Can’t really discuss unionization in the U.S. without talking about the Taft-Hartley Act:
It’s both, a lack of education on a part of the average working joe under the age of 30, people over that age being demoralised about the effectiveness of a Union and business using its influence to encourage that said apathy and creating an environment where this attitude is the status quo.
I don’t understand it, they had a strike in Amazon warehouses in Germany over pay, Amazon didn’t immediately close down the centres and leave the German market, there is an ongoing dispute. Which begs the question, if it can happen there, why not here?
Robert Reich explained it in The Work of Nations (1991). In a nutshell, labor unions work best in industries where you have massive numbers of workers in the same plant. We had that kind of industrial economy once, but improvements in communication and transportation made it possible for corporations to outsource all kinds of routine production jobs to countries where labor is cheaper, and improvements in technology made it possible to automate many such jobs entirely.
I had no idea, I thought union rates in France were about 30% of the workforce. Apparently they are 8%, even lower than the US. Thanks for clearing my misconception up.
This - the solidarity has been lost. One of the unions at my employer was negotiating a contract a few years ago. Management (in this case the governor’s office) would.not.budge on how much money the contract could cost and threatened layoffs if an agreement wasn’t reached. To make a long story short , I heard many, many people essentially say that because of their seniority or job title, they weren’t worried about getting laid off themselves and didn’t care if their coworkers were, because “I’m not going without a raise to save their jobs”. If they’re not willing to forgo a raise to save someone else’s job, then why should I forgo being paid based on merit ( or connections ) rather than seniority? If everyone is out for himself, what’s the point of a union?
It depends- I’ve seen more than one place where non-union workers were doing just as well. But of course, it only happened because management wanted to keep the union out.
This.
Businesses (and governments) work best when the employees and the business owner(s) (and sometimes even the customers) work together to achieve common goals. When either become more self-absorbed (“There for the check”, shareholder concerns etc) than willing to work well with others, things go down hill.
Tech startups, for instance, are notorious for creating cultures that are completely different than most other industries. And these tech startups in the first few years tend to do exceptionally well. After they get purchased is when life on the inside starts to change significantly and things significantly shift for the business. They lose their innovativeness and usually the people that worked the startup from it’s early stages. Look at dang near any company purchased by Yahoo prior to Marissa Meyer’s term. Compare that with the purchases that Google made. Yahoo’s purchases withered and dried out. Google’s purchases flourished. Yahoo melded them into a money machine over a short time period, destroying their product overall. Google encouraged the teams to work in their natural way and gradually melded them into the culture over a few years time. Even if they needed some aspect delivered quickly, they would ask the team for their inputs and time frames instead of going “Hey, we need X by…Thursday. See ya then!”
After people’s needs are met, increasing the money you pay them doesn’t do much to motivate them. It does a lot to make them get protectionist about their positions so as to not lose their “status” in terms of cash flow. Encouraging and nurturing them makes them excel every time, though. Unions, unfortunately, don’t care about this. It’s all about the money transaction for them. “Our people are worth $100 an hour!” is what they come out with. They don’t go “Hey, the pay’s pretty okay. Let’s increase that by 4% for CoL…But, you know, free drinks in the lounge would be nice. It would really help the culture of the place and give the employees a place to relax.”
At least in the US. I haven’t spent enough time around unions internationally to understand those contexts of the debate much.
Yes. Unions foster ineptitude and have become organized bullies. They favor dues paying members over end users. Students suffer, patients suffer, consumers, citizens, et cetera.
All I can do is comment from the p.o.v. of a member of a college collective bargaining unit. Not every college or university has a faculty union, and not all of the ones that do will include adjunct faculty like me, even though we happen to be the majority of professors and the majority that teaches transferable or required classes.
Anyway.... We started an adjunct faculty union at a college where I used to work because the FTs (full timers) did not want us in their unit and because the district had made it clear that they were not interested in hearing from us at all. They wanted us to be quiet, expendable, faceless, nameless ("Professor Staff will be teaching whatever course this semester"), underpaid, and static in our wages, no bennies, no guarantees of anything, regardless of our evaluations, length of service, etc. This kind of system causes a lot of problems in terms of PT faculty having to scramble to make a living at multiple campuses, change schedules if they lose classes at the last minute, no continuity for students, etc. Essentially, we forced the issue because that was the only way to get any recognition or even COLA. (Actually, the district would be happy not to hear from the FTs either.)
If the district had been willing to negotiate with the faculty one on one, it might have been a different story. And if they were willing to hire more FT faculty, that would be great too, but they'd rather have an underpaid, revolving- door workforce of PTs. Some PT are PT by choice; most would love to work FT and have the degrees, skills, experience, and drive to do so, but there are simply too many of us and not enough FT positions.
Yes, I should have gone into a different profession. But 20 years ago, I didn't realize what would happen. I am trying to get into health professions now. I am weary of feeling left behind while people much younger and less experienced than I am snap up the very few FT jobs offered in my department. Age and duration of service actually work *against* you in my profession.
At least, though, my current campus includes both FT and PT faculty in its bargaining unit and we have a pretty decent contract, comparatively speaking.
Sorry to ramble on. There's a lot to it, and more than what I've said here.
What happened?
Labor conditions among companies is drastically better than it was 100 years ago, even 50 years ago.
New Employees don’t perceive the value of being a member of a union. Most people believe they would rather bank on their own contributions to insure job security, than play their hand with the masses which promote seniority over contribution.
Industry in the US has gradually migrated south over the last 50 years. The southern states have historically been pro-right-to-work, and anti-union. As jobs moved south, the unions didn’t move with them.
Government unionized employees exceed all other unionized employees in the US. Given the growth of government over the last 50 years, and the horrid customer service it has, it’s no wonder the employees feel the need to collectively bargain.
Although that might be a chicken and egg sort of question. Twenty years ago I was offered a union job with the state. The pay scale was worse than I would have gotten in private industry (computer professionals like me were categorized with secretaries - great for the secretaries but meant you paid your IT staff too low) for someone with no seniority (outside I was paid what I was worth, not off seniority). Add in union dues, and my income would have seen a drastic cut. In return, I would have gotten the ability to get laid off in order of seniority (not exactly a selling point to get someone to START working for you), and a pension - which would have been nice, and health care, which 20 years ago wasn’t that much better than I got on the outside, and raises based off seniority which would have been - based off the schedule at the time, fairly nice. I said “no thanks” and moved on to have a successful private career because I was talented and competent - switching jobs a few times, making significantly more money than I would have in a pigeonholed union job, and surviving every layoff I went through - even if I was the last in.
My sister is an RN, and a darn good one with a master’s degree, a lot of experience, and a good professional ethic. She’s worked in union hospitals - she was even the union rep. She would rather work in non-union hospitals. She gets paid about the same, but doesn’t see the union take a part of her check and doesn’t have to worry about the union telling her to walk out and her not getting paid for weeks.
So, do union jobs (when the industry has a non-union counterpart) have a hard time recruiting the best people?
To an extent. In my experience location makes a big difference- the unionized clerical staff in most of the state tends to be more competent than the staff in NYC , and I suspect it’s in large part because the more competent people in NYC can earn more in the private sector , which is not necessarily true throughout the rest of the state.
But leaving that aside , it depends a lot on the job. For example I know a number of lawyers who are union members. They work for a non-profit organization, not the government. They are paid well (six figures) compared to most of the lawyers I know in solo practices and work a 40 hour week- that organization has no trouble recruiting. Sometimes it's not really the same work- union electricians work on new construction, while non-union electricians add an outlet in my living room, that sort of thing.
I think unions are needed now as much as they always were.
When right to work means right to fire your ass whenever we want and not even tell you why and when workplace bullying is the growing threat that it is it is a shame that workers don’t have more protection from workplace abuse.
Are they?
Do you think we should cut the pay of athletes and movie stars as well? Maybe even dr’s and lawyers.
When a country like Greece goes bankrupt and the unionized government employees are in the streets rioting and protesting their utterly requisite cuts in retirement benefits and work hours, it sure as hell doesn’t reflect well on the supposed necessity of unions to “protect” labor.
Can you expand on that? How does the wealth of a CEO affect the viability of a union?
To the extent that unions are obsolete, it’s largely because of the improvement in pay and working conditions that has been achieved by unions throughout history. If all unions ceased to exist tonight, nothing especially bad would happen tomorrow, but eventually, working conditions and rights would be eroded back to what they were like during the Industrial Revolution.
There’s also the perception that unions, in the UK at least, are intimately tied up with left wing political parties, as if wanting collective bargaining power at work necessarily translates into you wanting a command-control economy a la Labour in the 1970s. I don’t want to be sucked into the bowels of a machine and mangled like a Victorian child factory worker, or strapped to a wheel and made to run all day to provide power to the weaving machines whilst men in stove pipe hats look on. That doesn’t mean I want to support a political party whose members referred to each other as comrade within living memory, nor do I want people who I am paying to represent me at work being in any way involved in selecting the leadership of said party.
Some do. Most don’t.
“Right to work” means unions can’t force employees to join the union if they don’t want to. You’re thinking of “at will” employment.