A Different Topic - We need UNIONS!

[flacaltenn]

Only comment here is that what's equally ominous for the unions is that there are DECREASING occupations where the current union work model even applies.. Pretty soon, if the unions dont evolve, all the fighting is gonna be about only 4 or 5 occupations.. Look for an automated McDonalds near you if the Unions force their way in...

Whether or not unions "evolve" depends entirely upon active membership participation. The alternative is to toss out the baby with the bathwater. And precisely that alternative is being facilitated by Right-To-Work laws.

The principle of the union movement is very simply stated: United we stand, divided we fall. Right-To-Work has very deviously succeeded in dividing the working class

Nope.. You're putting the baby in without the bath water.. Unions need to evolve FIRST before they lose access to EVERY occupational endevour.. You're really not getting how irrelevent their view of a job or labor is in the 21st Century..

The "increased member participation" happens when the product is something that's effective and attractive and relevent...

 

[MikeK]

I was an elected representative of the municipal union I belonged to, which was not a real union in the accepted sense of the word because we were legally barred from striking. So we were called a benevolent association and were limited to passively negotiating with City management. Most of my respect for and awareness of unions derives from the example of my son-in-law, a high school dropout who works for United Parcel Service and is a proud, loyal member of the Teamsters Union.

He started with UPS sorting packages on the midnight-to-eight shift. He did that for two years, progressed to loading trucks for another two years, became a package delivery route driver, which he did for nine years. During that time he paid a school $2,500 to learn to drive eighteen-wheelers, which is what he does now for UPS. He works 4PM to 12AM doing airport runs, which he likes. The point I'm making is this: He owns a beautiful home with a swimming pool on Long Island. He owns a very nice car. My daughter doesn't need to work and has her own car. My grand-kids want for nothing. They have premium health insurance with a dental rider (along with other benefits I don't recall). And all of that is attributable to the Teamsters Union,

 

[MikeK]

Nope.. You're putting the baby in without the bath water.. Unions need to evolve FIRST before they lose access to EVERY occupational endevour.. You're really not getting how irrelevent their view of a job or labor is in the 21st Century..

The "increased member participation" happens when the product is something that's effective and attractive and relevent...

You are expanding on the semantic pivot, "evolve." So please tell us exactly what you mean by "evolve" because there might be some misunderstanding.

 

[MikeK]

What would these new unions look like? Not sure. Thus the reason for the topic. But let me make this clear. The unions that we have now have been hijacked. Either by thugs or political hacks of the same sort we have seen on this forum. I was forced once to join a union by three guys who followed me into a bathroom. It wasn't a request. I really dislike the unions as they stand now, but have come somewhat to the conclusion that the function that they served at one time was an honorable one and did help get and maintain American jobs BECAUSE they worked FOR the companies as well.

Now, what do you think?

I'm sure that we disagree on a lot of things about unions, but I appreciate your position and willingness to approach what a revitalized union movement would look like. Here are my suggestions:

1. Job training and apprenticeship programs jointly run by industry and unions make a lot of sense. I prefer that to the community college model popular today. Apprentices should start at minimum wage and scale up to prevailing wage as they progress. Non-paying "internship" programs should be made illegal as a violation of minimum wage laws. Both employers and unions have a vested interest in maintaining the quality of these programs and the unions have a strong interest in avoiding the overproduction of narrowly trained technical workers so often seen today at for-profit technical schools which prey on the students and taxpayers. These programs should also contain continuing education components and retraining for when jobs become obsolete.

2. The traditional union function of representing workers in grievance procedures needs to be emphasized. Management too often thinks they know what is happening on the shop floor when they do not, and only become aware of supervisor abuses when they lose multi-million dollar lawsuits or incur huge fines. Union grievance systems give smart businesses a "back-door" to information about what is really going on in their operations.

3. Industry-wide collective bargaining can control the race to the bottom. Each employer may fear making certain changes, from worker safety to benefits, for fear of being at a competitive disadvantage. But if most of the industry is covered by the same provisions, non-compliant firms can be marginalized and everyone can benefit from the lower long run costs many of these changes engender.

4. The complaints about union shops could be addressed by allowing collective bargaining to discriminate between union and non-union workers. Suppose the union offered to pay half of the cost of short term disability out of union dues, with only union members eligible. This eliminates the free rider problem. If you don't want to pay union dues, just forgo some of the union benefits and don't go crying that union members get more benefits, they pay for them.

5. I like the idea of transferring programs that effect unit labor cost as much as possible out of employer discretion or government mandate, especially health care. Union industry-wide plans are superior to individual employer plans. Among other things, they cannot be raided or defunded. When labor directly bears part of the cost and has a voice in administration, better economic decisions will be made and workers will have more knowledge of the programs and sense of participation.

I have stayed away from ideas that I am sure could not be common ground. What do you think of the forgoing?

As one old fart to another, I think you know what you're talking about.

I also think a lot of existing anti-union sentiment we're hearing derives partly from corporatist propaganda but mainly from so many of today's workers being spoiled by the standard benefits they enjoy and take completely for granted. They seem to think such things as the (full-time) 5-day 40-hour week, overtime pay, sick leave, vacations, disability pay, etc., were in place when the world began and are indelible. They have absolutely no recollection or knowledge of the bad old days and no awareness of the blood, sweat, and tears shed by so many to achieve those basic components of worker dignity.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

What would these new unions look like? Not sure. Thus the reason for the topic. But let me make this clear. The unions that we have now have been hijacked. Either by thugs or political hacks of the same sort we have seen on this forum. I was forced once to join a union by three guys who followed me into a bathroom. It wasn't a request. I really dislike the unions as they stand now, but have come somewhat to the conclusion that the function that they served at one time was an honorable one and did help get and maintain American jobs BECAUSE they worked FOR the companies as well.

Now, what do you think?

I'm sure that we disagree on a lot of things about unions, but I appreciate your position and willingness to approach what a revitalized union movement would look like. Here are my suggestions:

1. Job training and apprenticeship programs jointly run by industry and unions make a lot of sense. I prefer that to the community college model popular today. Apprentices should start at minimum wage and scale up to prevailing wage as they progress. Non-paying "internship" programs should be made illegal as a violation of minimum wage laws. Both employers and unions have a vested interest in maintaining the quality of these programs and the unions have a strong interest in avoiding the overproduction of narrowly trained technical workers so often seen today at for-profit technical schools which prey on the students and taxpayers. These programs should also contain continuing education components and retraining for when jobs become obsolete.

2. The traditional union function of representing workers in grievance procedures needs to be emphasized. Management too often thinks they know what is happening on the shop floor when they do not, and only become aware of supervisor abuses when they lose multi-million dollar lawsuits or incur huge fines. Union grievance systems give smart businesses a "back-door" to information about what is really going on in their operations.

3. Industry-wide collective bargaining can control the race to the bottom. Each employer may fear making certain changes, from worker safety to benefits, for fear of being at a competitive disadvantage. But if most of the industry is covered by the same provisions, non-compliant firms can be marginalized and everyone can benefit from the lower long run costs many of these changes engender.

4. The complaints about union shops could be addressed by allowing collective bargaining to discriminate between union and non-union workers. Suppose the union offered to pay half of the cost of short term disability out of union dues, with only union members eligible. This eliminates the free rider problem. If you don't want to pay union dues, just forgo some of the union benefits and don't go crying that union members get more benefits, they pay for them.

5. I like the idea of transferring programs that effect unit labor cost as much as possible out of employer discretion or government mandate, especially health care. Union industry-wide plans are superior to individual employer plans. Among other things, they cannot be raided or defunded. When labor directly bears part of the cost and has a voice in administration, better economic decisions will be made and workers will have more knowledge of the programs and sense of participation.

I have stayed away from ideas that I am sure could not be common ground. What do you think of the forgoing?

A very good start and well stated. I would have to see the details of some of those, but can definately get on board for number four and five. But again, the details are always the devil aren't they?

Thanks for the constructive input as well as MikeK... We may not agree with each other on many other issues, but it is nice to speak to someone on an intelligent opposing point of view.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Unions never really worked. What happened to create manufacturing was wwII and the destruction of every society on earth except the USA. Demand for US goods was at historic high because no one else could produce goods. Unions had 0 to do with that. As the world healed, slowly manufacturing moved over seas.

That supposition relies on the false idea that unions have anything to do with brining manufacturing here or creating jobs. That is not the purview of the union and where unions lose their way they harm those industries. They never really help but they don’t need to because that is not their purpose.

The SOLE purpose of unions is to represent the workers interests. In that light, they have been wildly successful throughout the growing pains that we experienced during the industrial revolution. There was a point when labor law was entirely non-existent and the vacuum was abused throughout this nation. Unions were integral in establishing much of labor law. They also tend to raise wages throughout a carrier field. That is not always a bad or good thing. Sometimes it meets market demands (good) and others it exceeds them (bad).

They do increase both creativity and entrepreneurship. We would get nothing out of the talent of the working class if their fathers didn't make union wages. The disposable class of preppies has never created anything. Also, someone with a union wage can save enough to start a small business. Joe the Plumber would have had nothing to whine about the regulations in starting a business if plumbers had never had unions!

 

[Huey]

Unions suck...

 

[PrometheusBound]

Unions suck...

Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood. That sucks!

 

[FA_Q2]

Right-To-Work is crippling to unions. It is precisely comparable to making the income tax optional. Imagine the inevitable outcome of that.

Right-To-Work will unquestionably eliminate unions. It's just a matter of time. And when the unions are gone there will be an incremental decline in wages and employee benefits. Can you think of a reason why such a decline will not take place? There is none!

Unions, in spite of their warts, are the best friend of the American working class. Failure to acknowledge that is inviting disaster!

It is crippling unions because those unions do not support the workers that they require to pay into the system. It is NOT similar to income taxes because unions ARE NOT GOVERNMENT – the sole entity that we have ceded the right to essentially steal our production in order to serve the whole community. I am not willing to give that power to ANY other entity, period. There is a massive difference when you start bringing in the government that no private entity should be allowed to emulate.

If the right to work is killing the union it is the unions responsibility to become something that the workers WANT. At no time should such a thing be compulsory. You must realize that anything that essentially compels membership is NOT a good thing. The idea that unions are so good that we have to be FORCED to pay their dues is completely foreign to me and should be to anyone that actually stops and thinks about it.

Old fart actually came up with some really good points on this matter as well. Just because the union has a tendency to raise wages across the board does NOT mean that there should be anything preventing union members from receiving a higher caliber benefit from belonging to the union. Should the employer meet those standards to the point that the union is no longer needed then so be it – the union dissolves?

I think that really brings something else into the picture as well – I don’t see why we treat unions as some sort of permanent entity that MUST continue to exist far after the employees collective whishes are met. The entire idea behind unions is that it gives the bottom workers more power when they bargain for benefits collectively. Why then does the union continue that process after the bargain was struck? Unions should come and go as the workers decide that they are needed.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nope.. You're putting the baby in without the bath water.. Unions need to evolve FIRST before they lose access to EVERY occupational endevour.. You're really not getting how irrelevent their view of a job or labor is in the 21st Century..

The "increased member participation" happens when the product is something that's effective and attractive and relevent...

You are expanding on the semantic pivot, "evolve." So please tell us exactly what you mean by "evolve" because there might be some misunderstanding.

Why don't we start with losing that 18th century concept of defining workers as "SINGLE TASK INTERCHANGEABLE robots.". It's humiliating as well as wholly antiquated. You just gotta laugh at how ironic that attitude is considering the pressure from automation that's gonna make their last remnants outside of govt ---- extinct.. Almost makes you chuckle like when you see that DoDo Bird pix and KNOW it should have gone extinct..

Then there should be a realization that workers need promotions and CAREERS, not a "job". So treating them as individuals with different aptitudes and desires just might be more humane. That includes EDUCATION, flexible work rules, and PREPARATION for tech changes --- rather than just OPPOSING changes..

Lots of ideas from other folks on this thread as to WHY the Unions are an endangered species.. THey need to stop writing books about the 19th century and start INNOVATING and listening and realizing what a JOB LOOK LIKE in the 21st century..

 

[PrometheusBound]

Right-To-Work is crippling to unions. It is precisely comparable to making the income tax optional. Imagine the inevitable outcome of that.

Right-To-Work will unquestionably eliminate unions. It's just a matter of time. And when the unions are gone there will be an incremental decline in wages and employee benefits. Can you think of a reason why such a decline will not take place? There is none!

Unions, in spite of their warts, are the best friend of the American working class. Failure to acknowledge that is inviting disaster!

It is crippling unions because those unions do not support the workers that they require to pay into the system. It is NOT similar to income taxes because unions ARE NOT GOVERNMENT – the sole entity that we have ceded the right to essentially steal our production in order to serve the whole community. I am not willing to give that power to ANY other entity, period. There is a massive difference when you start bringing in the government that no private entity should be allowed to emulate.

If the right to work is killing the union it is the unions responsibility to become something that the workers WANT. At no time should such a thing be compulsory. You must realize that anything that essentially compels membership is NOT a good thing. The idea that unions are so good that we have to be FORCED to pay their dues is completely foreign to me and should be to anyone that actually stops and thinks about it.

Old fart actually came up with some really good points on this matter as well. Just because the union has a tendency to raise wages across the board does NOT mean that there should be anything preventing union members from receiving a higher caliber benefit from belonging to the union. Should the employer meet those standards to the point that the union is no longer needed then so be it – the union dissolves?

I think that really brings something else into the picture as well – I don’t see why we treat unions as some sort of permanent entity that MUST continue to exist far after the employees collective whishes are met. The entire idea behind unions is that it gives the bottom workers more power when they bargain for benefits collectively. Why then does the union continue that process after the bargain was struck? Unions should come and go as the workers decide that they are needed.

It is a class war. How much you make earning a living is as serious as a matter of life and death. So scabs should be looked on as deserters or traitors. Your side wants us to become pacifists so you can win, so your talk of "coercion" is just to turn us into pushovers. Instead, we will push and shove and coerce all we want. We will hang the Sissies in Suitcoats by their ties.

The corporate parasites, whose entire wealth we create, and others of the class you put us in created for them to start our business, want to occupy the workplace and rule over us. You are sure of your supremacy and we are sure of ours. When two countries both believe they must each dominate the other, then the only solution is war. Neither should recognize an international organization biased towards the other side, which in the class war is the government. We should pay no attention to your objections because obviously you feel you are superior and don't care what we think about ourselves. Violence, government force, Mafia special forces, whatever: all options that contribute to victory are open to those with pride, which your class has tried to strip us of from cradle to grave.