America works LESS when you say "Union Yes"

[Matchka]

[Matchka dons his asbestos suit ...

OK foax, let's get down.

I get why coal miners & truckers benefit from unions: the power of a union can be useful when trying to establish and maintain humane and safe working conditions when the employees could easily be replaced by compliant (extremely needy and grateful for the opportunity to get the lash if it means they don't have to drink rock tea for dinner again) sources of muscle power. The good of a union protects the employee from unfair and inhumane treatment--and that is a good thing.

But I take exception to:
Useless Unions:

1) I was once union dues-paying a bag boy at a grocery store--worked with the band saws in the meat room after hours doing clean-up with no safety training and watched as my union ceded acidental death & dismemberment benefits wondering what this might mean for me.
2) I have a friend who drove the city bus breathing diesel exhaust for 14 years, hurt her back in an altercation with a stoned passenger 4 months ago & missed a lot of work as a result, got canned 2 weeks ago for responding politely & incorrectly to the command, "Your medical leave is over, we need you to get back to work tomorrow or you are terminated." She's without health insurance--guess who found Mr. C in her lungs yesterday. Her $95/month Union: "We can't help you. Good luck"
3) Dad works ramp service for a major airlines (Machinists Union) after 30 years of service, he takes a punch to the face by a drunk mechanic--knocks him 20 feet to the ground from a loader. Mechanic has been in trouble for being drunk at work before, but since alcoholism is a DISEASE, he can't be FIRED for having it! Even though his actions could very well kill a coworker or crash a plane.

The pit accusation:

Unions DO breed a sense of entitlement because, through a culture of employer-bullying, the workers are essentially bulletproof and able to make and expect unreasonable demands ("retain the drunks," "Easy Hours" etc) and expect them to be met.
Unions are little more than a leech on the paycheck of many employees who would either not ordinarily encounter dangerous work conditions (grocery-boy), or do not provide adequate protection from those dangers in the first place (lung cancer & assault story).

Have at me!

[Gadfly]

The unions you mentioned are scum.

Wrenches should be thrown at them from the tops of nearby baobab trees.

[AHunter3]

I like the underlying objective a lot better than the implementation.

I'd like to see unions demand collectively owned shares of stock, in the name of the union, benefits distributed to all union members; and wages always negotiated as a percentage of gross profits insulated with a safety net for bad years. Now the workers and the unions themselves have a vested interest in seeing the business itself thrive. Also, what was a fair wage agreement two years ago is more likely to continue to look good two years from now, instead of being a flat sum that drags as cost of living increases. Even concerns like workplace safety regs and health insurance would probably be negotiated in better faith.

[ArrMatey!]

Ah yes. Lovely unions. Two anecdotes-

1) My brother's steel plant closed down. Everyone got fired. The union told them they wouldn't help out because they needed to use the closing of that mill as a bargaining chip to help out another mill. Yay.

2) Funnier- My friend's fiance came from another country where, as she puts it, "You were either involved in tourism or organized crime." She came here to get away from it... And immediately becomes part of the Teamsters. Just struck me as ironic, somehow...

[Hyperelastic]

America does indeed work less. Before unions, factory workers put in 16 or 18 hours a day, six days a week, with no overtime differential, vacation, or insurance. In fact, six-year-old kids don't work at all any more because of unions.

The examples in the OP would seem to argue for stronger unions, not weaker ones.

[Nobody]

At one point unions were very much needed, and they did great things. But now in a lot of cases they have too much power and only act in their own interests. Of course this can be said of any organization that gets too big and powerful, whether it be business, religious, government or union organizations.
I use to think that we should get rid of unions all together, but then, after being treated crapy where I work now, and actually wishing that we had a union (this being my only exception to generally hating unions) I've just come to the conclusion that unions should just loose some of their power and be knocked down a notch or two. At times, they can be useful, but they just aren't as needed as they once were.

[minty green]

So . . . unions are important, but sometimes they don't really help.

Damn, hard to argue with that.

[SnoopyFan]

Don't be fooled, OP. The coal unions wrote the book on corruption and laziness. The only people benefitting from big coal are the ones at the top of the heap.

[lezlers]

Originally posted by Hyperelastic
America does indeed work less. Before unions, factory workers put in 16 or 18 hours a day, six days a week, with no overtime differential, vacation, or insurance. In fact, six-year-old kids don't work at all any more because of unions.

The examples in the OP would seem to argue for stronger unions, not weaker ones.

No one would argue that unions were a bad idea when they first came about. They were desperately needed, actually.

But I agree with the others that have said that in the recent years, unions have become entirely too powerful. I've had quite a few friends who have been union members (forcefully so) and every one of them has despised it. More than one has been screwed over by their union.

Now then. You just wait till county finds his way in here, Mr. OP! He'll show ya!

[fushj00mang]

Matchka,

I couldn't agree with you more. What I wonder about are unions for groups such as grocery clerks, doctors, teachers, and other non-blue collar labor. I can see where the UAW is a needed group (although their costs drive up the cost of labor, and thus drive jobs to Mexico...) but the National Union of Produce Handlers? WTF?!

ArrMatey!,

Your friend's fiancee is from Canada? Thats disgusting! (j/k)

(prempting County's flood of verbage)

County... shut up.

[SPOOFE]

Frankly, I think anti-trust laws should apply to unions. One union has too much power? Break 'em up! Imagine all the bumpy parking lots we'd get if there were three or four Teamsters' unions out there. Jimmy Hoffa would be spinning in his asphalt at the idea.

[doreen]

I couldn't agree with you more. What I wonder about are unions for groups such as grocery clerks, doctors, teachers, and other non-blue collar labor. I can see where the UAW is a needed group (although their costs drive up the cost of labor, and thus drive jobs to Mexico...) but the National Union of Produce Handlers? WTF?!

What's the difference between auto workers and grocery clerks? Some people in non-blue collar jobs are able to negotiate their salary, benefits and working conditions on an individual basis, but not nearly all. Look at which doctors, grocery clerks, etc. belong to unions. It's not the doctor working in a three doctor office owned by the other two - he can negotiate on his own. It's not the clerk at the grocery store with three clerks. It's those working in larger institutions - for example, doctors working for government agencies or clerks working for large chains. They don't really have the ability to negotiate individually- my state probably has at least 200,000 employees. It would be expensive for the state to enter separate agreements with each of those people, so that won't be an option. The only options are to enter into agreements covering large groups of people (union) or work on a take it or leave it basis.

Unions DO breed a sense of entitlement because, through a culture of employer-bullying, the workers are essentially bulletproof and able to make and expect unreasonable demands ("retain the drunks," "Easy Hours" etc) and expect them to be met.

Sorry, in my experience management is at least as responsible for the sense of entitlement as the union is. I've belonged to three different unions. Every contract had a different procedure to follow in cases of disciplinary action, but they all had a procedure. And in every union, there were people who should have been fired, but weren't because management didn't do [i]its[/b] job. In one case that I know of, a supervisor was going to recommend that an employee be terminated at the end of his probation period. Shortly before the evaluation was due, the supervisor found out that he would be transferred to another unit and she would no longer supervise him. She changed her recommendation and he was retained. In another case, an employee was at least an hour late every day for two years and complaints were made by other employees about his sexual comments. He was fired, went to arbitration and ended up with a two week suspension because his supervisors didn't follow the disciplinary procedure ( they never wrote him up, or suspended him. Went straight to firing after ignoring the problem for a couple of years) and the last straw, by itself, wasn't bad enough to justify termination. Is it the union's fault he's still there, because they held management to the contract, or is it management's fault because they didn't follow the contract to begin with?

[Bill H.]

Hooray, Matchka!

Hyperelastic wrote

Before unions, factory workers put in 16 or 18 hours a day, six days a week, with no overtime differential, vacation, or insurance.

Sure they were.

[Zoe]

Although I didn't belong to a teachers' union, I did belong to professional organizations that did serve a similar purpose: the National Education Association, the Tennessee Education Association, and my local organization.

Teachers are not known to have high paying jobs, especially considering the amount of work they put in. (Most of my work was outside the classroom.) But I would have been paid less without these organizations. I would not have had time to plan at school, my class sizes would have been larger. I would have had to do more physical labor such as moving heaving equipment and boxes of books. Teachers who taught AP classes in upscale neighborhoods would have been paid more because their students' testing scores were often higher than those who taught fundamental classes in more difficult neighborhoods. (This is just an example; these schools have AP classes too.) A principal could fire you if you refused to falsify records for athletes. I would have continued to teach in a second story classroom with no air-conditioning and no fans provided. Forensic coaches would have had no stipend, but softball coaches would.

The list is endless. And many of the things we negotiated for were for the children -- more paper for drawing, etc. It is very hard to judge why a union or professional organization is necessary unless you are within that job or career.

Can I interest anyone in a four day work week? Six hour day? Five weeks annual vacation?

[Alereon]

Bill H.: Your skepticism aside, the terrible working conditions most people experienced before the advent of labor unions and the rise of socialism are well documented historical fact. I suggest you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, then remove your head from your ass.

[fessie]

I have a lot of admiration for many of the things unions have managed to achieve, and given corporate America's pervasive power I'm not sure we need weaker unions - perhaps more ethical and committed ones?

OTOH, I temped for a union once, doing payroll - it was a branch affiliated with the Teamsters. And while the Comrade atmosphere was interesting and different (when it was time to stuff envelopes, EVERYBODY stuffed envelopes), I sensed Ayn Rand and Harrison Bergeron waiting in the wings. For example, I found a better and more efficient way of using the software to capture data, and I discovered a couple of opportunities to save costs with their phone bills. But rather than appreciating my efforts at helping their business, the bosses were threatened by innovation and treated me quite rudely, to the point where I walked out in tears. Definitely a "no one's allowed to be any better than anyone else" environment, which is scary.

[Jonathan Chance]

I certainly agree that unions filled a vastly needed role in American society at one point. Whether those same unions are getting the job done now is a much dicier proposition.

But what really gets me in the provincialness of it all.

Where the hell is the AFL-CIO in Mexico? Or China? Or Thailand?

You'd be hard pressed to find a worker in the United States even half as beat down as those poor folks overseas. Yet I rarely, if ever, do I hear about efforts to unionize those workers.

And if organizing the downtrodden isn't what a union is about then what IS a union about?

On NPR last year I heard this brought up and the union rep said it was too difficult (and dangerous) to try to organize in those countries and that it wasn't really in their bailiwick (being outside the United States and all).

Man, does that piss me off. Either you're for worker solidarity or you're not. But choose!

[Evil One]

Originally posted by fessie
Definitely a "no one's allowed to be any better than anyone else" environment, which is scary.

Remind anyone of a certain political experiment that turned out to be a spectacular failure?

This illustrates one of my problems with unions. They destroy incentive. Just as in a communist system, everyone is being paid the same, so why in the world would someone put out extra effort? No reward is coming and you will threaten those who are comfortable in their negotiated seniority-gained hammock.

And for all of you that are getting ready to scream that the workers will put forth extra effort because of "pride", I'll concede that when you concede that management is concerned with the well-being of the workers as well as the bottom line.

Which leads me to problem number two. The presence of a union automatically breeds an "us against them" atmosphere. You are either in or out. If you are in, I have to support you even if I think you are wrong. If you are out, I have to oppose you even if I think you may be right.

For those who may be wondering, I have worked in places that have had unions and in those without them. I have never actually been in a union myself.

Right now, I work in a public school system that is in a severe financial bind. We'll see if that matters to the two unions involved when the contract is up for renegotiation next year.

[Bricker]

As long as unions are not using illegal measures in their quest for power, I have no problem with them - they are simply another market force. When they threaten "scabc" with physical harm, vandalize the vehicles of replacement workers, and intimidate people who choose to cross picket lines, they are going too far, and need to be reined in.

[Evil Captor]

I suspect that what Americans really need is something more all encompassing, more politically powerful and less coercive than traditional unions -- I'm thinking a Workers' Trade Association organized along the lines of the AARP would be the ticket. Instead of seniors, they'd represent everyone who worked for a living below the senior management and business owner/operator level. If they could grab a significant portion of the work force and get them voting as a block as the AARP has, they could act as a counter to what is at the moment the unrestrained political power of large corporations.

Of course, they'd have to be nonpartisan, as the AARP is going to find out to their sorrow now that they've rolled over and spread em for the Pubbies on the drug benefits issue.

[smiling bandit]

America does indeed work less. Before unions, factory workers put in 16 or 18 hours a day, six days a week, with no overtime differential, vacation, or insurance. In fact, six-year-old kids don't work at all any more because of unions.

That would probably kill you in short order. Come to think of it, even coal miners in Tennessee didn't work that much. Cite?

[Balle_M]

Originally posted by Hyperelastic
In fact, six-year-old kids don't work at all any more because of unions.

Agreed. Once you get in a union, NOBODY works.

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally posted by smiling bandit
That would probably kill you in short order. Come to think of it, even coal miners in Tennessee didn't work that much. Cite?

http://www.powertech.no/anarchy/mayday.html

http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/l...lecture07.html

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/145/

16 hour days may not have been the norm. But they did occur. And the 8 hour day was considered radical and destructive to the work ethic.

[Michael Ellis]

I wonder when county and his axe handles will show up in this thread.

[GaWd]

Originally posted by Hyperelastic
In fact, six-year-old kids don't work at all any more because of unions.

I'm almost certain that children not working had much more to do with the advent of child labor laws(anyone remember the act named?), than it had to do with the union.

Sam

[Jonathan Chance]

Child Labor laws occured after the turn of last century.

http://www.boondocksnet.com/labor/cl_intro.html

It's not reported there but I seem to recall that the unions in the 1890s began proposing an end to child labor in an effort to remove cheap competition.

[Spoons]

I can see where they're still useful in some cases--a factory-working friend, for example, gets some interesting benefits from his union membership. For example, if he needs the services of a real estate lawyer, his union will recommend one and pick up part of the lawyer's tab.

But while they may do some good for the blue-collar folks, sometimes, they just don't make sense when it comes to the white-collar people. Some years ago, I applied for a technical writing job in the IT department of a manufacturer. I was told that if I got the job, I'd have to join the union that everybody there--plant workers and office staff--belonged to. I replied that I had no problem with that. Then I was told that if I was hired, I'd be spending the first few years doing my writing job on the midnight-to-8:00 a.m. shift!

When I asked why, I was told, "Union rules. We run a 24-hour operation in our plant, and the union says that all workers--even professionals in the office--who have no seniority built up have to work the lousy shifts when they start here."

When I pointed out that while technical writing theoretically can take place at any time of the day or night, it's more traditional to do it in an office during regular daytime business hours. The interviewer just shrugged and replied, "Maybe that's why we're having such trouble filling this position."

No, I didn't take the job.

[AdmiralQ]

For an organization that's supposedly exists to protect the jobs of their members, unions certainly seem to be doing a bang-up job of getting rid of those same jobs they're supposed to be protecting. How come every industry that is majority unionized is and has been declining in the U.S. for many years now? The entire manufacturing industry, where I would suspect most of the union jobs are centered, has been moving jobs overseas by the boatload. Why? Unions have simply made the cost of doing business in the US too high for companies to remain competitive. I don't have a cite, but I would suspect that in every single case, a non-union job/industry has much higher productivity than a union job/industry. What the hell kind of incentive is there for me to innovate and work hard and increase productivity if I'm going to get paid the same as some unqualified doofus that spends the majority of their time over at the snack machine? Unions now simply exist to protect the jobs of the incompetent, stupid, and lazy while fattening the wallets of the union leaders.

[silenus]

Unions are generally a force for the good, but......

Best example of the problems with unions is the domestic airline industry. Non-unionized Southwest: profitable. Unionized United: bankrupt.

The bigger the unions get, the less use they are. My suggestion is to ban nationwide unions altogether. Limit them to state-wide at best. Smaller is better.

[ElwoodCuse]

Here's how bad unions have become: even Michael Moore rails against unions in his new book, blasting them for getting into bed with big business and big government anyway, and complaining about their "racist" buy-American campaigns. The old "unions exist for the benefit of the union, not the workers" complaint.

He still thinks unions as an abstract are a good idea, and exempted two specific unions from his criticism, but still, coming from him, I think that says a lot.

[Balle_M]

Originally posted by AdmiralQ
For an organization that's supposedly exists to protect the jobs of their members, unions certainly seem to be doing a bang-up job of getting rid of those same jobs they're supposed to be protecting.

I am most certainly NOT a union fan, but they are only partly to blame. The other part is iron-brained management who refused to sink profits back into the business to modernize production facilities.

[Muad'Dib]

You can't treat the working man this way. One day, we'll form a union and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!

Union rule 26. "Every employee must win 'Worker of the Week' at least once, regardless of gross incompetence, obesity, or rank odor."

[AdmiralQ]

Balle_M, you are certainly right. Unions are not the SOLE reason union jobs are being lost. But unions certainly are one of, if not THE, primary contributors to the loss of manufacturing and other jobs to other labor markets. In many cases, if management were to modernize production facilities, this would mean more productivity and less grunt labor needed. This modernization would cause the loss of SOME jobs, due to more mechanization and higher productivity per employee, requiring fewer overall jobs. Unions would fight these few job losses tooth and nail, until management would finally have enough and say "Screw you, we'll just move ALL of our production facilities to China (or wherever)." Now the union has lost ALL of the jobs, while stubbornly resisting modernization in order to save the jobs of a few. Of course, if management simply refused to modernize for no good reason, then their idiots too.

[rjung]

Originally posted by ElwoodCuse
Here's how bad unions have become: even Michael Moore rails against unions in his new book, blasting them for getting into bed with big business and big government anyway, and complaining about their "racist" buy-American campaigns.

What's new about this? I believe Moore has been railing against unions for quite some time now, possibly as far back as Roger and Me.

Moore, despite some of his problems with sloppy research, is not as much of a one-trick pony as his detractors would say -- in addition to unions, he's also railed against the Democrats before, most notably for their continued willingness to be the submissive b*tch of the Republicans...

['possum stalker]

The problem is that unions have a lock on semi-skilled industrial jobs that already have sufficient pay & benefits, but they can't seem to make it where they're really needed. I live in a rural area, and Wal-Mart has long since eaten all the local small merchants, and even the other major grocery store chain. According to the NYTimes, a full-time Walmartian makes $14k/year versus 19k/year at a union grocery store.

14k is below the technical poverty line if you have kids. Walmart has fought unions by every means, fair or foul. I agree there are crazy unions out there- up the road in Mattoon, the Blaw-Knox factory workers went on strike right after B-K was bought out, and all they did was get the plant shut down. But lots of folks out there could really use a union.

The last union job I had was as a loader at UPS. Believe me, there is no slack there. If any of you think union jobs are all coffee breaks and wall propping, try working at a UPS hub.

[5 time champ]

Originally posted by silenus
Unions are generally a force for the good, but......

Best example of the problems with unions is the domestic airline industry. Non-unionized Southwest: profitable. Unionized United: bankrupt.

Wrong, Southwest Airlines employee are required to join a union Southwest Airlins Union

Rather,
United Airlines run by incompetent, greedy management clowns: unprofitable

Southwest Airlines run by management with a very good business model, that really cares about its employees: profitable.

[Matchka]

That Wal-Mart issue--does it really require a union to correct? As I understand it, there are two demons the employees face: First is outright unlawful practices such as not paying correctly for overtime. Second is 'shitty employer' syndrome characterized by not promoting folks who blow some whistle on demon #1, low pay (but at or above minimum wage) and overall oppressive management.

The first demon can and should be dealt with legally (I recognize that the average minimum wage slave at Wal-Mart may not feel important enough/be insightful enough to take a good-sized legal bite out of the hand that feeds it, but that's a whole 'nother Oprah.)

The second demon has to be accepted as part of life because, let's face it, Management shouldn't pay more in wages & benefits than it has to in order to remain competetive as an employer--that's just not good business; and what exactly is it that these employees do that makes them more valuable than their wage? As an employer it is more cost-effective to pay minimum wage as long as I get applicants who are up to the job.

All a union would do in this case is destroy Wal-Mart's competetive edge (clearly, most people prefer low prices with a massive selection over mom & pop stores with inflated prices and limited selection) by forcing product costs up (to accommodate higher wages & benefits) and limiting selections as the company loses its ability to buy in vast bulk because it is somewhat less solvent. And if we lose Wal-Mart NOW, we're all screwed because who do they have left as competition? K-Mars-No? Target-Maybe?

[Hyperelastic]

For the record, the first union I was in (LIU) was rotten to the core, while the one I'm in now is pretty decent. I'll be the last to argue that all unions are good.

However, it puzzles me when people say unions are too powerful compared with other times in history. You must mean in specific, small segments of the economy, like the Big Three auto manufacturers. Overall, unions are much less powerful than they used to be, what with membership at a 54-year low. Even in auto manufacturing, the Japanese plants and many suppliers are now non-union.

[catsix]

This is purely anecdotal so you are all free to ignore it if you wish. My experience growing up with a union father.

When one of the union contracts ended at the steel mill my father worked in, the union naturally had their list of demands for the new contract. They wanted a small raise, more health insurance coverage, and better pension benefits. The company decided that they were asking for fair things, but too much of those fair things, and wanted to give a smaller raise, the opportunity for HMO coverage (as opposed to solely Blue Cross/Blue Shield Major Medical) and would up their contribution to the pension fund if the employees in the union would also up theirs.

The union bosses didn't think that this was a good deal, so they decided that the best course of action in the absence of a negotiated contract would be to strike. The union leadership also decided that the union would not be able to help the workers maintain any kind of income at all while on strike, nor temporary jobs while they were out of that mill.

Result was that catdad, under tremendous pressure to not be a 'scab' (He didn't want threatened with bodily harm and bricks through his windows. Who can blame him?) went on strike with the union. This meant that familysix was without income for several months while the union was 'on strike' to stick it to the company that was still in business and going strong with replacement workers.

So momsix and dadsix were struggling to feed childrensix while the strike was going on, worrying about things like mortgage payments and bills, but of course the union leadership had none of those worries since the really high-ups in unions don't have to worry about not having a job or an income while the lowly steelworker is standing next to a fire in a barrel carrying a sign in a run-down crack-infested neighborhood outside the gates to the place where he used to collect a paycheck.

The union finally settled for a contract, less than what they wanted to begin with, but they settled, so catdad did go back to work and have an income and medical insurance (under the new HMO option) and familysix was no longer worried about how to eat.

To this day, dadsix is bitter about unions. He believes the big unions exist to line the pockets of the 'union bosses', and that it is absolutely asinine to think that months without an income at all is better than getting a slightly smaller pay and benefit increase than you asked for.

I don't know about the first part, because I have not met or seen these union leaders. I do know that I never want to live through being a 'striking union worker' or one of their dependents ever again.

[Una Persson]

Originally posted by Alereon
Bill H.: Your skepticism aside, the terrible working conditions most people experienced before the advent of labor unions and the rise of socialism are well documented historical fact. I suggest you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, then remove your head from your ass.

FINALLY! Someone who doesn't trot out the old canard "The Jungle was an expose of the unhealthiness of the meat packing industry!" Every time I hear someone summarize that book as that, I ask them "So, did you actually *read* the book?" The answer is almost always "no".

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by 'possum stalker
The problem is that unions have a lock on semi-skilled industrial jobs that already have sufficient pay & benefits, but they can't seem to make it where they're really needed. I live in a rural area, and Wal-Mart has long since eaten all the local small merchants, and even the other major grocery store chain. According to the NYTimes, a full-time Walmartian makes $14k/year versus 19k/year at a union grocery store.

This is why we need an international workers' association to go head to head with big corps like Wal Mart and keep things in balance for workers. Right now, there's nobody really opposed to corporate interests in Capitol Hill except the labor unions, which as has been noted are corrupt and prone to side with big business.

[BlackNGold]

I can see both sides here, and I'm not as sure about it as I was when I was younger. I was convinced that unions were over . All "give us more money and, oh yeah, you can't fire anybody".

Then I had a project where I worked fairly closely with the local carpenter's and painter's unions. For the most part, the guys were great. Professional, talented, and most important, deidcated to getting the job done. There was a minor amount of "lawyering", but that was handled in most cases by very rational and equitable conversation.

I got to talking to the union "Stew" one night over drinks, and this very subject was discussed. They made sure that the right attitude was maintained beacuse my company had three other upcoming jobs in the area, and it was in their interest that union labor was used.

I guess my question is, why isn't it more often that way? Why don't both management and labor see that they aren't in a Fujian strap-match with each other? Both benefit from the long-term health of the company. I know the adversarial relationship goes back a long way, but it doesn't make much sense in today's global economy.

Wow. That was long and didn't add much to the conversation. I would like to hear some stories about more "enlightened" labor-management relations.

[county]

First, I am not going to say "bite me"

I will say that without existing unions and the potential for employees to organize; the employer would have little incentive to care for the worker (he's in the profit business) and we would be starting over again.

The Nissan plant in TN has a UAW building outside the plant and has lost several elections there over the past 10 years because the Nissan people pay UAW wages, benefits, and provide meaningful employee input. - UAW keeps losing the union elections, but the employees are being taken care of precisely because UAW is there.

Union leaders are no more immune to greed, graft etc. than Ken Lay and others. Some are good some are bad.

Look at it like a church or religion; if you have people who are not demonstrating the ethics and standards that you believe are proper, get rid of them...don't say that the Methodist religion (or whatever religion) is bad, it isn't, just the leadership, sometimes.

Me, I have no doubt that some unions, just like some management structures have too much power...but the pendulum swings back and forth.

Believe it or not, I am personally involved in an enlightened labor management relationship at one facility (won 2 national awards)...of course at another we fight like cats and dogs.

[Persephone]

I too, am a union member (AFSCME Local 1600--I work for the City of Flint, MI). No, not by choice. I took my current job because at the time, I was unemployed and needed a job. This place offered to give me a paycheck and medical benefits. That was all I cared about.

Since then (it's been almost 9 years now), I've learned a couple of things about unions. A century ago, they were desperately needed. Working conditions were hideous for so many people. Unions helped to change that. They did a metric assload of good works for the common man.

Now...they still do good, in the majority of cases. They fight for a living wage for their members. They make sure that their members have things such as health insurance and decent retirement benefits. Getting rid of bad employees can be difficult, if said bad employee is a union member (I've always disliked that part of the union). And the "us against them" mentality, (particularly with supervision) is a REAL pain in the ass. I myself have been branded an ass-kisser because I get along with my bosses. As if I'm not supposed to get along with them, simply because they aren't members of my union. Please.

Here's how bad unions have become: even Michael Moore rails against unions in his new book, blasting them for getting into bed with big business and big government anyway

Hey, Elwood, and anyone else who might be reading this? As I said earlier, I'm from Flint, MI. Home of Michael Moore and Roger and Me. Know what?

No one here gives a rat's ass what Michael Moore thinks.

Oh, there might be a handful of folks here who think he's cool, and they'll get their picture taken with him, given the opportunity, because he's like, a celebrity and all. But that opportunity won't come. Know why? Because Michael Moore packed up and left, that's why. He moved to Colorado. Colorado, man. Not the next township over. The other side of the freaking country.

Michael Moore can bite my chubby, puckered ass. If he really gave a damn, he'd stick at least within driving distance of home.

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by Bill H.
Hooray, Matchka!

Hyperelastic wrote

Sure they were.

Three words:

Triangle Factory Fire.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/

As to the OP's statement:

Unions DO breed a sense of entitlement because, through a culture of employer-bullying, the workers are essentially bulletproof and able to make and expect unreasonable demands ("retain the drunks," "Easy Hours" etc) and expect them to be met.

(bolding mine)

There are employees who meet this definition, there are just as many managers who "are essentially bulletproof and able to make and expect unreasonable production, unreasonable overtime demands and who in return give crappy treatment, pay, can fire anyone at a whim, (as an old college prof of mine used to say, "if they don't like the way you tie your shoelaces").

There are bad eggs in both union and non-union companies. I've worked for both union and non-union corporations, and within the union companies I've belonged to both weak, and strong unions. The protection from poor treatment and being fired without cause was nice, picking up the slack from employees with an attitude of entitlement was not.

IMHO? The best employment scenario is to work for a small new company on the rise. You don't get buttonholed, you get to wear a lot of hats, and learn new stuff, generally get better pay and more prestigious titles.

The downside is that there's risk with a small unproven company, they may go under, or pull out "satellite" operations (this has happened to me several times in my field). There have been times we've been asked to "hold" our paychecks (that was back in the early days), for a few days, until one or two of our clients paid their invoice.

What's happening with unions in nothing new, this happens in all parts of life. The pendulum has swung too far the "other way". Unions, and the reasoning behind unions, aren't bad, but the current handling of many of them IS bad, and IMHO, there needs to be some sort of 'Standardization" of them.

But then, since I just left my wonderful "small company on the rise" and am about a month from leaving the state in which I've resided for the last 34 years, I may end up union again, who knows, I need to keep an open mind

[CanvasShoes]

Some years ago, I applied for a technical writing job in the IT department of a manufacturer. I was told that if I got the job, I'd have to join the union that everybody there--plant workers and office staff--belonged to. I replied that I had no problem with that. Then I was told that if I was hired, I'd be spending the first few years doing my writing job on the midnight-to-8:00 a.m. shift!

This wasn't in Dallas, Texas by any chance???? I would KILL for a Tech writer job with those hours. I thought only labor type jobs were on the night shift.

Last time I was union (?? 91 at Unocal, I think) I worked those hours, I LOOOVED them. And we got paid a "shift differential" (lol, sounds like some sort of Sci-Fi instrument from Star Trek), for working nights.

[county]

RE: Unions/entitlement

I am entitled. I am entitled to repect and dignity. I am entitled to a living wage and health benefits for my family. I am a human being and my work should not be a commodity or article of commerce.

RE: Poor/bad/lazy workers

Well, that happens with bosses too, who don't get fired for whatever reasons.

[FairyChatMom]

Originally posted by county
Well, that happens with bosses too, who don't get fired for whatever reasons.

Really? I personally know four bosses who lost their jobs - mostly for corporate political reasons, I'll admit. But bosses, do, in fact, get fired. Heck, my own brother was fired once, and he was a Chief Financial Officer. The CEO didn't like that bro insisted on following the letter of the law...

[Jonathan Chance]

Yeah, I've had that problem. Just try being an honest man on the business side of a media company.

But the point he's making is that both workers AND management can lose their jobs capriciously OR retain their jobs the same way. It's not fair to characterize one side or the other as 'better' in that department.

[ElwoodCuse]

rjung: I've seen/read a lot of Moore's stuff, but I haven't ever seen Roger and Me. From what I read though, he always seemed strongly pro-union. Even a lefty like myself disagreed with him quite a bit in regards to international trade and worker unions.