American Unions -- Good or Bad for America?

[Mr Natural]

It's a shame that American workers have to make so much damn money. If only they would make less and work more we'd all be a lot better off.

"Prosperity through lower wages!"

 

[syrenn]

Hubby and I have been running a small business for the last several years providing various kinds of insurance services including premium audits. In auditing payroll for work comp and general liability audits, most companies keep separate records for union/government jobs and non-union/non-government jobs. The hourly wage, certain benefits, etc. are often artificially substantially higher for the union and government jobs. As it is easy to see in the separate records, the difference in fact is quite stunning.

As New Mexico has a lot of government work with its national labs, bases, and various other government installations, some of the contractors bid on and got job involving some of the stimulus money. They acknowledged that they payroll costs were a lot more for those jobs than for regular work, and they also charged considerably more for materials and processes to meet government specifications, and the job took significantly longer than it otherwise would. The government requires contractors, at least here. to be union or, if not union, to pay union scale.

Once the government job is completed, however, they go back to prevailing area wages, materials, processes, and materials.

Almost no new jobs were created even during the short term jobs. We the taxpayer just paid a whole lot more to get the government job done than we would if it had been done in the private sector. But that's the payoff to the Unions. Nobody will be allowed to compete against the Unions by underbidding union shops.

Because unions will not allow, ALLOW anyone to compete. That is the problem in a nut shell.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And because of the union stranglehold on some local Governments, well, what can you say, our county just laid off 1/3 of its Deputy Sheriffs. And the city is broke. I'm glad I live in this little village away from it all. We are doing just fine. Maybe because our village Administrator, Mayor and councilmen are not permitted to run on a party ticket.

 

[Big Fitz]

My simplified view is this.

Union have their place in protecting workers from abuse. They have long since exceeded this role and need to be re-regulated and restructured.

When unions need to be banned is in the public sector and all government jobs. The simple reason is this: the negotiation for benefits and pay is not being done with the party paying for the services: The Taxpayer. It is being done by a representative that will suffer no personal loss if the deal made is bad. Therefore, either all public sector/government unions need to be abolished, or all changes in contract must be voted on by taxpayers in public referendum similar to a bonding bill.

Lastly, like corporations, unions need their ability to make political donations stripped from them. It is an unfair advantage that has lead to much corruption.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's a shame that American workers have to make so much damn money. If only they would make less and work more we'd all be a lot better off.

"Prosperity through lower wages!"

I really hope you're being sarcastic. Otherwise I'd wonder if you're stoned out of your gourd.

 

[Big Fitz]

One thing for certain, the public sector jobs should never make more than the median income for a similar job in the private sector. Even after benefits.

 

[Madeline]

But they do, Big Fritz. The sad thing is, the only job we absolutely must have done by government workers -- the military -- is never overpaid, has no union and is not especially secure.

Today, there are more Americans working for one level of government or another than there are working in the private sector, and they out-earn the private sector even before you factor in benefits. And the benefits are amazing. I had six weeks EACH vacation and sick leave every year, and I could accumulate them year to year. I had ONE YEAR'S additional sick leave, life insurance that quadrupled my salary...and on and on and on.

Most government jobs do not require or benefit from experience. There's little need for graybeard lawyers staffing every agency from the dog catcher to the SEC -- most of these jobs could be done better by Young Turks. There's a decent enough argument that experienced law enforcement and teaching and fire fighting staff are better, but there's also no denying that every such government employer is carrying a great deal of dead weight, and that the reason they cannot terminate these employees is the unions.

I favor unions for private sector jobs, in general, but not for government jobs. And for sure I don't favor unions for government workers layered atop civil service protection. Anyone who needs an iron-clad legal protection from ever losing his job probably isn't doing it. Government workers should be funneled out after three years and the few we need to remain, as we need the experience, should be protected only by a law suit that entitles them they were fired for a bad reason, like whistle blowing.

But then, I think we just plain have too many people working for the government, period. I'd cut the staffing levels by at least 75% if I was Queen For A Day. Most people perform better in a for-profit setting than they do as regulators, and no nation's GDP needs to be regulated as much as ours is.

 

[Big Fitz]

we're pretty much on the same page.

The military is non-union because it could not successfully exist if it was. You are there to be put in harms way, kill people and break things and potentially sacrifice your own life for the sake of your country. It's why we should treat our vets, particularly wounded and disabled vets very well.

 

[Madeline]

Here's a question for you Big Fitz: if all of us agree we SHOULD treat active military and vets better, then why are NONE of us voting out any Congressman that dares lay a hand on the GI BIll? We sat by and watched as they dismantled it, and almost nothing of the WW II era benefits remains. We sat by as the VA denied care to Vietnam era soliders suffering the effects of Agent Orange and then we did the same damned thing as Gulf War Syndrome was denied.

How does that happen, unless what we say we feel and what we REALLY feel are two different things?

 

[Big Fitz]

Who says we haven't tried and failed because of others voting for politicians against that or for other reasons? Single issue voters gum up the works as much as they help causes.

 

[antagon]

unions don't have to compete for the favor of their clients, be it the companies which let them contracts or the workers who constitute them. they are indifferent to the owner/shareholders and consumers which companies and their employees are meant to service. this factor has lead to their corruption over time and their cancer-like dissimilarity with the values which the rest of the nation has evolved through participation in a competitive, service-driven, entrepreneurial environment.

individual aspects of any organization can be isolated and seen in a positive light, but unions are organizations which, taken as a whole, present a net drag on american business and labor. i feel they will die out in this 21st century as part of an inevitable reorganization of the nation's relationship to labor and productivity, ethics and politics, employment, unemployment and businessmaking. much of this impact has already been realized, but it has only begun.

 

[Madeline]

antagon, after BP, Walmarts, Enron, WorldCom, ad nauseum....what "uptick in ethics" do you foresee that will do away with the need for organized labor?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/119451-why-do-we-worship-big-business.html

 

[antagon]

i couldn't be mistaken for any lover of big businesses.

in fact, the shrinking of average business size per dollar earned and per employee hired is one of the key characteristics of future-trend economics which plays out of the unions' favor.

there has been a dramatic uptick in industrial labor standards between 1910 and 2010. every pound of that is weighed in an argument which paints unions to be more and more redundant in the face of government regulations, readily available tort and wage standards to include government prevailing wages.

moreover, unions have had a negative connotation with regard to ethics for over 30 years now.

 

[Foxfyre]

i couldn't be mistaken for any lover of big businesses.

in fact, the shrinking of average business size per dollar earned and per employee hired is one of the key characteristics of future-trend economics which plays out of the unions' favor.

there has been a dramatic uptick in industrial labor standards between 1910 and 2010. every pound of that is weighed in an argument which paints unions to be more and more redundant in the face of government regulations, readily available tort and wage standards to include government prevailing wages.

moreover, unions have had a negative connotation with regard to ethics for over 30 years now.

Not just for 30 years. Early on in the 20's and 30's "Union Label" signified a 'white only' labor force. The Union track record of discrimination against blacks, Asians, and other minority groups is well documented. Then by the 50's and 60's connections between the unions and organized crime had become a real problem probably coming to a head in the Jimmy Hoffa scandals.

Certainly the first unions were justified to address abuse and exploitation of workers that violated every concept of human rights. But it did not take long for many of the unions to be infiltrated and taken over by people who had far less than altruistic motives.

The real downside however has been in escalating wages above the market rates. Even now union wages are generally 12 to 20% higher than the prevailing wages in any given area, but that comes at a cost of lowered profits for union shops and fewer jobs for everybody. And polls have shown that union workers are no more and are usually less satisfied with job security, recognition and reward for work well done, and feel they have less control over working conditions and their futures than do workers in the private sector. Mediocre workers enjoy not having to work extra hard, don't care if they get ahead, and enjoy the perks. Good ambitious workers are generally frustrated in many union jobs.

In short, more and more Americans are seeing that the upside to unions isn't offsetting the downside which accounts for shrinking union membership, decade by decade. Such may run in cycles as many things do, but I suspect the big unions will be a thing of the past within the next 25 years or so.

 

[Big Fitz]

antagon, after BP, Walmarts, Enron, WorldCom, ad nauseum....what "uptick in ethics" do you foresee that will do away with the need for organized labor?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/119451-why-do-we-worship-big-business.html

I don't agree that I'm a worshiper of big business as the link states, but at the same time, I think what you're looking for can't be created at the business itself.

The issue of ethics and morality is a societal question that must be taught at the familly level, and it's been generations in failing in this nation. No it's never been perfect, but it used to be much better. Combine ethical standards from a strong moral code of absolute right and wrong, with specific, well enforced regulations, you have an excellent method for fighting rampant corruption, abuse and the horrors of big business we did not have back in the 19th century. Just imagine if you could combine the ethics of the turn of the 19th century with the business wisdom we've accumulated since then for public safeguards and equal competition.

Of course, now, we have a double whammy of relativist morality (what's good for me is good and nothing else matters) with erratic over-regulation. A stable, robust and growing society requires a firm absolute moral code at it's heart and set of rules that is the same for everyone. Children instinctively look for the boundries and crave the structure. It's only when we get older and learn to rationalize away things that violate this code and make excuses that we turn from it, and tend to hate that firm moral foundation and see it as a hinderance to what we want to do. We get the sensation that the rules don't apply to us, just others. This is when corruption, elitism and immorality become the norm and destroy all the good we've created.

So, to answer your question, the change must come throughout all society, adopting a universal ethical code that applies the same and adhered to by everyone who wishes to participate in society. The constitution goes a long way to help creating that, in it's original form. But it takes the stuff of sterner character for people to adhere to it. That's what we must re-instill in our children if we want it back.

 

[antagon]

i dont think business ethics in the 19th century can be preferred to today's. there are exceptions today, but there is also a general respect afforded employees now which has never been afforded them in our history. the 1800s can be characterized as a time of slavery and child labor, pitiful wages and robber barons. our belief that walmart is mistreating employees is an indication that we have raised expectations far beyond anything available in the 19th century.

that is only looking at what can be said of labor relations. environmental ethics, consumer ethics and competitive ethics have improved dramatically in the last 200 years. i dont believe ethics existed back then as a concept requiring any consideration in business at all.

 

[Madeline]

So, here's my question: how can Walmart employees improve working conditions if not through organizing? What government regulatory body or tort law suit will cure what ails them?

The problem with unions seems to be that in some cases, the cure is worse than the disease. The reason they exist is unfairness and injustice, and yet so many are corrupt and they are all inefficient.

 

[antagon]

i'm not sure what is so bad about working for walmart. ok, well, i know why i wont want to work there in any capacity, but that is why i dont work there. are all of their employees dissatisfied?

workers can enter a class-action lawsuit and address discrimination and poor standards within the company or by seeking outside advocacy. they'll have to make a case that they have a reasonable qualm. is getting minimum wage to return clothes to the racks from the changing room a reasonable qualm? is the nature of their hierarchy the problem, or is it their co-workers? do people choosing to work at walmart have any different impressions of what it would be like working there than i do, and granted that, is their judgment what has landed them in an unsatisfactory work and earnings environment?

with or without a union, there is a right to organize. unions exist, furthermore, and will continue to as long as they can. they will have to change their entitled status to one which can present a benefit to businesses and employees if they'll survive the next 50 years. right now, few can manage that, and they're struggling to pull down contracts, and loosing ranks of employees. 50 more years at this pace...

 

[code1211]

So, here's my question: how can Walmart employees improve working conditions if not through organizing? What government regulatory body or tort law suit will cure what ails them?

The problem with unions seems to be that in some cases, the cure is worse than the disease. The reason they exist is unfairness and injustice, and yet so many are corrupt and they are all inefficient.

What are the shortcomings you feel need to be addressed in the workplace at WalMart?

 

[SFC Ollie]

My Cousin has worked for walmart for years, she claims she has more fun at work than anywhere.