|
 |
December 17, 2003 LEFTIES, LIBERALS, AND UNIONS....Comrade Max explains the difference between leftists and liberals over at his place. I mostly agree with him, and I am, of course, a liberal, not a leftist, both by his definition and my own. There are, in my view, simply too many parts of leftist orthodoxy that have been tried in various countries and found wanting. They may sound good, but if they don't work, they don't work. Time to move on. On one subject, though, I'm perhaps more left than liberal, and it's an important one: unions. As Max puts it, "For liberals, labor is just another 'interest group,'" and I think he's right. I'm frequently disheartened by the number of liberals I know who actively dislike unions and think of them as obstructive, militant, and unnecessary. Strikes are usually perceived — often unfairly — as the union's fault, rather than equally the fault of management intransigence. The reality, as Max says, is that "Unionization is an anti-poverty program," and while I don't elevate labor to a "central place in social transformation," I do think unions are a vital part of raising people out of poverty and creating both a fairer society and a thriving middle class. Sure, unions can go too far. So can corporations. So can everyone. But obsessing solely on their weaknesses misses the larger point: the best way to raise people out of poverty is for them to work together to insist on higher wages in the first place, not to pay them starvation wages and then have the government make up the difference in food stamps and earned income credits. Unfortunately, current federal law is so hostile to unionization activities that the entire movement seems stuck in time. Old unions are still around — teachers, government workers, etc. — even though they've mostly served their purpose and often seem reduced to a dogged and unpopular insistence that no one ever be fired no matter what the cause. At the same time, desperately needed new unions — retail, janitors, service industries — are hellishly hard to get organized. So the public view of unions is largely one of coddled workers who make a pretty good living and continue to demand ever more, while the genuinely poor who need unions are shut out. I don't have any answers for this, unfortunately. Maybe Max can chime in. Posted by Kevin Drum at December 17, 2003 10:43 AM | TrackBackComments
Good point. Why the hell do we have public sector unions anyway? Here in Pittsburgh the firefighters and police have bankrupt our city. Of the highest-paid 50 public employees in the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, 40 are either police, EMS, fire, or Sheriffs. The Mayor and County Executive aren't even on the list! The highest-paid non-fire/police/EMS/sheriff person is the County District Attorney, who makes less than two City Battalion chiefs. Meanwhile, we have more fire-fighters than fires, and we're paying police officers overtime to direct traffic during rush hour. What's wrong with this picture? Posted by: praktike at December 17, 2003 10:58 AM | PERMALINKKevin, Kevin, Kevin, Trickle down will take care of all them workers making bupkiss. We just need more time. Apparently it takes longer than 20 years for trickle down economics to start "working". Besides, America is completely and utterly a meritocracy, so if someone isn't making enough to live on it's completely and utterly their fault and their fault alone. There is no context to anything. Didn't you know that? Posted by: Tim at December 17, 2003 11:03 AM | PERMALINKPreach on brother. Anti-unionism drives me up the wall more than anything. Your average college-aged liberal doesn't understand unions and how important they are. They've never met a union member, don't understand the benefits (like health and insurance) that membership brings, and veiw it as an impediment to the free market. It drives me bonkers. Posted by: GFW at December 17, 2003 11:08 AM | PERMALINKFrom my labor law class (admittedly over ten years ago now) very small changes in how labor regulations are interpreted have big impacts on how successful unions are at organizing. Things like under what circumstances do union members have to be hired back after a strike, and what is considered to be bargaining in good faith. Therefore, as in so many other cases, the answer is voting for Democrats, preferably pro-labor Democrats. Clinton was better for labor than Bush is, even when dealing with a conservative Congress. Just being able to appoint people is very important. People know this about judges, but I don't think most people realize the same thing is true of administrative agencies. Posted by: Emma Anne at December 17, 2003 11:18 AM | PERMALINKI fall into the liberal not leftist category and due to the problems
you mention above I'm not much of a union supporter. I do however feel
municipal workers should be paid a living wage and live in the
municipality in which they work so I'm all for finding a new way to make
unions work in a way I would support (I have no idea how). I think a conservative (or neocon; or reactionary) would describe the same bloggers the exact opposite way. Or at least "Most righty bloggers are actually pretty moderate conservatives." Posted by: carsick at December 17, 2003 11:23 AM | PERMALINKThere are, in my view, simply too many parts of leftist orthodoxy
that have been tried in various countries and found wanting. They may
sound good, but if they don't work, they don't work. Time to move on. Here in Pittsburgh the firefighters and police have bankrupt our city. Of the highest-paid 50 public employees in the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, 40 are either police, EMS, fire, or Sheriffs. The Mayor and County Executive aren't even on the list! The highest-paid non-fire/police/EMS/sheriff ... What's wrong with this picture? Maybe nothing. The highest-paid employees of the Boston Red Sox aren't management. The highest-paid employees of brokerage firms are frequently star traders or salesmen. I can imagine that it might make sense for the highest paid employee of a city to be the officer who runs the toughest precinct. (Which is not to say that it's not possible to pay police and fire too much; I'm just quibbling with your metric.) Posted by: alkali at December 17, 2003 11:42 AM | PERMALINKI thought an expose exposes a real or perceived injustice and doesn't neccessarily promote a program or orthodoxy to address the injustice. As an expose it only addresses the injustice with sunlight. Maybe leftists recognize the pea under the mattress when the bed is stacked 20 mattresses high. Liberals at 10 mattresses high. And Conservatives 1. Of course some of those peas smash when you jump on the bed. Posted by: carsick at December 17, 2003 11:51 AM | PERMALINKI think part of the copmplaint is that collective bargaining only works well if it is truly *collective* -- that is, everybody involved (or enough of the people) goes along with the party line, and that requires a certain degree of coercion. The concept of coercion not just from the boss, but from competitors (and that's what fellow workers are) who are given some sort of power to compel you to act to your personal detriment in their collective interest, can be repulsive if working conditions are not truly horrible -- and I think that, in your typical white-collar job, working conditions aren't really *that* horrible. Don't forget that unions are political organizations, and that those with the time and energy to spare on the union, may be those who put in less effort into the day job of their members. Throw in the typical venality and pettiness that characterize politics, and you can get underachievers, bossy powermongers, or even occasionally thugs lording it over those who just work. Posted by: Ray at December 17, 2003 11:53 AM | PERMALINKUnions work best when they strive to protect workers from outright exploitation or when they're focused on creating a work environment that provides a good work/life balance and facilitates the future employability of all workers. On the other hand, fighting for job security or wage guarantees at a specific company does not really make sense in this rapidly evolving global economy. I think a lot of conservatives and libertarians focus only on the latter, which they see as preserving entitlements rather than actually helping workers. This is especially true of middle class cubicle rats who believe their white collar slave wages compare unfavorably to some trade workers. I supposed they've been brainwashed to believe that unions are inherently corrupt. The fact is that all entrenched bureaucracies spend more energy preserving their existence than fulfilling their original purpose. For some reason, government and organized labor get a worse rap than corporations. My theory is that the corporations simply have more money to spend on PR. What would happen if programmers, system analysts, accountants, dbas, graphic designers and low level managers had their own unions? Would they feel differently? Posted by: lobbygow at December 17, 2003 11:55 AM | PERMALINKDon't forget that unions are political organizations, and that those with the time and energy to spare on the union, may be those who put in less effort into the day job of their members. Throw in the typical venality and pettiness that characterize politics, and you can get underachievers, bossy powermongers, or even occasionally thugs lording it over those who just work. What a bigoted statement. What makes Union's so ripe for such abuse? You have no idea how a Union works, do you? and I think that, in your typical white-collar job, working conditions aren't really *that* horrible. To which unionized, white collar jobs would you be referring? Posted by: GFW at December 17, 2003 12:00 PM | PERMALINKI think that the weakening of unions is the biggest single reason for the decline of the Democratic party. The causes of the weakening are multiple, but the contempt for unions expressed by hip Salon/Slate/New Republic types is certainly part of the stories. Pure "social liberals" tend to be very hip, stylish, people who are either middle class and up, or else part of various urban countercultures. Union members (economic liberals) often are too tacky, corny, and unhip for social liberals. (Yeah, the feeling can be mutual). Maybe sometime the common enemy will unite them, but it's a very touchy relationship right now. TNR et al (including Matt Yglesias) speak too glibly of "pandering to
the core constituencies". When the Republicans are in power everyone
loses. Don't forget that unions are political organizations. I'm definitely a liberal, too. I'm probably to the right of most people on this board, although I'm still clearly left of the median voter. I've always been strongly pro-union, though, precisely because in my mind unions aren't primarily political organizations. They're market forces. I have absolutely no problem with them bargaining as hard as they want with management, whether the outcome they're seeking it's the 'fair' outcome or not. They're rational actors pursuing their self-interest, and this is the way the free market is supposed to work. Similarly, I have no problem with them seeking protection in the political sphere. Corporations sure as hell do it. A political system that grants political access to one group of market actors (corporate governors), but not the other side (labour) is skewed, undemocratic, and inconsistent with free markets. Since we're not ever, ever, going to get a political system that excludes corporate influence, unions have to be involved too. This is just the way it works. A free-market liberal should be relatively pro-union. Unions are market forces. And conservatives in this part of the world are not pro-market (contrary to their rhetoric), they're pro-business. Posted by: Andrew Edwards at December 17, 2003 12:06 PM | PERMALINKPure "social liberals" tend to be very hip, stylish, people who are either middle class and up, or else part of various urban countercultures. As a self-professed "social liberal" I can tell you that the cure for union contempt is a good healthy dose of underemployment. My basic economic views haven't changed, but my recognition that this nation is in the thrall of corporate statists is a recent epiphany. Being "on the beach" gives one time to reflect. I also have many "hip" friends with expensive degrees that are worried about competing for Christmas jobs at Williams-Sonoma so they can make their COBRA payments. I think they may be examining some of their assumption about the value of unions. Posted by: lobbygow at December 17, 2003 12:07 PM | PERMALINKWhen I was in school (30 years ago) I worked construction and heavy construction (tunnels) in the summers. I worked both union (Laborers) and non-union jobs. My recollection is that the union jobs paid a lot more and involved a lot less work. I suspect things haven't changed all that much since then. Posted by: DBL at December 17, 2003 12:16 PM | PERMALINKAnd conservatives in this part of the world are not pro-market (contrary to their rhetoric), they're pro-business. Great post Andrew! I disagree with the second part of your statement. Conservatives aren't really pro-business either. If they were, they would be pursuing policies that ensured the long-term viability of businesses both small and large. They aren't. The focus is on short term profit taking and quarterly earnings reports. Having been a "process performance consultant" for Fortune 100 companies for the last 8 years, I'm shocked at what some upper management types are being paid relative to the value they are adding to their companies. If more shareholders knew how disconnected the top layer of management is from the reality of operations, they'd shit a brick. These guys make decisions with virtually no data and worry more about who reports to whom and who gets credit than whether they're getting better, faster and cheaper. Customers, shareholders and employees all suffer as a result. The relationship executives have to what the workers are actually facing is analogous to the relationship Cheney or Rumsfeld have with our the troops in Iraq and Afghanisttan. They don't know how anything works and yet they're making decisions on resource allocation and capital investment. It really sucks. I guess I'm a whore for taking their money, but I rationalize it by imagining that I can help make the employees worklives easier, if only temporarily. Posted by: lobbygow at December 17, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINKI'm not very sympathetic to unions, but these sentences have set some wheels turning (or at least creaking and swaying a bit) in my head: "Old unions are still around — teachers, government workers, etc. — even though they've mostly served their purpose and often seem reduced to to a dogged and unpopular insistence that no one ever be fired no matter what the cause. At the same time, desperately needed new unions — retail, janitors, service industries — are hellishly hard to get organized. So the public view of unions is largely one of coddled workers who make a pretty good living and continue to demand ever more, while the genuinely poor who need unions are shut out." I have experience with unions, but only the really entrenched unions like teacher's unions and the Teamsters. I wonder if I don't dislike unions so much as I dislike the established unions which have already succeeded in doing the things I would like unions to do, but have gone on to do all the annoying things that these big and old unions do. But as for this argument: "As a self-professed "social liberal" I can tell you that the cure for union contempt is a good healthy dose of underemployment." This may be good politics, but it is awful economics. The idea that higher paid union jobs will increase employment levels would be difficult to defend. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at December 17, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINKApparently I didn't make my point clearly, Sebastian. I am against
either wage or job protection as my earlier post implies. However,
there are many other legitimate purposes of unions that will benefit
white collar workers - health care, family leave, skills training as the
demand for various job classes shift. I expect the future economy to be
charaterized by sporadic periods of unemployment for everyone.
(everyone that doesn't have the benefit of nepotism) My point was that
being out of work unexpectedly gives one an appreciation of how
frightening the prospect of prolonged unemployement or underemployment
can be. This has made me more sympathetic to both traditional blue
collar workers and the so-called working poor. I'm still at a great
advantage over most of those folks because of my education, but what
happens as education gets more expensive and less likely to ensure
employment? We are all blue collar workers now. Sebastian -- whether unions are good economics depends on what kind of economist you ask. A properly orthodox Chicago or Rochester economist will of course tell you that higher wages = less employment, but that's looking at things in a bubble. As part of a long-term production strategy, unions make lots of sense. The firm pays more for its workers, but knows they're well-trained, healthy, and unlikely to disappear because of a household debt or health crisis. A heavily unionized firm can plan differently for its future because it knows what it's getting from workers. It does better over the long-run and provides more jobs for everyone involved. This is of course contingent on the existence of executives who look more than 90 days in the future. That's a big caveat. The other important point is that non-union strategies of production aren't exactly cheap. They generally result in lower productivity, high turnover costs, and unreliable production on account of workers frequently jumping ship. Non-union production costs more for taxpayers, too: We have to fund the Earned Income Tax Credit, welfare (don't tell anyone, but most TANF recipients are employed for a good part of the year), food stamps, Section 8 vouchers, Medicaid, etc., etc. A healthy, productive workforce costs a certain base amount; unions see that workers stay healthy and productive through wages instead of income transfers. Someone has to make sure workers can both work and survive, and I'd rather it be the employer. And (I'll shut up after this) there is the problem of aggregate demand. Pay people more and they can buy more products. This is Keynsianism 101, I know, but has anybody thought about who's going to buy stuff when the only workers left in the country are Wal-Mart clerks? Posted by: Slothrop at December 17, 2003 12:43 PM | PERMALINKOk, how about this: It was only through unions that average people began to own stock, leading to current (Clinton times) prosperity. Without their pushing for employer contributed retirement plans, and other industries matching this for non union employees, most people would have either continued living paycheck to paycheck, or invested their savings only in vehicles like homes and CDs. Without this huge influx of money, we would never have had the bubble, which did create a lot of real wealth on top of everything else. Only the wealthy would own stock except for unions. Posted by: jim at December 17, 2003 01:02 PM | PERMALINK"This is just the way it works. A free-market liberal should be relatively pro-union. Unions are market forces. And conservatives in this part of the world are not pro-market (contrary to their rhetoric), they're pro-business." I don't think you've thought that through. A very large share of corporate and executive level political support goes to Democrats. The arch-typical conservative is a small business person. The big defense contractors, to take a counter-intuitive (for you) example, are heavily dependent on government contracts, not market forces. Unions were critically important for the unskilled labor of the early 20th century. Public employee unions have grown far too powerful and share the public trough with their putative masters, the politicians. The older craft unions were very conservative. The industrial unions have gotten too hidebound and keep fighting innovation and productivity. This is what gives them the bad rep with social liberals and others who might be supporters in principle. There is a real need for janitors unions and others that represent the poor unskilled worker. The craft unions must be careful about excluding new members who are trying to climb the ladder of success. The teachers' union has become the worst example of what can occur when an organization loses sight of the members' vocation and limits itself to working conditions and hours and pay scales. It may lose the war with the public, especially a natural Democratic constituency, the blacks. Posted by: Mike K at December 17, 2003 01:05 PM | PERMALINKI was at a social event recently where a knee-jerk Republican blasted unions (and a social safety net, and progressive taxation, and...) because "they protect mediocrity and prevent management from rewarding quality." I guess the idea is that unions oppose merit-based bonuses to individual workers. Any merit to that? Posted by: 537 votes at December 17, 2003 01:38 PM | PERMALINKAs a person who knew nothing about unions 6 months ago, and finished my labor exam today, I was appalled with the whole thing. Its based on an economic theory that makes no sense, it intrudes heavily on employers free speech, and sanctions violence far too much while claiming to promote "industrial peace". I don't see how federal law is hostile, it may be more hostile than
in the past, but if you can get half the workers to agree to unionize,
you're in. Supposedly the NLRB won't require any terms in a CBA
agreement, but looks to the terms to find "bad faith" bargaining,
whatever the hell that is. The way to go is in employment law. Make employment terminable only for just cause, which is usually what is intended, and most people will be happy, and the agreement will be much more fair. Posted by: Reg at December 17, 2003 01:43 PM | PERMALINKLobbygow - The fact is that all entrenched bureaucracies spend more energy preserving their existence than fulfilling their original purpose. Oh? And where might I be able to view this fact? As a member of a large bureaucracy in a prior life and having observed the work and product of several other bureaucracies, I think you're wrong. An administrative organization, like any other, has a product or service to produce. The organization as a whole may do it well or poorly and on that they are judged. But no "bureaucracy" that I have personally been a part of or personally observed it's inner workings has ever had an underlying goal of preserving it's existence. They got too much real work to do! To paint with a broad brush that "bureaucracies spend more energy preserving their existence than fulfilling their original purpose" is, in my opinion, wrong. Posted by: Al Hedstrom at December 17, 2003 01:50 PM | PERMALINKAs a number of the commenters here have pointed out - and it's a point that needs constant repeating - there's a world of difference between the function of private-sector unions and public-sector unions. Frankly, it's hard to take the liberal view of the benificient effects of government too seriously when the same people are arguing that you need unions to protect the government's own workers. Add in the enormous efforts of public sector unions to influence public policy, and you have something that (at least when Democrats are in power) increasingly resembles government of the government, by the government, and for the government. Posted by: Crank at December 17, 2003 02:01 PM | PERMALINK"But no "bureaucracy" that I have personally been a part of or personally observed it's inner workings has ever had an underlying goal of preserving it's existence." Wow ! We have a member of a religious order in our midst ! Seriously, this is a very naive comment. To take one classic example, what happened to the "March of Dimes" when polio was conquered by the Salk vaccine ? They didn't go out of business- they discovered birth defects ! Maybe you're too young to appreciate that example. There are many less classical examples. Bureaucracies manifest a zest for life that would put the "will to live" of ordinary humans to shame. Posted by: Mike K at December 17, 2003 02:06 PM | PERMALINKPeople thought manufacturing and industrial jobs went overseas real quick, wait till non-unionized sectors of the economy start picking up and moving abroad. Jobs will simply disappear over night. Bye bye middle management! Good riddance. Posted by: charles at December 17, 2003 02:12 PM | PERMALINKAs a free marketeer, I'll be pro-union on the day unions agree to make membership voluntary. As things stand now, they're just labor cartels, and cartels are bad whether what they're restricting the supply of is some physical resources, or of labor. I will say this in their favor: While actually unionizing is generally an awful choice, having the threat of unionizing in your back pocket can be handy. In that respect they're like nukes; Useful mainly for deterence, and things have to get pretty bad before using them is rational. Posted by: Brett Bellmore at December 17, 2003 02:17 PM | PERMALINKI've been a member of the UAW, USW, IAM and am now in the printing division of the CWA. These are the old unions and now they compose about 51% of the AFL-CIO [last time I checked]. 49% of the AFL-CIO work for the government. The resentment of "gummint workers," who don't have to work hard, get paid well and never get laid off reflects on the modern union movement. An argument can be made whether the people are well served by their government bureaucracy.
As a free marketeer, I'll be pro-union on the day unions agree to make membership voluntary. As things stand now, they're just labor cartels, and cartels are bad whether what they're restricting the supply of is some physical resources, or of labor.
If capital has the right to organize itself into businesses, they why don't workers have the right to organize into unions? Do you have the right not to pay taxes? No. Why? Because if taxes were voluntary, nobody would pay, and our government would collapse. Thus, because it's in everybody's interest to have a government, we allow the government to require tax payment. Same thing with unions. They are in the workers interest, so the workers support closed shops and collective bargaining. The whole "right to work" movement is a bunch of baloney. States that have passed right to work laws have seen a decline in the average working wage, have worse safety regulations, and worse worker protection. Why? Because "right to work" is a union busting tactic, pure and simple. Posted by: GFW at December 17, 2003 02:37 PM | PERMALINKUm, Kevin, gotta call bullshit on your comment about federal law being hostile to unionizing. The law hasn't moved substantially in about 30 years. If you want to organize in your workplace, you can. It's pretty easy to vindicate your right to unionize. The economy, however, has moved substantially in the last 30 years, and it's a lot harder to find a union-friendly workplace, partly because workplaces are configured differently (outsourced, more independent contractors, fewer regular 9-5 40 hour jobs). The other major change is that this particular Department of Labor is taking seriously the Supreme Court's commands under Beck, and interpreting longstanding requirements already in the statute mandating full disclosure... wait for it... as requiring full disclosure of union expenditures. As a man who follows union struggles, you will doubtlessly recall that one of the big challenges for progressive upstarts in the Service Employees International Union a few years ago was getting the union chiefs to account for where they were spending dues money. Turns out, it was in Las Vegas and Caddilac dealerships. They made their requireed disclosure in the form of a room full of photocopied spreadsheets - literally a few hundred thousand pages that was nearly impossible to decode. The recent changes require unions to account for dues expenditures in a manner similar to businesses. Likewise, the Beck decision allows union members to opt out of political expenditures they don't agree with. If you as a liberal disagree with Jimmy Hoffa's plan to support Republicans, you should not have to donate to the Republicans just to maintain Teamster membership. This small opt out reduces union revenue by a very small percentage, and it preserves individual union members' right to political free speech. After all, we don't want money corrupting politics, right? One other thing, I don't think being pro-union is necessarily leftist. As a man of the right, I believe there is a market libertarian / conservative argument in favor of unions, as a force that can balance the market power of large employers in the labor market. A large employer often dominates a relatively small labor market. Individual employees are somewhat lacking in power relative to the big employer. Sure they can vote with their feet - but in a field like car or heavy equipment manufacture, there aren't many choices. Groups of employees bonded together can ask for a higher price for their services - just as a big auto company with several brands can ask for higher prices for its products. Anyhow, the employees counteract the leverage of the huge employers. The other thing groups of employees can do, is fight against lousy working conditions. Unions have done a lot of good work in certifying craftsmen, and in establishing safe workplace standards. This effects a self-regulating workplace, where a "guild" of craftsmen can respond to workplace hazards quickly, and where employers who refuse to respond can be punished by their labor suppliers. I worked in a workplace where that exact situation happened, and we remedied a dangerous work method without requiring OSHA (or its state level equivalent) involvement. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that government workers, outside the blue collar trades, really need a union. I have yet to see a federal employee (outside the military) working in sweatshop conditions, chained to their desk, or lacking legal recourse. Yes Virginia, gubmint workers have a 14th Amendment claim if their work conditions aren't up to snuff... Posted by: Al Maviva at December 17, 2003 02:38 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I'd distinguish between public sector and private sector unions. Speaking in broad brush, I'm ok with private sector unions because they are almost compelled to behave rationally over the long haul. For example, contrast the UAW in the 1980s with the pilot's union at United last year. The UAW saw that the US auto industry was in the pits and worked closely with management to help nurse the industry back to health - being obstreperous would have bankrupted the companies and eliminated the jobs that the union in theory was protecting. So the market forces of Japanese competition kept the unions in a constructive relationship. Conversely, UNited's pilots drove the company into bankruptcy by refusing to participate in constructive talks and insisting on getting theirs. United now is trying to restructure and may or may not survive. But the unions are now paying the price of their intransigence. But public sector unions have no disciplinary mechanism. They get to vote for people who'll give them a raise and will be opposite them at the negotiating table - and in fact they provide foot soldiers for the campaigns; if times are tough they demand higher taxes which hurt everyone else, but will keep them safe and secure; and there are rarely layoffs because that becomes a political issue. Hey, I'd like to put people in office who'll vote me a raise. Wouldn't you? Thing is, public sector unions are UNNECESSARY - governments don't run sweatshops. They are counterproductive. Posted by: Stuart at December 17, 2003 02:43 PM | PERMALINKBad analogy, GFW; In fact, really wretched. In order to be a cartel, you have to act to prevent people from obtaining the good you specialize in from other sources. What makes unions labor cartels is not that they go on strike, but that they attempt to prevent you from hiring anyone else. You may have noticed that your employer doesn't raise a finger to keep you from applying for work elsewhere... Posted by: Brett Bellmore at December 17, 2003 02:49 PM | PERMALINKAs someone who has worked in a union and has seen how they operate, I
would say they are worse than useless. They spend most of their time
protecting the lazy, the incompetent, and the criminal. They do manage
to find time to prevent individual workers from getting any sort of
recognition or bonus, as "537 votes" was saying. It is amazing how
quickly joining a union can turn a quiet, hard-working person into a
lazy, foul-mouthed jackass. The reason they have disappeared from most
places except the government is because they manage to destroy most
businesses after a period of time like an infection. "The law hasn't moved substantially in about 30 years. If you want to organize in your workplace, you can. It's pretty easy to vindicate your right to unionize." Neither has FTC law but Media Ownership rules have been laxed considerably. For someone seemingly informed as you how can you claim that it is not harder to organize due to the men and women who sit on the NLRB. Secondly to claim that Corporation have to do as much accounting for their expenditures as unions is odwnright ludicrous! In now shape for form do Safeway, Albertsons and Kroger have to disclose that they are sharing millions of dollars to break th unions in SoCal. Secondly, organizing is nigh-on-impossible thanks to modern legal AND ecnomic forces. I know people who have ballots that still impoiunded by the NLRB 7 YEARS after the election. SEIU's ability to orgnize under the Clinton years is no cooincindence. Finally, all the claims that unions themselves are corupt or any other blanket statement is ad idiotic as saying all corporations have the same problems. the older the beuracracy the more corupt it can be, corporate or otherwise. That said, I believe we need to shift the bruden of unions from providing minimum protections by shifting those to government. Therefore all employed americans will have access to Health Care and other benifits programs can allow the unions to concentrate on what they should do best - servicing their members. However, until the climate has changed and the NLRB and the corporations are less hostile to the basic union demands then this country will see Wal-Mart jobs everywhere and few except the ultra-rich to pay for their Medicaid, Social Security, and EITC. Posted by: Kevin Thurman at December 17, 2003 03:01 PM | PERMALINKOld unions are still around — teachers, government workers, etc. — even though they've mostly served their purpose and often seem reduced to a dogged and unpopular insistence that no one ever be fired no matter what the cause. The opposite is also true. Unions prevent management from firing people at will without just cause. That benefits both the worker and the institution he works for. I totally agree that unions should not hinder management from firing people who do not perform as their contract requires but conversely they should not be able to fire people who do, except when they can't afford to (laying-off). Unions offer their members contracts, and the mechanisms needed to enforce them. I don't see how that "purpose" is no longer necessary either in government or private employment. Posted by: Gabriel at December 17, 2003 03:05 PM | PERMALINKHmmm. March of Dimes? I think it still exists. Does it still do good work from which the public still benefits? I don't know myself. Why use March of Dimes as an example of a bureaucracy? Somehow I see "bureaucracy" as a large administrative organization. Every business - non-profit or for-profit - and government organization has an administrative section. And some organizations are entirely administrative. But they all produce a product or service. And I ain't religious. So if I'm naive, educate me on why the March of Dimes is a bureaucracy. Posted by: Al Hedstrom at December 17, 2003 03:20 PM | PERMALINKthe jobs are better in closed shop states. The only problem is, there are very few of them. The companies have moved to the right-to-work states. And if the law changes in those states, they'll move to Mexico. Well, the solution isn't to give up. It's to roll back union-busting laws, and then make sure we have fair trade practices in place. Repealing Taft-Hartley would be a nice first step. I don't think we should or can reverse glabalization. But we can favor trade with worker-friendly countries (like Canada or Europe) over trade with worker-exploiting ones (like Burma). Brett: My point is that workers combining their market power is morally equivalent to capital combining its power. Corporations manipulate the free market all the time. Whether corporations restrict labor movement is besides the point: firms operate with all sorts of legal and economic priviledges. Workers should have the ability to pool their resources too. Maybe unions are corrupt, and inefficient, and out-dated. Well, that can be fixed. But let's not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Maybe we need internal reforms, but I don't think unions are any more predisposed to those bad characteristics than other human institutions. That's why I rage at pig-headed anti-unionism. Enron was a bigger disaster for the free market economy than any union ever was, but you don't see people trying to kneecap corporations. To legislate them out of existence (and leave the anti-globalization protesters out of this). Posted by: GFW at December 17, 2003 03:31 PM | PERMALINKBut no "bureaucracy" that I have personally been a part of or personally observed it's inner workings has ever had an underlying goal of preserving it's existence. Well Al, I admit I don't have proof of my "fact" regarding bureaucracies. It's my opinion and reflects my bias as a former systems ecologist and current business systems analyst. A small business is a simple system with feedback loops that tie it directly to its source of lifegiving revenue(customers). If the corner deli's service sucks, they see empty tables in short order and must adjust or die. If they run out of food in the middle of the busiest day of the week, they must adjust their inventory control or lose customers and die. Big business or government, on the other hand, are complex organisms with myriad feedback loops. I've observed that a good deal of the information that drives behavior is either internally generated or comes from Wall Street. In all of that noise, the signal from the customer gets lost. If customers get pissed off and leave (assuming they have a choice) the death process is much slower. Big corporations kind of remind me of the dinosaurs in those old Patrick Wayne movies (The Cubicles That Time Forgot). Shoot'em fatally and they don't die until minutes later when they finally realize they're dead. I'm with Mike K. Bureaucracies have an incredible will to live. The individual members of the hive don't see that because it isn't a conscious attribute of the individual. It's an emergent property. OK, I know a lot of people think that's horseshit but that's what I believe. I also believe there are virtuous conservatives. I'm still waiting for empirical confirmation on that one. Posted by: lobbygow at December 17, 2003 03:32 PM | PERMALINKThing is, public sector unions are UNNECESSARY - governments don't run sweatshops. They are counterproductive. Are government workers protected from dismissal due to whistle blowing? That would be the one protection that I think would be essential for public sector workers. I agree with pretty much all this post, though I would say that almost all workers have a political right to a union, including professionals, and for a reason. I can understand that some highly sensitive jobs might contractually require signing away union rights. And the military. Posted by: John Isbell at December 17, 2003 04:21 PM | PERMALINKMy landlord is a Teamster, and we chat about the trucking business from time to time. He's a nice guy, and can tell lots of stories about union and non-union jobs. Without unions blue-collar workers do get screwed in some pretty horrible ways. With unions, you've got healthcare, a pension, and the ability to make a fuss if the boss is illegally removing hours from your timesheets. Yeah, unions can be pretty disgusting, but so can coporations. But without the unions--or at least the fear of unions--the coporations can get really nasty. So unions are a good thing. But you've got to keep an eye on them. Posted by: MOF at December 17, 2003 04:34 PM | PERMALINKYou can't compare a corporation to a union. Investors have complete choice whether or not they want to invest in a corporation and customers can avoid them if they want and nobody has to work for one. Its all completely voluntary. Employers have no choice at all whether they will have to deal with a union. Those who wish to contract for labor have their options limited to one seller, the union. Posted by: Reg at December 17, 2003 05:02 PM | PERMALINKYou can't compare a corporation to a union...Its all completely voluntary. Well, who has money is pretty arbitrary. And everybody has to work--no voluntarism there. Unions can't exactly shop around, either. There are very few airlines for, say, the Pilots union to bid to. Most of the time, unions act as a negotiator, not as a broker. And if that's the model were working with here, then what's wrong with workers hiring the same big negotiating guns that the firms do? Posted by: Che at December 17, 2003 05:43 PM | PERMALINKMost of the comments here about public workers are bigoted and narrow-minded. Unlike corporate 537:Businesses don't do bonuses. Seriously. Maybe some do, but most will get away with giving the least that they are able to. Maybe such strict contracts would not be needed if we dealt with decent people. But greed trumps all. Posted by: Karmakin at December 17, 2003 07:29 PM | PERMALINKWhat bunch of mumbo jumbo... Any of you ever worked in jobs where you had no say whatsoever in any aspect of what you had to do? Have you ever worked for people who didn't give a damm about your wellbeing or could careless for whether you got paid or not? The immense majority of people are doing unskilled or undertrained jobs and are treated like units. They don't have the education and individual power to put up a good fight on their own. Without unions, no developed country would be developed. The majority of new jobs are created by small businesses and people are abused left and right. No benefits, no way to resolve grievances, no say in working conditions. What the discussion should be about is not whether unionism is good or bad, but how to improve in the benefits of unions and create sindicates that would advance the wellbeing of all workers, whether they work for big companies or small. Posted by: casin at December 17, 2003 09:56 PM | PERMALINKWhat methods exist to control corporate greed? (I'm sorry - laissez-fair capitalism doesn't do it for me. The market is amoral and there needs to be a check). 1). Government Regulation of the three - organized labor is the least ornerous it seems to me. That said - having worked (as a "skilled" professional) in an union workplace. Employee promotion and termination policies do place a drag on productivity. I think unions are an important component in raising the standard of living for everyone who's taxable income is based more on earned income than unearned income - but I do think some tweaking in promotion and termination rules might be necessary. Posted by: dorsano at December 17, 2003 10:47 PM | PERMALINKWhatever rights and protections we enjoy in the workplace today, were paid for with the blood of organized labor. We don't have it as bad as the coal miners at the turn of the century, or the auto workers in the 30's, but that's due to the efforts of labor unions, not the largesse or sense of fairness of enlightened corporations. We have been bombarded with anti-union propaganda for so long, and with such intensity, that many of us have come to believe it; but it's not true. We still need to protect our rights, and that means we still need unions. (You should imagine "Solidarity Forever" playing in the background as you read this :-)
"Businesses don't do bonuses." I better get to a mental health professional, my belief that I get bonuses is obviously a halucination. Still, I suppose YOU don't. Well, guess what, you don't get "loss sharing bills", either, when your employer does badly. You want a share of the winnings, ante up, and be prepared to lose, too. Posted by: Brett Bellmore at December 18, 2003 09:43 AM | PERMALINKBrett: Oops, that last sentence was a bit too ambiguous. "I think unions are an important component in raising the standard of living for everyone who's taxable income is based more on earned income than unearned income - but I do think some tweaking in promotion and termination rules might be necessary." You ever notice that managers simply want to be able to fire on demand - and because of this unions can only tolerate firings for good reason. Managers do not generally take the time to build a case for firing an unproductive worker - they can, but they don't - and somehow this is the unions fault. I was a union rep for a number of years, and I won many grievances simply because half-assed managers did not do their jobs. If a firing was based on good documented reasons, and the employer made the employee aware that their job was on the line, then the grievance was usually lost and the employee fired. As a union rep I had no problem seeing a slacker let go. A funny side effect is when managers are too lazy to fire someone, they often promote them to management instead - I guess because they know how the system can be gamed. Unions don't care for these kinds of promotion rules either, but you certainly can't blame them for it. Corporations are not these big benevolent entities with everyones best interests at heart. If they were you would see little calling for unions. As it is, corporations exercise incredible power over their workers - who are essentially helpless without representation. Management screws up a lot. Managers can be lazy and corrupt. Many businesses are cutthroat, greedy, and cruel. Why give them a pass? Why not make the marketplace better for everyone involved - both workers and employers? Posted by: Jimbo2K3 at December 18, 2003 11:53 AM | PERMALINK"of course I meant to say that their losses in bad times are greater than their gains in good times" Of course you meant to say that, but I don't think it is true. Posted by: Sebastian holsclaw at December 18, 2003 11:55 AM | PERMALINKOne thing we learn from the web is that computer ownership is still tilted towards those born with a silver spoon in their mouth. For starters....guess what? The non-union worker starts sharing the loss before the boss shows red ink. In health-care it's called a "low-census day", as in, our census is low so you don't work. Now, most of you obviously don't know what kind of crap would come down without unions, so let me tell you, you wouldn't enjoy your stay in the hospital without the protection the nurse's union gives you. We're the ones that make sure the hospital doesn't give you silverware without washing it, or an aide with TB. In hospitals without unions the nurses get fired when they mention these things. As for the idea that unions aren't persecuted- baloney. Companies start by firing people who talk about unions and go down a long winding path of obstruction and appeal. This is just a matter of public record, regardless of what union=-haters would like to think. But I'll admit, most of you know as little about capitalism as you do about unions. If there was ever an idea that "has been tried in various countries and found wanting", our fantasy concept of capitalism would be it. From top to bottom companies fail with monotonous regularity, in spite of the huge government subsidies and bailout programs. Without the huge pensions built by unions in the middle of the last century this economy would already be where it is obviously going to be in the near future. And when the last one to leave the economy has flushed the toilet, capitalists will tell us this is what makes our system great- it always fails. What a triumph! Well, supposedly we've entered the highest form of American life, where the worker is unnecessary and the smart-mouth in a three-ton SUV will make us all rich (if we give them enough tax breaks and subsidize their business). Why, it's simply magic! Everyone gets rich and nobody has to work. Except, of course, for the half of the population doomed to grinding poverty for their entire life. Who knows, maybe they'll start thinking about all the 'democracy' talk they've been hearing and decide to do something- wouldn't that be interesting? Posted by: serial catowner at December 18, 2003 02:56 PM | PERMALINKPS- why do we have public service unions? Because in the old days we had more fires than firemen- and the people who lived through it thought that was a bad thing. Which I guess sounds pretty old-fashioned now.... Posted by: serial catowner at December 18, 2003 03:08 PM | PERMALINK"Of course you meant to say that, but I don't think it is true" I think my many talented colleagues who have been layed off in the past 3 years think it is true, but if you are not comfortable with such anecdotal and subjective evidence, you could always consider the US Census Bureau's statistics on the growing concentration of wealth instead. Posted by: synykyl at December 18, 2003 11:20 PM | PERMALINKWILLSHEGAG dirty cheerleaders bad tushy videos christine young videos doctor tushy free gangbang squad in pantyhose melissalincoln night mov sex pics Posted by: ashton moore at June 30, 2004 07:53 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 |
||||
