In honor of MrStevens, I am posting a thread on this topic (which should feel much more at home here in the politics section than a thread on housekeeping tips.....).

So, being that I am from Ohio, have grown up in a family of unionized educators, and am currently entering a unionized field...academia, this is a topic that is very near and dear to my heart.

***************************************

I want to start a discussion about the future of unions, the need (or not) of collective bargaining, and the effects of the new laws being raised in several states on the future of the middle class in America.

What are your thoughts???

"Or maybe the middle class has gotten lazy with easy access to entertainment and cheap electronics."
I completely agree with this statement.
It's pretty incredible to look at the fight that was necessary to obtain the right to unionize in the first place. Amusingly, the bill that was intended to prevent monopolies in business was utilized by the businesses to prevent unions, as unions were supposedly "monopolies on labor". If I remember correctly, it took about 70 years (1870's-1940's) for unions to finally become legal. (Thank you, FDR!) The purpose of unions is to ensure that people aren't exploited by businesses. They fight for fairness, or at least they did. When you compare the state of labor in the 1880's to the state of labor today, it is incredible just how safe working conditions are. The only reason for this is the unions. The purpose of a business is to make money. If the people running the business are able to rationalize dangerous conditions for selfish reasons, then they will allow it. They want to make as much money as possible, that's all there is to it. The 1880's was hellish for most Americans... absolutely hellish.
Nowadays, it does seem like there is no purpose for unions, but that isn't true. They are the dikes that keep out the ocean that would overwhelm the middle class. If they were gone... I'd attempt to get our government to see reason... but I doubt they would. Would I fight?... maybe.

Private unions will succeed if they are necessary and fail if not. Public unions shouldn't exist, period. I know I'm probably causing some offense to more than a few people here (possibly including the OP) by saying that, and if so I apologize, but I don't think it's acceptable to have an intermediary interfering with the people's ability to keep their government in check, which is what you have with public unions.

@Freeeekyyy, no offense taken - but I am curious to know more about why you think unions interfere with keeping the gov't in check?

I guess in my opinion, it's completely the opposite. If it weren't for unions the gov't would not have forced industries to provide safety protections, regulations, and laws to protect workers. Minimum wage, child labor laws, and OSHA are a few of MANY over-reaching federal regulations in place that were put in place because of pressure from unions. Non-union workers benefit from the concerns raised by unions.

This is not to say that I agree with unions protecting the lazy and inept, but considering the other side, unions are also protecting hard-working employees from unethical terminations.

@MrStevens and Birdsall - my thoughts exactly!  I will write more later.

Unions are dying. I have been trying to figure out the reason for a while now.

Then, because such a fewer percentage of the workforce is made up of unionized labor then it is much more easy to propogate the idea that unions are the reason why unemployment is so high, why food costs so much, etc., and further tear down the validity of unions by those who aren't in one. It is class warfare at its best.

Posted By lindzmarie85 on 28 Mar 2011 08:31 AM

@Freeeekyyy, no offense taken - but I am curious to know more about why you think unions interfere with keeping the gov't in check?

I guess in my opinion, it's completely the opposite. If it weren't for unions the gov't would not have forced industries to provide safety protections, regulations, and laws to protect workers. Minimum wage, child labor laws, and OSHA are a few of MANY over-reaching federal regulations in place that were put in place because of pressure from unions. Non-union workers benefit from the concerns raised by unions.

This is not to say that I agree with unions protecting the lazy and inept, but considering the other side, unions are also protecting hard-working employees from unethical terminations.

 

@MrStevens and Birdsall - my thoughts exactly!  I will write more later.

 

 

Unions push for the growth and higher pay for those they represent, whether they are good workers or not. I understand that in many cases they are good workers, and believe me I agree. But unionized work always treats everyone the same. Aside from that, in the public sector, when the unions push for growth, there's nothing to stop them. They pretty much always get what they want. In the private sector, employers have the option of hiring non-union when the union gets out of control (at least in most states.) And yes, unions do get out of control. Look at the UAW for the perfect example, or the teamsters before they killed themselves due to their ridiculous demands. I'm all for paying government workers a fair wage, good benefits, etc, but the way to do that is not through a union which basically has the power to force it on the people. Taxpayer money isn't just going to government or government workers when public unions are involved, it is also going to the union. I can't support that.

 

Unions push for the growth and higher pay for those they represent, whether they are good workers or not. I understand that in many cases they are good workers, and believe me I agree. But unionized work always treats everyone the same.

Aside from that, in the public sector, when the unions push for growth, there's nothing to stop them. They pretty much always get what they want.

In the private sector, employers have the option of hiring non-union when the union gets out of control (at least in most states.)

And yes, unions do get out of control. Look at the UAW for the perfect example, or the teamsters before they killed themselves due to their ridiculous demands.

I'm all for paying government workers a fair wage, good benefits, etc, but the way to do that is not through a union which basically has the power to force it on the people. Taxpayer money isn't just going to government or government workers when public unions are involved, it is also going to the union. I can't support that.

Posted By lindzmarie85 on 28 Mar 2011 12:52 PM

Unions push for the growth and higher pay for those they represent, whether they are good workers or not. I understand that in many cases they are good workers, and believe me I agree. But unionized work always treats everyone the same.

I agree 100% with you on this. Though I think the unions that are protecting the lazy workers are not the professional public sector workers (educators, nurses, etc). I have seen it with my own eyes, mail carriers, construction workers, factor workers --- their unions have created such low standards that good hard workers lose their job if they work *too* hard. And I definitely think something needs to be done about that. A factory, for example, that the union has stipulated that they can make 5 x's per day. Even if a worker confesses that they can easily make 10 x's a day, they are only allowed to make 5 and then spend the rest of their day in the break room.

This appalls me. I hear and read things like this and it makes me so angry because it's behavior like that that makes *all* union workers look lazy!!

My parents are educators, I've worked in hospitals alongside unionized nurses, and my current field is in academia (another public-sector unionized field) -- these people (for the most part) are exceptionally hard workers, and if it were not for the unions that they are involved with they would have nothing. Public school teachers in most districts in Ohio have been on pay freezes for YEARS. And to make matters worse, the salaries that they are bringing home are pathetic for the work they do, the level of education they must complete, and the lives that they are impacting every day.

Aside from that, in the public sector, when the unions push for growth, there's nothing to stop them. They pretty much always get what they want.

WOAH….not sure where you're getting that information from, but unions in the public sector do *NOT* always get everything they want. They are constantly making compromises and concessions to placate the state -- such as hiring freezes, pay freezes, "forced" retirements, benefits cut-backs, and more!!

In the private sector, employers have the option of hiring non-union when the union gets out of control (at least in most states.)

Yes, but only to undermine the union and get their products cheaper. Those same companies are sending all our jobs overseas. So if you want to eradicate unions, then we might as well open a bunch of sweatshops so these companies will keep the jobs in America……

And yes, unions do get out of control. Look at the UAW for the perfect example, or the teamsters before they killed themselves due to their ridiculous demands.

Yes, those are two of the largest unions in the world. However, they're not typically "public sector" employees. And I agree, the UAW is out of control, as is probably the Teamsters. But you have put your blinders on and are only using these two negative examples as proof that unions (in general) are out of control. This would be like saying Charlie Sheen's an ENFP, so *ALL* ENFPs are crazy. Or that because Hitler was an INTJ *ALL* INTJs are murderous anti-semitics.

I'm all for paying government workers a fair wage, good benefits, etc, but the way to do that is not through a union which basically has the power to force it on the people. Taxpayer money isn't just going to government or government workers when public unions are involved, it is also going to the union. I can't support that.

Government workers are different from public sector workers. Public sector workers are different from private sector workers.

Yes, a small amount of taxpayer money is going to the union, but it is difficult to differentiate between the union and the union workers. Is the money for compensation and benefits that goes through the union bad? No. I can understand your concern, but the bottom line is if it weren't for those unions in place those employees would be grossly taken advantage of. And yes, our government *would* take advantage of them. Just look at SB5 in Ohio or in Wisconsin, or Indiana, Illinois, or New Jersey!!

Also take a look at this op-ed from this morning's NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/opinion/28krugman.html) - and tell me that what our government is doing in Wisconsin is ethical???

Well, first off, it's not true that if a job isn't unionized it will go overseas. There are many jobs where certain skillsets are necessary, and foreign workers simply can't do the job. Other situations where cost difference is minimal, so it makes more sense to keep the jobs in the US in the first place. My brother's work is a perfect example. He works in semiconductor manufacturing for Intel. It's non-union, and trust me, that work isn't going overseas.  Not when billions of dollars are constantly being invested in new US plants and on updating old ones. Another example is automotive work. Toyota doesn't build their cars overseas (well, the ones imported from japan, but the reasoning for that should be obvious, and it isn't to avoid labor costs), they build them in non-union, southern states. And you know what? The average toyota employee gets paid a considerably higher wage than the average ford or gm employee. They start out lower, but by working hard and delivering good results, they get paid. There are some decent unions, mostly of the "workers guild" variety, that do a good thing. They ensure that their workers do quality work and are worth their wage. So many other unions though, don't.

This isn't really about unions in general anyway. With private unions, I could care less whether the job is union or not so long as I get a decent product at a decent price. Public unions (yes, I do understand the difference between public sector and government, but for this argument it's not really relevant. Public sector workers may not all technically be government workers, but they get paid through public taxes, so they might as well be) have the power to make demands without facing any consequences. Tell me what happens when teachers go on strike. This happens in my home state on a fairly regular basis. Whatever they demand, they get it, because the state can't hire anybody else. They have to go through the union. Since the jobs are necessary, the union basically gets whatever they want. I understand teachers are often underpaid, and are well worth their wage. Please, don't assume that I'm saying otherwise. But I can't support an insitution which basically allows for forced tax increases or budget deficits.

Posted By mrStevens on 28 Mar 2011 02:16 PM
Getting a decent product at a decent price also comes with consequences. By taking advantage of tax advantages through exporting work to other countries companies like Walmart buys good from China for example.

I don't accept that the only way to get products which aren't ridiculously overpriced is to buy chinese. In many cases, US made products are actually cheaper than similar chinese products, and the chinese product is overpriced. Labor differences are more extreme in some industries than others. And in other cases, such as the aforementioned semiconductor manufacturing, even considering the high labor costs, that's a very small part of the picture. Personally, I believe we as americans can compete with foreign countries, including the third world, and we don't need unions to do that. In cases where we can't compete on price, we provide a better product with higher overall value. In other cases, we very well can compete on price. There are plenty of reasonably priced american goods out there, and the workers are certainly not "treated like slaves."

On a side note, I agree with you about china and wal-mart. Wherever I can, I always buy american, even when the products are considerably more expensive than their foreign competition. But you might be surprised how often the price difference is very minimal, or even nonexistant.

Posted By mrStevens on 28 Mar 2011 03:30 PM
I will go with your point of US made products being cheaper in some instances and more expensive in others. I was using China as an example to show one consequence of aggressive prices. Let us find out where we agree and disagree.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? If you disagree, why?

1. Companies main focus is to maximize profits.

2. Companies will pay the minimum amount of money to hire or retain workers with sufficient competencies for a given job.

3. Companies do not care about employee wellbeing if they do not have to. If no one, including the workers, demands better treatment then it is in the companies best interest to keep working conditions to a bare minimum level of tolerance.

4. The book/movie 'The Grapes of Wrath' is an accurate portrayal of how the working class was treated/exploited during that time period.

5. The current concentration of wealth at the upper 1 percent is unsustainable over the long run.

I appreciate the constructive discussion we are having on this issue. The dire situation of the middle class looks so obvious to me but most of the country doesn't seem to see it that way. I want to either figure out where my logic is faulty or why the general public doesn't see it too.

Agree with point 1 and 2. I do not agree with point 3 in all cases. Some employers certainly don't give a crap about their employees, others do. Not everybody in business is an evil bastard. I don't see unions as being any different in this regard. Many of them don't give a crap about those they represent, they just want more power, which requires that they meet certain expectations, same as the companies. I agree with point 4 in some cases. There are plenty of historical examples of employers that treated their workers very poorly. There are also plenty of examples of employers that treated their workers very well. Just like today, there are good and bad employers. The bad ones tend not to be terribly successful, for clear reasons. I agree with point 5, but do not understand its relation to the discussion at hand.

Posted By freeeekyyy on 28 Mar 2011 03:38 PM

Agree with point 1 and 2. I do not agree with point 3 in all cases. Some employers certainly don't give a crap about their employees, others do. Not everybody in business is an evil bastard. I don't see unions as being any different in this regard. Many of them don't give a crap about those they represent, they just want more power, which requires that they meet certain expectations, same as the companies. I agree with point 4 in some cases. There are plenty of historical examples of employers that treated their workers very poorly. There are also plenty of examples of employers that treated their workers very well. Just like today, there are good and bad employers. The bad ones tend not to be terribly successful, for clear reasons. I agree with point 5, but do not understand its relation to the discussion at hand.

Point 3. It is not necessarily evil to disregard the wellbeing of your employees. I don't want to get into an ethical debate. I just want to state the facts. Fact, private business first priority is profits above all else. The union doesn't need to necessarily care about the employees, but their pay is dependent on number of employees in the union and therefore their interests are more aligned with the employee versus the private company.

It is one thing to treat an employee badly today versus starving and killing employees during the great depression. I am using this as an example of what happens when aggressive profiteering goes unchecked by government or collective intervention.

Point 5. Unions and public safety nets are the middle class' last line of defense to protect their share of the wealth and wellbeing. Even with unions and collective bargaining the middle class has suffered a large reduction in purchasing power due to wealth redistribution to the upper 1 percent. Pay has stagnated and even moved backwards in some cases during the largest growth in national wealth since the forming of the country. Most of the damage was done during the Regan years and continued through the Clinton presidency. If the unions do not get their acts together and push for a greater share for the middle class, or worse yet, if they fall, then there is no hope left except for mass demonstrations.

Posted By mrStevens on 28 Mar 2011 04:43 PM

Posted By freeeekyyy on 28 Mar 2011 03:38 PM

Agree with point 1 and 2. I do not agree with point 3 in all cases. Some employers certainly don't give a crap about their employees, others do. Not everybody in business is an evil bastard. I don't see unions as being any different in this regard. Many of them don't give a crap about those they represent, they just want more power, which requires that they meet certain expectations, same as the companies. I agree with point 4 in some cases. There are plenty of historical examples of employers that treated their workers very poorly. There are also plenty of examples of employers that treated their workers very well. Just like today, there are good and bad employers. The bad ones tend not to be terribly successful, for clear reasons. I agree with point 5, but do not understand its relation to the discussion at hand.

Point 3. It is not necessarily evil to disregard the wellbeing of your employees. I don't want to get into an ethical debate. I just want to state the facts. Fact, private business first priority is profits above all else. The union doesn't need to necessarily care about the employees, but their pay is dependent on number of employees in the union and therefore their interests are more aligned with the employee versus the private company.

I would say that companies face the same issues as unions if they don't meet certain demands for ethical treatment of employees. They either end up with less productive employees, or with no employee at all from people leaving. Either way, that has an impact on their bottom line. I think the disappearance of private sector unions is evidence in itself of their relative non-necessity compared to the past. Companies have no more power to eliminate unions than they did 50 years ago. But the percentage of jobs which are unionized is way down, because public perception is that they are no longer such a necessity. There are jobs where they serve an important role, and in those cases they are still strong. In other cases, they are not.

I would say that companies face the same issues as unions if they don't meet certain demands for ethical treatment of employees. They either end up with less productive employees, or with no employee at all from people leaving.

In this economy people won't leave, even if they are being treated unethically or being paid next to nothing.

Look at people who work in dead-end jobs like McDonalds or Walmart. I don't know about Mickey D's, but I know for certain that Walmart is notorious for treating their employees poorly. But the majority of their employees - those that work in the stores - are uneducated, low-income individuals. And they are being paid minimum wage, which is impossible to live on, especially with a family - and lets face it many of these people are raising kids alone. What else are they going to do? Every job that they are qualified for is minimum wage. They are not going to get anywhere, it's a vicious cycle.

They cannot move up in the world because unlike generations past, nearly every job requires either a) a very specific skillset which is developed over many years; or b) higher education.  Fifty years ago my grandfather worked as an engineer.  He had a high school diploma and a few months of post-secondary "training".  The work he did would require 6-8 years post-high school - a Masters degree.

Most of these people are better off financially on welfare!!  But they will stay in these dead-end jobs with little pay and no benefits because they have to.  Because they are the lost citizens of America.  They have a job, so they cannot qualify for welfare, yet they don't make enough money to feed their families.  And so it continues.

These companies in most cases could care less about ethical treatment of their employees.  Look at the coal mine disaster in West Virigina last year, or the BP oil rig explosion!!  These catastrophes with loss of human life (and in the case of the latter enormous environmental and wildlife ramifications) could have been easily prevented.  But they weren't because these companies didn't care about their employees.  They only cared about the bottom line....the $$ they brought in and the profit they kept.  They did not want to spend the extra money to put those safety precautions in place that would have saved those workers lives.  

Why is it that in practically a third world country a disaster like this occurs and every single man was accounted for and kept alive and faring quite well considering the circumstances for several months, while in our own country that same disaster led to the deaths of many innocent miners?!?!

*THAT* my dear freeekyyy is what lack of unions and allowing companies to run laissez faire creates.......

Tell me what happens when teachers go on strike. This happens in my home state on a fairly regular basis. Whatever they demand, they get it, because the state can't hire anybody else. They have to go through the union. Since the jobs are necessary, the union basically gets whatever they want. I understand teachers are often underpaid, and are well worth their wage. Please, don't assume that I'm saying otherwise. But I can't support an insitution which basically allows for forced tax increases or budget deficits.