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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Three words:
Triangle Factory Fire.
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/
As to the OP’s statement:
(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
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
My 2¢ worth on both sides of the fence: When I worked for a bank equipment company, we manufactured and installed specialized products such as modular vaults, vault doors, ATMs, motor bank systems, and so forth. Employees received factory training in various disciplines, and then worked under the supervision of senior installer/technicians.
Working on a union bank construction jobsite was a zoo. Although I was skilled in all product lines, the trades required to replace me were: ironworker, carpenter, electrician, pipefitter, and glazier. Because our products are unique to the banking industry, I had to stand by and answer a barrage of questions from the tradesmen so they could complete the job. Why did my company have to hire union workers that weren’t able to meet the requirements of the task unassisted?
A classic memory is one of a three way union fight over a 12 foot drive up vision window. The glaziers wanted it because it was glass, the ironworkers wanted it because it was set into a stainless steel frame and was anchored to the building framing, and the electricians were talking about the integral plugmold strip at the bottom and light fixtures at the top of the interior.
On the other side, I’ve met some highly skilled and dedicated union tradesmen. Some unions have extensive training programs, designed to produce journeymen of quality, thoroughly educated in all aspects of their trade. They work efficiently and deliver workmanship you would expect of a true professional. Interaction with them is the flip side of the stick-swinging archetype. Although I never was in a union, we respect one another, as we’re both focused on the same excellence in the finished product.
my work should not be a commodity or article of commerce
But that is EXACTLY what your work is. That’s why you get paid for it. You are a supplier responding to the demands of a buyer. You can charge whatever you want for your services, but if you charge too much, the market (other potential suppliers of labor) will force you to adjust your price. Same philosophy applies to respect from the employer. If NO-ONE tolerates poor conditions, the employer will be forced to change.
I realize changing the tone of a thread may be in bad form, but in light of my last note in here…can someone explain to me just how a Union is different from a Trust? Given that workers are essentially suppliers, how is it not illegal for them to “collude” and fix the minimum standard of compensation for their services while at the same time excluding non-members from providing equivalent services to a given buyer?
[Matchka unbuttons his asbestos suit, casts a glance over at his Fascist Dictator hat & cape/]
Emphasis mine. I would really like to see a cite for this. IME, even in a union shop, it is extremely unusual for “everyone” to be paid the same. Sure, the starting rate might be the same for everyone in the same position, but that does not mean that everyone throughout the company is paid the same, or even close. Again, IME, even annual increases are structured along a scale, so that good workers are given bigger increases than the mediocre ones in the same position with the same seniority. Even non-union companies do this.
Again, I call “bullshit,” and would like to see a cite. I can actually count on my fingers the number of companies of which I am aware that can make a valid claim to caring about their employees’ well-being as much as the bottom line - and about half of those companies are thisclose to going under. There are always going to be people who take more advantage of some of their benefits than others. All human workers, union or not, have the potential to be lazy. Union workers are not generally any lazier than the rest of us.
And for the record, I double-dog-dare you to tell any random union worker that you think they’re a Communist. G’on. Can you prove that Communism doesn’t work? Nobody’s tried to do it exactly as it appears in the Manifesto, you know.
That may be your opinion but it is not what the law says; I believe it is the Clayton anti-trust statute that says “the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce.”
All labor is doing is banding together and saying we will not tolerate poor conditions, collectively.
And if the law said black is white, would that make it so? You can’t legislate economic realities of the type Matchka is describing.
And, of course, that isn’t what that provision of the Clayton Act means. What it actually means is that for the purposes of antitrust law labor is not an article of commerce. In short, what you are quoting is an exemption from antitrust rules carved out for labor. It is not intended to be a a description of objective reality, any more than the legal concept of “corporate personhood” means you can take GE out on a date.
Indeed, antitrust law was once used as a tool against organized labor, since what unions do is essentially price-fixing, possibly the biggest no-no in the antitrust rulebook. Organized labor was later granted a specific exemption from antitrust rules.
First, I didn’t say what “the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce” means. The meaning is in the face of the language.
Second, bullshit, what unions do is not “essentially price-fixing,”
it is collectively deciding what the worker will or will not accept to do the job.
To equate the labor of a human being with a widget or whatever is offensive and demeans me and every other individual who has worked for hire.
That concept is so fundamental that it has been codified so that people (like you) don’t have to understand it - they just get to follow the law.
Language which has a specific context: the antitrust laws.**
Distinction without a difference. Unions seek to collectively fix the price of labor. That’s price-fixing, no matter what label you choose to affix to it. **
Actually, the language you point to was codified precisely because union activity amounts to price-fixing – as I stated, the antitrust laws were used, pre-exemption, as a union-busting mechanism. Learn some history.
And I note that I’m not using the term “price-fixing” in a judgmental way. It may well be that allowing collusion on the price of labor is a beneficial thing, and that the antitrust exemption is warranted. That doesn’t mean we pretend it is something other than what it is.
Dewey says: “Learn some history”
Well, I already said where that phrase comes from and it is pretty obvious (although you keep restating it) what the purpose of the language is (within the context of the law) but you continue to drone on and on…so in the interest of brevity “Bite me”