Labor Unions

[desura]

So I was talking to an old timer the other day. He used to work at a glass-blower factory.

He said that when he got up to management, what he saw was that management and the labor union rep would take a look at the worker complaints and then decide which ones the union would win and which ones the company would win.

In other words, at that company, union conflict became some sort of mirage that management and the union foisted on the workers. It seems to me that unions often are justified in their creation stories, but then they justify their existence as long as they can even when the crisis has passed.

Theoretically, unions shouldn't be necessary, no? For instance, in the retail space, one business model could be the Costco model of high pay for workers, vs the Walmart model of low pay for workers, and then see which company succeeds. There shouldn't be a need to unionize either store and have workers fight against management.

 

[Anarchist420]

Labor legislation is stupid. Hamilton would've been pro-labor legislation because he favored inflation, high tariffs, and immigration restriction to jack up wages for the few to bail out elitist debtors... and it doesn't take a genius to know how wrong Hamilton was.

 

[desura]

Labor legislation is stupid. Hamilton would've been pro-labor legislation because he favored inflation, high tariffs, and immigration restriction to jack up wages for the few to bail out elitist debtors... and it doesn't take a genius to know how wrong Hamilton was.

While it is true that inflation benefits debtors, I wouldn't exactly describe them as elite...

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Theoretically, unions shouldn't be necessary, no?

No, or at least I don't think so.

Unions served a valuable role back in the day. But that was before we had OSHA and all the crap ton of regulations we have now.

IMO, the govt (fed and state) has essentially taken over the roles that unions had.

Fern

 

[Londo_Jowo]

No, or at least I don't think so.

Unions served a valuable role back in the day. But that was before we had OSHA and all the crap ton of regulations we have now.

IMO, the govt (fed and state) has essentially taken over the roles that unions had.

Fern

Great post!!!

 

[berzerker60]

The difference is that with the union, the workers had half their complaints addressed. Without a union, they didn't.

There's nothing "theoretical" about the gross abuses and horrendous treatment workers receive without the ability to unionize, it's all over history. Unions are just one more imperfect check and balance in society. They're powerful organizations, and therefore attract corruption, but the same thing is true of police, and we don't set out to abolish them. We just fight corruption when it surfaces and are glad of the protection provided.

We have OSHA and similar BECAUSE of unions, and we have get-out-the-vote campaigns that stop the Mitt Romneys of the world from revoking OSHA, equal pay for equal work, and other union-won laws BECAUSE of unions today. They're an absolutely vital counterpoint to the massive power of the 1% who own 40% of America.

 

[IBMer]

No, or at least I don't think so.

Unions served a valuable role back in the day. But that was before we had OSHA and all the crap ton of regulations we have now.

IMO, the govt (fed and state) has essentially taken over the roles that unions had.

Fern

Though we are getting back into that territory again now with employers asking for Social Media passwords of their workers. Not quite the same comparison, but when there is a surplus of labor, it never fails that those in charge don't try to exploit the system in some way.

 

[Steeplerot]

A worker coop model of capitalism/labor is the future, less middlemen/elites/CEO parasites = efficiency.
Workers get their actual share for producing, the economy grows sustainably.

 

[Anarchist420]

While it is true that inflation benefits debtors, I wouldn't exactly describe them as elite...

I guess you've never heard of Robert Morris.

 

[GroundedSailor]

The difference is that with the union, the workers had half their complaints addressed. Without a union, they didn't.

There's nothing "theoretical" about the gross abuses and horrendous treatment workers receive without the ability to unionize, it's all over history. Unions are just one more imperfect check and balance in society. They're powerful organizations, and therefore attract corruption, but the same thing is true of police, and we don't set out to abolish them. We just fight corruption when it surfaces and are glad of the protection provided.

We have OSHA and similar BECAUSE of unions, and we have get-out-the-vote campaigns that stop the Mitt Romneys of the world from revoking OSHA, equal pay for equal work, and other union-won laws BECAUSE of unions today. They're an absolutely vital counterpoint to the massive power of the 1% who own 40% of America.

Well said. It's sad to see the reduction in the unionized workforce. Kinda matches the increase inequality in the past few years.

 

[desura]

I guess you've never heard of Robert Morris.

believe it or not, one of my jobs had a lot of Robert Morris alums.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Well said. It's sad to see the reduction in the unionized workforce. Kinda matches the increase inequality in the past few years.

Is that why most of the non-union shops in the Houston region pay more than the union shops while having similar benefits?

 

[berzerker60]

Could you link to proof of that? It's possible but surprising. Still, it wouldn't be completely mystifying. Unions, like vaccines, benefit even those who aren't included, so long as they include a large enough percentage of the labor population. They create upward pressure on wages and therefore make non-union shops offer comparable wages to compete for skilled employees.

 

[desura]

Could you link to proof of that? It's possible but surprising. Still, it wouldn't be completely mystifying. Unions, like vaccines, benefit even those who aren't included, so long as they include a large enough percentage of the labor population. They create upward pressure on wages and therefore make non-union shops offer comparable wages to compete for skilled employees.

The point I was trying to get at in my OP is that Costco is effectively a "unionized" retailer when you compare it to the competitor Walmart. It seems to be doing fine. The only other way that unions can work is by restricting consumer choice by sector-wide collusion, so that no one gets uncut, because typically the problem with unionization is that as soon as one workforce unionizes and gets pay increases from management, other competitors swoop in and take away marketshare because they can offer lower prices.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Could you link to proof of that? It's possible but surprising. Still, it wouldn't be completely mystifying. Unions, like vaccines, benefit even those who aren't included, so long as they include a large enough percentage of the labor population. They create upward pressure on wages and therefore make non-union shops offer comparable wages to compete for skilled employees.

The field labor section of the company for whom I work have hired almost all the mechanics/millwrights in the Beaumont area and now the union hall is almost non-existent.

 

[Mixolydian]

Unions are still very much important for blue-collared jobs. People with white-collar jobs simply don't understand this.

 

[desura]

Unions are still very much important for blue-collared jobs. People with white-collar jobs simply don't understand this.

are teachers blue collar or white collar?

It seems to me that teachers unions are unnecessarily militant.

Eh, for any job, free market theory would say that if you mistreat your workers, the best ones will leave and go to an employer who treats them better. No need for a union. A better-run competitor would increase job conditions.

In the long-run, good job conditions are needed for success. IMO, CEO's who come up through company ranks are better than outside hire CEO's who parachute in without understanding the ground level.

 

[Mixolydian]

are teachers blue collar or white collar?

It seems to me that teachers unions are unnecessarily militant.

Eh, for any job, free market theory would say that if you mistreat your workers, the best ones will leave and go to an employer who treats them better. No need for a union. A better-run competitor would increase job conditions.

In the long-run, good job conditions are needed for success. IMO, CEO's who come up through company ranks are better than outside hire CEO's who parachute in without understanding the ground level.

teacher, imo are white collar - they don't need unions.

unions are needed for people who perform physically demanding/dangerous jobs.

 

[Lanyap]

Though we are getting back into that territory again now with employers asking for Social Media passwords of their workers. Not quite the same comparison, but when there is a surplus of labor, it never fails that those in charge don't try to exploit the system in some way.

And it looks like state governments are stepping up and passing legislation to ban this new practice by employers.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/employer-access-to-social-media-passwords.aspx

 

[pcgeek11]

No, or at least I don't think so.

Unions served a valuable role back in the day. But that was before we had OSHA and all the crap ton of regulations we have now.

IMO, the govt (fed and state) has essentially taken over the roles that unions had.

Fern

100% agree!

 

[GroundedSailor]

Is that why most of the non-union shops in the Houston region pay more than the union shops while having similar benefits?

That sounds very surprising. Also depends upon the skills required for the job, the amount of skilled people available. Are you comparing apples to apples? Got any links which can show that?

As berzerker60 pointed out above, union presence in the market exerts upward pressure on wages, which also benefit non union labor in the area.

are teachers blue collar or white collar?

It seems to me that teachers unions are unnecessarily militant.

Eh, for any job, free market theory would say that if you mistreat your workers, the best ones will leave and go to an employer who treats them better. No need for a union. A better-run competitor would increase job conditions.

In the long-run, good job conditions are needed for success. IMO, CEO's who come up through company ranks are better than outside hire CEO's who parachute in without understanding the ground level.

That is true in a job market where there is a level playing field, i.e., there are enough jobs for the workers. When there is a large oversupply of workers, as is now, the employers can get away with 'mistreating' workers. Workers will take it rather than sit at home, specially those who have mortgages, dependent kids or those who need the medical insurance.

.

 

[Matt1970]

The union benefited Hostess tremendously.

 

[Kneedragger]

The difference is that with the union, the workers had half their complaints addressed. Without a union, they didn't.

There's nothing "theoretical" about the gross abuses and horrendous treatment workers receive without the ability to unionize, it's all over history. Unions are just one more imperfect check and balance in society. They're powerful organizations, and therefore attract corruption, but the same thing is true of police, and we don't set out to abolish them. We just fight corruption when it surfaces and are glad of the protection provided.

We have OSHA and similar BECAUSE of unions, and we have get-out-the-vote campaigns that stop the Mitt Romneys of the world from revoking OSHA, equal pay for equal work, and other union-won laws BECAUSE of unions today. They're an absolutely vital counterpoint to the massive power of the 1% who own 40% of America.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[Mixolydian]

Eh, for any job, free market theory would say that if you mistreat your workers, the best ones will leave and go to an employer who treats them better. No need for a union. A better-run competitor would increase job conditions.

Makes sense on paper, but often doesn't work that way in reality.

In the long-run, good job conditions are needed for success.

Walmart is bankrupt, then?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That sounds very surprising. Also depends upon the skills required for the job, the amount of skilled people available. Are you comparing apples to apples? Got any links which can show that?

As berzerker60 pointed out above, union presence in the market exerts upward pressure on wages, which also benefit non union labor in the area.

Keep on believing that unions place upward pressure on wages. I know the company for whom I work pay the union hands* the same wages they pay non-union hands.


*As the company expanded it's field service offerings some states required that these hands be union. At the end of the day these union hands make less than their non-union counterparts as they have to pay union dues.