievance process. It would protect me from being fired for personal reasons, and keep me from suffering at the whims of my employeer.
Getting "fired" while a union member is NOT like "getting fired" in the real world.
But, that was LW's point.
I could get fired right now for being on Soulstrut, having a messy desk, farting the wrong way, whatever. Really, I work at the whim of my employeer.
If I get fired, I could call HR after I leave and file a complaint. And, do you know what will happen with that?
NOTHING.
But, if I get fired and I am in a union, I can have an appeal, have a hearing, go through a review and grievance process. It would protect me from being fired for personal reasons, and keep me from suffering at the whims of my employeer.
Being "Fired" is not the same as "Being assigned to another job"... is it??
I think once again, you are tackling something you don't understand very well LW.
Here's another real like, "only in NYC" union story for you.
My dad used to work with a guy who was in the Hell's Angels....had his "Union Card".
When the union would send him out on a job the first thing he told the foreman was "I don't work on Mondays, and I don't work on Fridays. The rest of the time I'll give you 110% and I'm getting a weeks pay"
Most foremen accepted it and the dude had a 3 day work week......those who had the balls to call the union and complain got their wish and he was taken off their job.....and assigned to another location.
Getting "fired" while a union member is NOT like "getting fired" in the real world.
Mark it down folks on May 05, 2009 12:49 PM Rockadelic found something I said he disagreed with.
If the foreman had him removed from the job, then he lost that job.
He was still a member of the union, and still allowed to go to the union hall and went for another.
If every foreman he worked for complained and had him removed he wouldn't have worked.
Same as if he had not been union. If he was a non-union electrician who went to work for a company and once hired announced his terms to the foreman the foreman would have the same choice to meet the terms or let him go. He could then go and get employment at a different company.
I think once again, you are tackling something you don't understand very well LW.
Here's another real like, "only in NYC" union story for you.
My dad used to work with a guy who was in the Hell's Angels....had his "Union Card".
When the union would send him out on a job the first thing he told the foreman was "I don't work on Mondays, and I don't work on Fridays. The rest of the time I'll give you 110% and I'm getting a weeks pay"
Most foremen accepted it and the dude had a 3 day work week......those who had the balls to call the union and complain got their wish and he was taken off their job.....and assigned to another location.
Getting "fired" while a union member is NOT like "getting fired" in the real world.
Mark it down folks on May 05, 2009 12:49 PM Rockadelic found something I said he disagreed with.
If the foreman had him removed from the job, then he lost that job.
He was still a member of the union, and still allowed to go to the union hall and went for another.
If every foreman he worked for complained and had him removed he wouldn't have worked.
Same as if he had not been union. If he was a non-union electrician who went to work for a company and once hired announced his terms to the foreman the foreman would have the same choice to meet the terms or let him go. He could then go and get employment at a different company.
Again...."losing a job" and being reassigned to another is not the same as a non-union person being fired.
In the example I gave the union protected a person who SHOULD have and WOULD have been fired in any non-union situation.
In this case the union, as in many cases, protects, and in turn promotes, unprofessional behavior that is not tolerated anywhere else.
I really wonder where this strange idea that unions exist for the benefit of labor in general has come from. It would certainly be news to the pioneers of unionism. The webbs for example in their most celebrated work "the history of trade unionism" describe the purpose of a union as to protect its members from the menace of "pauper labour".
Unions were designed to benefit higher skilled labor at the expense of lower skilled labor by preventing competition on price, which is exactly the effect they had then and today.
What is wrong with this? Unions fought against free trade agreements for the same reason. They don't want competition. what's new? That's why corporations have mergers. The obverse of this argument is that corporations just want to drive down wages. In the free market, interests will organize to protect their interests. Wow. Stop the presses. The fact is that unions also fought for the minimum wage which guarantees all worker, union or no, higher wages.
I really wonder where this strange idea that unions exist for the benefit of labor in general has come from. It would certainly be news to the pioneers of unionism. The webbs for example in their most celebrated work "the history of trade unionism" describe the purpose of a union as to protect its members from the menace of "pauper labour".
Unions were designed to benefit higher skilled labor at the expense of lower skilled labor by preventing competition on price, which is exactly the effect they had then and today.
What is wrong with this? Unions fought against free trade agreements for the same reason. They don't want competition. what's new? That's why corporations have mergers. The obverse of this argument is that corporations just want to drive down wages. In the free market, interests will organize to protect their interests. Wow. Stop the presses. The fact is that unions also fought for the minimum wage which guarantees all worker, union or no, higher wages.
Exactly Unions give workers a portion of the power once reserved completely for businesses, who would rather be free to treat manpower - skilled or otherwise - as a wholly disposable asset.
"A March 3, 2008 editorial in The Wall Street Journal compared Ohio to Texas and examined why "Texas is prospering while Ohio lags". According to the editorial, during the previous decade, while Ohio lost 10,400 jobs, Texas created 1,615,000 new jobs. The article cites several reasons for the economic expansion in Texas, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the absence of a state income tax, and right-to-work laws.
Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians ??? and thus its employers ??? are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers. Ohio is a "closed shop" state, which means workers can be forced to join a union whether they wish to or not[/b] . Many companies ??? especially foreign-owned ??? say they will not even consider such locations for new sites. States with "right-to-work" laws that make union organizing more difficult had twice the job growth of Ohio and other forced union states from 1995???2005, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations."
"A March 3, 2008 editorial in The Wall Street Journal compared Ohio to Texas and examined why "Texas is prospering while Ohio lags". According to the editorial, during the previous decade, while Ohio lost 10,400 jobs, Texas created 1,615,000 new jobs. The article cites several reasons for the economic expansion in Texas, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the absence of a state income tax, and right-to-work laws.
Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians ??? and thus its employers ??? are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers. Ohio is a "closed shop" state, which means workers can be forced to join a union whether they wish to or not[/b] . Many companies ??? especially foreign-owned ??? say they will not even consider such locations for new sites. States with "right-to-work" laws that make union organizing more difficult had twice the job growth of Ohio and other forced union states from 1995???2005, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations."
I find it hard to believe that the famously open-minded WSJ editorial page would push the idea that it's a good idea for states to deregulate the workplace to create an "industry-friendly" environment.
It's almost as hard to believe as industry taking their factories to places where they won't be regulated.
In the end, industry wins, regular folks get porked.
How about some facts and figures on the pay and benefits on all of those new jobs compared to those in pro-union states? I'm guessing they're not as good.
"A March 3, 2008 editorial in The Wall Street Journal compared Ohio to Texas and examined why "Texas is prospering while Ohio lags". According to the editorial, during the previous decade, while Ohio lost 10,400 jobs, Texas created 1,615,000 new jobs. The article cites several reasons for the economic expansion in Texas, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the absence of a state income tax, and right-to-work laws.
Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians ??? and thus its employers ??? are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers. Ohio is a "closed shop" state, which means workers can be forced to join a union whether they wish to or not[/b] . Many companies ??? especially foreign-owned ??? say they will not even consider such locations for new sites. States with "right-to-work" laws that make union organizing more difficult had twice the job growth of Ohio and other forced union states from 1995???2005, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations."
I find it hard to believe that the famously open-minded WSJ editorial page would push the idea that it's a good idea for states to deregulate the workplace to create an "industry-friendly" environment.
It's almost as hard to believe as industry taking their factories to places where they won't be regulated.
In the end, industry wins, regular folks get porked.
How about some facts and figures on the pay and benefits on all of those new jobs compared to those in pro-union states? I'm guessing they're not as good.
Look at the average salary in pro-union states vs. the avearge cost of living.
Was actually doing some work and found this just posted up on the ABS (Aust. Bureau Statistics) site... thought it be relevant to this post.
"The ABS also found that a higher proportion of public sector employees (42%) were trade union members when compared with private sector employees (14%), as were full-time employees (21%) compared with part-time employees (15%). The state with the highest proportion of employees who were trade union members was Tasmania (25%), while the lowest was Western Australia (14%).
In August 2008, there were 1.8 million employees who were trade union members in conjunction with their main job. This was a 3% increase on the 1.7 million trade union members in August 2007, however in both years, trade union members represented 19% of people who were employees in their main job.
Data collected about trade union members in August 2008 also showed: 21% of full-time employees and 15% of part-time employees were trade union members 42% of public sector employees were trade union members, compared to 14% of private sector employees the state with the highest proportion of trade union members was Tasmania (25% of Tasmanian employees), while the lowest was Western Australia (14% of Western Australian employees).
The occupation groups with the highest proportion of employees who were trade union members in their main job were Machinery operators and drivers (28%), followed by Professionals (25%) and Community and personal service workers (23%). The occupation group with the lowest proportion of trade union members was Managers (9%).
Employees in the Education and training industry group had the highest proportion of trade union membership (40%), followed by Public administration and safety (34%). The industry group with the lowest proportion of trade union membership was the Professional, scientific and technical services industry (4%)."
What is wrong with this? Unions fought against free trade agreements for the same reason. They don't want competition. what's new? That's why corporations have mergers. The obverse of this argument is that corporations just want to drive down wages. In the free market, interests will organize to protect their interests. Wow. Stop the presses. The fact is that unions also fought for the minimum wage which guarantees all worker, union or no, higher wages.
I didn't say there was anything 'wrong' with it, I only said that most union supporters don't seem to have a clear idea of what it is they're supporting. How else can you explain the regular referal to the interests of certain unions as the interests of labor if not for ignorance at unions true function? There seem to be a lot of liberals who truly believe that the fortune of workers as a whole would be improved if there were greater levels of uninionisation in american industry. That is pure nonsense.
And, by the by, of course the union movement fought to pass minimum wage laws. Didn't you understand what I said? the whole ethos behind the movement was the belief that certain classes of workers shouldn't have to compete with "pauper labour" for jobs, the minimum wage is a great way of achieving that. A different way of saying that it is illegal to pay less than $20 an hour is to say that it is illegal to hire anybody whose level of producitivity is less than $20 an hour. For some reason though the, in effect, criminisaliton of employing the poorest in society which the minimum wage law represents, this law the result of a more privileged group of people bringing the force of the state down upon a less privileged group, is one of the sacred cows of modern 'egalitarians'.
What is wrong with this? Unions fought against free trade agreements for the same reason. They don't want competition. what's new? That's why corporations have mergers. The obverse of this argument is that corporations just want to drive down wages. In the free market, interests will organize to protect their interests. Wow. Stop the presses. The fact is that unions also fought for the minimum wage which guarantees all worker, union or no, higher wages.
I didn't say there was anything 'wrong' with it, I only said that most union supporters don't seem to have a clear idea of what it is they're supporting. How else can you explain the regular referal to the interests of certain unions as the interests of labor if not for ignorance at unions true function? There seem to be a lot of liberals who truly believe that the fortune of workers as a whole would be improved if there were greater levels of uninionisation in american industry. That is pure nonsense.
And, by the by, of course the union movement fought to pass minimum wage laws. Didn't you understand what I said? the whole ethos behind the movement was the belief that certain classes of workers shouldn't have to compete with "pauper labour" for jobs, the minimum wage is a great way of achieving that. A different way of saying that it is illegal to pay less than $20 an hour is to say that it is illegal to hire anybody whose level of producitivity is less than $20 an hour. For some reason though the, in effect, criminisaliton of employing the poorest in society which the minimum wage law represents, this law the result of a more privileged group of people bringing the force of the state down upon a less privileged group, is one of the sacred cows of modern 'egalitarians'.
I just don't see any downside to putting a floor on wages. Your argument seems mostly theoretical. Who decides who the $20/hr worker is and who the $5/hr worker is? Let me guess, that would be the employer, the known objective measurer of all things labor. GTFOOHWTBS. It is an empirical fact that unions cause wages to rise. It is also a fact that rising wages=rising wealth (for labor). Your belief in the free market could use a little reality check. I'd like to hear how you hate the fact that farm subsidies are driving down the cost of food unfairly. Of course, you will never advocate for that kind of change because it hurts your own self(ish) interests, even while it is the owning class who are lobbying for this kind of market regulation. You can huff and puff all day long about the unseen hand and all the right wing clap trap but don't waste your breathe with me. I live in the real world.
Reading this thread again I have come to realize, that unions were ok for their time, but are passe now.
In the bad old days we needed unions to protect workers. Just like we used to need civil rights laws. But now that companies put employees first, and racism is a thing of the past, unions and civil rights laws are no longer needed.
btw: last week the state of Texas asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Voting Rights Act because there is no longer any discrimination in the Texas.
Comments
What union job did Joe Biden ever hold?
What union official has ever held a state wide or national office?
None I know of.
If the union vote was that important certainly Obama would have picked the head of AFL or SEIU as his running mate, and not Biden.
Of course there isn't a union head running for major office.
Ever hear of conflict of interest? You would if the head of the AFL ran for office.
Besides, they wield plenty of power where they are, with WAY less public scrutiny.
I love my benefits and my hours, but I hate how my union protects shitty teachers. And we still get paid 31st out of the 33 school districts in San Diego County.
One of this country's biggest travesties is what we pay our teachers.
And the Teacher's Union never has the education of children at the forefront of their agenda.
They have been ineffective in getting teachers the pay they deserve and the level of education has not improved during their watch.
Their apathy towards performance discourages many young, idealistic teachers which is sad.
So, the solution is to destroy unions because managers and government are free of such horrors.
The solution is the same as it is for the financial industry, regulation of such entities to minimize corruption. You will never have perfection if that is what you are looking for.
My 2 cents.
As a union member, as someone with friends who are labor organizers, I think unions - in principle - are good and necessary entities. That is not to say they are - in practice - perfect or above criticism or regulation.
BUT, I'd much much much rather live in a society that is pro-union than one that is not. I can't think of a compelling argument to think otherwise unless things like worker rights are meaningless.
www.aft.org
Good article on this heah:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,679507.story
it is true; crappy teachers exist everywhere but getting rid of all of them wouldn't even come close to making a dent in the problems we face without radical change at the funding, operations and curricular levels. We are never going to attract real talent to the school system without making these kinds of changes. Without talent we can't have a world class educational system. But to Rock's point I can't think of single person I have ever met who decided against becoming a teacher because of the skill level of other teachers nor can I think of one who has quit because of it either.
Rock does make a point that unions often have a disincentive toward greater productivity but this could be readily solved by making workers partial owners in the companies they work for. This is an absolute no-go for management unless the gov't just bailed you out and is now running the show (check the latest Chrysler deal).
Unions were designed to benefit higher skilled labor at the expense of lower skilled labor by preventing competition on price, which is exactly the effect they had then and today.
If you don't think unions have been demonized in this country then you're not paying attention (or are being willfully obtuse).
I love my union (New York Reporters Guild). My pay practically doubled from my last, non-union job. A day doesn't go by that I don't appreciate that fact.
However, I remember reading the union paper one time and it had a picture of some morbidly-obese woman holding a gigantic cup of Dunkin' Donuts coffee and hugging a coworker after the union fought to get her job back. She was fired for cussing out people on the phone too many times. The union got her job back because the company didn't follow procedure. She very well should have been terminated but bureaucracy wins again. Thought that was kinda bogus.
There's a myth that union employees can't be fired.
We've seen it mentioned a number of times in this thread.
Union contracts provide a procedure that management must follow before firing an employee.
There is almost always an appeals process as well.
No manager can fire an employee on the spot for, swearing at an customer, working too slow or showing up drunk.
Nor can the manager fire an employee for working for the union, sleeping with the managers wife, or being obese.
The manager must document the infractions.
Include the infractions in the employees review.
Explain to the employee what she did wrong.
Let the employee know the right way to do it.
Provide, training, mentoring and oversight to give the worker a chance to improve.
If the worker does not improve the manager can document the lack of improvement and present them at the next review.
After that the manager can start the procedure to terminate the employee.
In other words, the manager must manage the employees.
Since most managers are just as, or more, lazy, corrupt, drunk, obese than their workers this rarely happens.
Instead managers look for easy ways out.
Like transferring the worker to another department, yelling, complaining or I recently learned, hiring ghost workers to do the job of the people you can't manage.
Here's another real like, "only in NYC" union story for you.
My dad used to work with a guy who was in the Hell's Angels....had his "Union Card".
When the union would send him out on a job the first thing he told the foreman was "I don't work on Mondays, and I don't work on Fridays. The rest of the time I'll give you 110% and I'm getting a weeks pay"
Most foremen accepted it and the dude had a 3 day work week......those who had the balls to call the union and complain got their wish and he was taken off their job.....and assigned to another location.
Getting "fired" while a union member is NOT like "getting fired" in the real world.
I know so many teachers, and have worked in a number of elementary schools.
Someone might think, from all the complaining and whining, that bad teachers are the norm, or common or not rare.
In the schools I have been in bad teachers are very rare.
Tired overwhelmed competent teachers are the norm.
Great teachers are common.
A bad teacher, is a bad thing.
1 or 2 or 5 bad teachers will not make a school bad.
One bad principle will make a school bad, despite good teachers.
Bad principles, in PPS, are as hard or harder to get rid of than bad teachers.
Jefferson's problems (PDX related) can be blamed on the exit of a wonderful principle and a long line of bad ones. The crack wars and new transfer policies did not help.
Here is my bad teacher story.
I first encountered Badteacher the first time I did a booktalk as a county library volunteer.
About 5 minutes into my booktalk the teacher left the room, she returned 25 minutes later with a nice fresh cup of coffee when I was finishing up.
It was against district policy, common sense and the law to leave her class alone with a volunteer.
I later ended up working in the same building and with some of the children from Badteachers classroom.
I continued for years to believe she was a bad teacher.
She yelled at students, her terms of endearment for the students with insulting; "little monkey", "monster"...
Then, slowly I discovered 2 things. The children in her class learned. When older children came back to visit the school Badteacher was the first teacher they always went to see, there were often teenagers hanging out in her class sweeping the floor, or straightening desks, because she had been a special teacher to them.
I wouldn't recommend her, but she must have been doing something right.
Which brings up a bigger issue.
Few, perhaps no, teacher is good for all children.
For some children one teacher might be good and another bad, but for a different child it might be the reverse.
I have a friend who says he could be a good teacher if he had no family or social life and an apartment above his classroom.
So I would rather applaud good teachers, and the unions that allow them to do their jobs and earn a decent wage than complain about the rare bad teacher and the unions that make them hard to fire.
Oh yeah, that reminds me, I know 2 teachers who were fired from their districts.
But, that was LW's point.
I could get fired right now for being on Soulstrut, having a messy desk, farting the wrong way, whatever. Really, I work at the whim of my employeer.
If I get fired, I could call HR after I leave and file a complaint. And, do you know what will happen with that?
NOTHING.
But, if I get fired and I am in a union, I can have an appeal, have a hearing, go through a review and grievance process. It would protect me from being fired for personal reasons, and keep me from suffering at the whims of my employeer.
Being "Fired" is not the same as "Being assigned to another job"... is it??
Mark it down folks on May 05, 2009 12:49 PM Rockadelic found something I said he disagreed with.
If the foreman had him removed from the job, then he lost that job.
He was still a member of the union, and still allowed to go to the union hall and went for another.
If every foreman he worked for complained and had him removed he wouldn't have worked.
Same as if he had not been union.
If he was a non-union electrician who went to work for a company and once hired announced his terms to the foreman the foreman would have the same choice to meet the terms or let him go.
He could then go and get employment at a different company.
Again...."losing a job" and being reassigned to another is not the same as a non-union person being fired.
In the example I gave the union protected a person who SHOULD have and WOULD have been fired in any non-union situation.
In this case the union, as in many cases, protects, and in turn promotes, unprofessional behavior that is not tolerated anywhere else.
What is wrong with this? Unions fought against free trade agreements for the same reason. They don't want competition. what's new? That's why corporations have mergers. The obverse of this argument is that corporations just want to drive down wages. In the free market, interests will organize to protect their interests. Wow. Stop the presses. The fact is that unions also fought for the minimum wage which guarantees all worker, union or no, higher wages.
Exactly
Unions give workers a portion of the power once reserved completely for businesses, who would rather be free to treat manpower - skilled or otherwise - as a wholly disposable asset.
"A March 3, 2008 editorial in The Wall Street Journal compared Ohio to Texas and examined why "Texas is prospering while Ohio lags". According to the editorial, during the previous decade, while Ohio lost 10,400 jobs, Texas created 1,615,000 new jobs. The article cites several reasons for the economic expansion in Texas, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the absence of a state income tax, and right-to-work laws.
Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians ??? and thus its employers ??? are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers. Ohio is a "closed shop" state, which means workers can be forced to join a union whether they wish to or not[/b] . Many companies ??? especially foreign-owned ??? say they will not even consider such locations for new sites. States with "right-to-work" laws that make union organizing more difficult had twice the job growth of Ohio and other forced union states from 1995???2005, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations."
I find it hard to believe that the famously open-minded WSJ editorial page would push the idea that it's a good idea for states to deregulate the workplace to create an "industry-friendly" environment.
It's almost as hard to believe as industry taking their factories to places where they won't be regulated.
In the end, industry wins, regular folks get porked.
How about some facts and figures on the pay and benefits on all of those new jobs compared to those in pro-union states? I'm guessing they're not as good.
Look at the average salary in pro-union states vs. the avearge cost of living.
I personally prefer the "right to work" concept.
"The ABS also found that a higher proportion of public sector employees (42%) were trade union members when compared with private sector employees (14%), as were full-time employees (21%) compared with part-time employees (15%). The state with the highest proportion of employees who were trade union members was Tasmania (25%), while the lowest was Western Australia (14%).
In August 2008, there were 1.8 million employees who were trade union members in conjunction with their main job. This was a 3% increase on the 1.7 million trade union members in August 2007, however in both years, trade union members represented 19% of people who were employees in their main job.
Data collected about trade union members in August 2008 also showed:
21% of full-time employees and 15% of part-time employees were trade union members
42% of public sector employees were trade union members, compared to 14% of private sector employees
the state with the highest proportion of trade union members was Tasmania (25% of Tasmanian employees), while the lowest was Western Australia (14% of Western Australian employees).
The occupation groups with the highest proportion of employees who were trade union members in their main job were Machinery operators and drivers (28%), followed by Professionals (25%) and Community and personal service workers (23%). The occupation group with the lowest proportion of trade union members was Managers (9%).
Employees in the Education and training industry group had the highest proportion of trade union membership (40%), followed by Public administration and safety (34%). The industry group with the lowest proportion of trade union membership was the Professional, scientific and technical services industry (4%)."
I didn't say there was anything 'wrong' with it, I only said that most union supporters don't seem to have a clear idea of what it is they're supporting. How else can you explain the regular referal to the interests of certain unions as the interests of labor if not for ignorance at unions true function? There seem to be a lot of liberals who truly believe that the fortune of workers as a whole would be improved if there were greater levels of uninionisation in american industry. That is pure nonsense.
And, by the by, of course the union movement fought to pass minimum wage laws. Didn't you understand what I said? the whole ethos behind the movement was the belief that certain classes of workers shouldn't have to compete with "pauper labour" for jobs, the minimum wage is a great way of achieving that. A different way of saying that it is illegal to pay less than $20 an hour is to say that it is illegal to hire anybody whose level of producitivity is less than $20 an hour. For some reason though the, in effect, criminisaliton of employing the poorest in society which the minimum wage law represents, this law the result of a more privileged group of people bringing the force of the state down upon a less privileged group, is one of the sacred cows of modern 'egalitarians'.
I just don't see any downside to putting a floor on wages. Your argument seems mostly theoretical. Who decides who the $20/hr worker is and who the $5/hr worker is? Let me guess, that would be the employer, the known objective measurer of all things labor. GTFOOHWTBS. It is an empirical fact that unions cause wages to rise. It is also a fact that rising wages=rising wealth (for labor). Your belief in the free market could use a little reality check. I'd like to hear how you hate the fact that farm subsidies are driving down the cost of food unfairly. Of course, you will never advocate for that kind of change because it hurts your own self(ish) interests, even while it is the owning class who are lobbying for this kind of market regulation. You can huff and puff all day long about the unseen hand and all the right wing clap trap but don't waste your breathe with me. I live in the real world.
In the bad old days we needed unions to protect workers.
Just like we used to need civil rights laws.
But now that companies put employees first, and racism is a thing of the past, unions and civil rights laws are no longer needed.
btw: last week the state of Texas asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Voting Rights Act because there is no longer any discrimination in the Texas.