Have unions outlived their usefulness?

Great Debates
21

I think of unions as something of a necessary evil. Without them, the vast majority of employers would work their employees until they dropped, and pay them significantly less than the rent on a modest (read: flea bag) studio apartment per month.

OTOH, well…

Here in Vegas, the Culinary Workers Union demanded a few years ago that the downtown casinos pay union members on a par with what the big houses on the Strip paid. Never mind the fact that the downtown places don’t generate anything near the revenue, largely due to the fact that Station Casinos has strategically placed locals joints in such a way that they form a ring around the downtown area and thus draw in a hefty portion of the locals business that used to go to the downtown joints.

Most of the downtown joints ponied up- they were having enough financial problems without the negative publicity for a strike. The Horseshoe tried to compromise, offered the Culinary workers a hefty raise that was less than what the union was demanding, but the union wouldn’t accept it. Eventually, the 'Shoe caved.

Which left the Golden Gate as the lone holdout. At the time, the Gate was in financial trouble, barely keeping its head above water, and simply couldn’t afford to pay what the union was demanding. So, of course, there was a strike. Lasted about a week, after which, the Gate agreed to the union’s demands. And paid for it by laying off a passel of non-union workers, including all of the graveyard-shift craps dealers.

The Horeshoe fared little better- they had just had a massive layoff the previous year, so they didn’t want the negative publicity of another one in so short a time. So they just started firing people a few at a time, with no explanation. I lost my own job there. Of course, I think that being the only female craps dealer in the joint, which was frequented in large part by grumpy old men who thought the only woman who had any business anywhere near a craps table was the one bringing you your drink, was a factor in my being selected for termination (when I went back several days later to pick up my final check, my pit boss was still swearing that he didn’t know why I was being fired, he had just come in one night and found a note on the podium instructing him to let me go.)

Some years back, the Transportation Workers Union (!?!) had a massive campaign to organize the dealers in the Las Vegas casinos. The effort was a failure, mostly due to the fact that the casinos ran a massive counter-campaign that amounted to threatening to fire any dealers attempting to organize or bring the union into their casinos. The Monte Carlo went so far as to threaten to close the pits if the dealers unionized.

Four casinos did finally vote the union in -the Tropicana, the Frontier, and I can’t remember the other two. TWU hasn’t been heard from since. So, these dealers who were being paid minimum wage by the casinos, had no job security, and were having their benefits eroded away bit by bit, are now dues-paying union members who are being paid minimum wage, have no job security, and are having their benefits eroded away bit by bit, just like all the other dealers in town. The union never even tried to negotiate contracts for these people, they just signed 'em up and left 'em high and dry.

22

OP: Dead right on.

23

Oh? You’re working 70-hour workweeks for $1.50 an hour then? No benefits, right? Wouldn’t want them to think you were using their services or anything. You’re doing a dangerous job with no safety equipment, I assume? No holidays or anything, right? Again, wouldn’t want the union to think you were using their services, I hope.

24

Thank you both (as well as Snowboarder Bo and andros and your anecdotes with the IATSE). You have correctly pointed out an error in my argument: extrapolating from the limited scope of my personal observations to the whole Idea of the union movement.

I guess my beef is against unions who have “lost their way.” I took a quick look at the IATSE’s web site as well as a few of their locals. Every page I saw talked about stage employees, movie technicians, etc. Compare this to the CAW site (and the UAW too) and you’ll find pages on women’s rights, the rights of gays and lesbians, attacks against Wal-Mart, I could go on - none of which have anything directly to do with the auto-workers.

The OP question is still valid to this extent: If it can happen to the CAW or UAW, where else is it happening? Is there something about unions that makes this a systemic inevitibility? I’m not sure my opinion on this (I’ll gather my thoughts), but the question remains.

Maybe the correct question is not “are unions still useful?” rather “are mega-unions useful?” What can be done to ensure a union stays focussed?

25

Please don’t think I’m so naive as to believe that the law is the one human institution to have achieved perfection. I agree with both of you, but this is not an argument in favour of unionism. There are lobby groups, social clubs, corporations (yes, corporations!), and other groups of people who have interest in employee fairness. There is no reason that the organization whose prime responsibility is to negotiate my contract is the one and only type of organization to safeguard such laws.

The point I was trying to make was: Back then employee exploitation was much more blatant than now. The unions successfully made it politically viable for laws to pass that addressed this exploitation. The protections were enshrined in something more permanent than the three-year contract; they were enshrined in the law of the land. Bravo! (I’m being sincere) While agreeing that exploitation has not been eliminated, I submit the need for “workers of the world, unite!” is far less now than it was.

26

This is unrealistic. I object in principle to that billboard I mentioned, the one that says “Union made is better made.” This propaganda is inaccurate and serves no purpose except to gather power to the union. The billboard implies that one should only buy goods produced by union shops. If customers swallow this, two things happen: 1) The union shops flouring, hopefully grow, and thus increase the ranks of dues paying workers, and 2) The non-union shops will feel the market pressure and succumb to the next union drive (with the same results). I object to paying for this propaganda, but people are smart enough not to fall for it (at least not in significant enough numbers).

But let’s say I’m so outraged that I am compelled to fight. I attend all of the local membership meetings and drum up support within my local to oppose this sign. The local president, following marching orders, disagrees. So I run for local president and win on the “no billboard” platform. Now I’m saddled all the duties and obligations of the post. I move to take down the billboard, but it was erected as a result of a national ad campaign. So I start the fight again at the national level. All this time I’m funding my own campaing, but I’m also funding the opposition!!

It has been my experience that this is just not so.

Not too many contracts ago our pension plan was changed from defined contribution to defined benefit. This was the done, in part, because of the union leadership’s belief that it is better for us. Almost everyone in my department disagreed. Get this: At a local membership meeting leading up to contract negotiation, we sought to change the pension back. We had planned who was going to make the motion, who would second. We had prepared what we were going to say. We attended in numbers, and waited for our turn. When the time came, we raised the motion - but before anyone could second it, the union leadership shouted down the motion citing all kinds of specious reasons, included that it was an illegal motion (whatever that means). We didn’t get a chance to debate the issue, let alone vote on it. Put aside which side of the DC/DB debate you prefer, in a democratic organization this is reprehensible!

Isolated incident? No. Every single time we tried to raise this issue, or any issue the leadership disagreed with, democratic process was halted or derailed to prevent the debate. This from the president of our bargaining unit, the president of our amalgamated local, AND our national rep!

I hope this is something that could only happen in my situation, but I suspect there is something systemic in the nature of unions that others will have similar experiences.

27

This sentiment is one oft repeated at union meetings. It is a shame the union so readily adopts the adversarial stance, us vs. them. A large part of my frustration, though, stems from the fact that my union’s goals are different from my own - and the union claims to represent me. My employer has never made such claim.

28

NC: Maybe the correct question is not “are unions still useful?” rather “are mega-unions useful?” What can be done to ensure a union stays focussed?

Well, if you take a look at the articles I linked to in a previous post, you’ll see that the issue of the role of the “mega-union” or “mega-federation” is in fact one of the chief things that organized labor is having a lot of stormy controversies about right now. It looks to me as though we may be on the way to replacing the “cross-industry” mega-union with cooperating but separate unions for different industries or employers. The intra-national, inter-industry union may eventually give way to the intra-industry, international one. That would be interesting.

Actually, since I brought it up, would anybody like me to post here a brief sketch of what I think are the most significant current developments in organized labor policy? (Disclaimer: I’m not any kind of expert in this field but I think it’s interesting and I try to keep up with it somewhat.) I notice that a lot of people have been asking general questions or stating general opinions about unions, but not many are referring to what’s actually going on in organized labor these days. And it is indeed an interesting time for labor issues.

29

Well take it up with Eric Hoffer, dude. I didn’t make it up. I read the quote from a book on creativity titled "A Whack on the Side of the Head by Roger Von Oech, PhD. A cursory web search found it attributed to it him as well.

Personally, I think the metaphor holds well and think you got derailed on the semantics of the word “seduced” while ignoring the meaning of the comparison.

30

You’re correct in saying that this was my one experience. But my second-hand experiences support the experience that I had (and reflect the situation cited in the OP). For instance, one of my best friends of all time does assorted construction work and at the time was an RA at the college we went to. The school had hired union workers to do improvements on the dorms and he was disgusted at how lazy and inefficient they were. The point is simply thus: my experience is consistent with that of the OP. I look forward to having a great experience with union workers. Bring it on. Someone please correct the misrepresentation I’ve been subjected to by a few bad apples. But until that experience comes, I make no apologies whatsoever for placing the greatest weight in first-hand experience. Second-hand experiences from people I trust come in second. The second + experiences from people I don’t know come in last. I’d be surprised if you were any different.

Because it wasn’t my failure to meet a deadline that created the situation, it was my client’s (who was paying both our checks). Because I need a partner when the chips are down, not another obstacle. Because they wanted my business. Because that’s how the rest of non-unionized businesses work.

My clients lay all manner of crazy parameters on our work. For instance, they will miss a date that we needed feedback by, yet we still are expected to get our work out by the pre-arranged date. And we do. We suck it up and get the work done, and do it well. That’s how our business works. And personally, I get a lot of pride in being a go-to guy. It’s served me pretty well in my career.

In my business, the more push-back and difficult a person or business is to work with, the less they are worked with. This maxim affects union shops the same way it does all other shops – as well as individual employees. This is the playing field I play in.

31

I liked the quote comparing unions to the 21 year old woman. That seems to have a lot of validity.

Unions have way too much power to damage companies. I look at what they have done to the railroads and to the airline industry (Eastern Airlines in particular), as an example, and I think to myself, “That is just not right.”.

My $0.02 worth…

32

Have you even looked at your contract yet?

As others have already noted, those laws aren’t in stone. Smart unions spend a lot of money on lobbying.

An example: Hospital organizations might lobby state legislatures to keep healthcare costs down via nurse-to-patient ratios. The hospitals don’t want ratios made law because it might mean they have to hire more personnel.

This doesn’t do the nurses who have to care for 7, 8, 9 or more patients in a shift, or who have to care for 3 critical care patients, any good. In fact, it overburdens the nurses, it causes burnout, and it’s why there is such a horrible nurse shortage in many places.

Enter the nurses union. Their union lobbies state (and federal) legislators to pass laws regarding ratios. The hospitals are looking at the bottom line, and will walk the hairy edge of staffing levels in order to save money, employing as few nurses as is feasible. But the nurses are working to improve their own working conditions through the legislative process.

My only response is: Be as involved as possible. Know your contract. Know your Local, Council (Region, State, etc.), and International constitutions. These are the things that affect you on a daily basis. If you don’t know what’s in them, you’re letting other people represent you without your input. Be aware of what your steward is doing, and keep him/her abreast of everything on your mind (work related, of course). Making sure your union represents you starts at the most local level: your steward.

Then, get to know a couple people on your Local executive board, a trustee for example. Introduce yourself to your president, veep, treasurer, etc. Best way to do this is by going to a union meeting. These people can’t properly represent you if they don’t know you, and know what you expect of them.

Going back to the most local level-- your steward-- if you don’t agree with how he or she handles any of your concerns, or if he or she doesn’t seem interested, start asking your co-workers what they think of the steward. If other people have had problems-- or worse, don’t even know who their steward is-- something’s wrong with your union representation at this most local level. Start doing something to change it. Talk to your president about it. Or start talking to your coworkers about making some changes. Then, start thinking ahead to the next steward election. Maybe you could be better at representing your coworkers, or you know of someone who you think would better at representing you at your worksite.

You can’t change the direction of an organization that represents thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people overnight. But you can start small.
It’s the same as being a citizen of a democratic country. You can’t change how Washington (or Ottowa) sets policy and represents you with the snap of a finger, but if you start locally (neighborhood association, school board, city council, county commission, etc), you’ll find that you can have an influence on the things that affect you on a daily basis.

As a tax-payer (or dues-payer), potential voter, and potential rabble-rouser, you can get things changed-- if even just a little bit.
Happy

33

Yeah, well, that’s how a democracy works. Do you think the US Gov’t would let me stop paying taxes while I ran for a local office, intending to use it as a stepping stone to higher office so I could push my particular goals, which are in opposition to the current policies? I oppose the war in Iraq, but I’m still “funding the opposition” because sometimes, in a democracy, you LOSE. That doesn’t mean you stop participating, or claim that the system doesn’t work. It just means that sometimes, you lose. But don’t go crying that something is “unrealistic” just because it will take a lot of hard work and struggle and sacrifice. Sometimes that what it takes.

It isn’t systemic in unions, it’s systemic in any form of governance that requires and allows debating. Do you think it doesn’t happen on the floor of the US Senate? The House? In corporate boardrooms? If it was truly done improperly, in the US, you could take a complaint to the NLRB and, if found to have merit, it could result in a number of penalties, up to and including trusteeship by the federal government. Ask the Teamsters about that one. Hell, my own local had such a hard time following our own constitution that we just recently spent almost THREE YEARS in trusteeship to the International IATSE.

A union is a democratic institution, regardless of whether you win or lose a debate. If your union is not properly representing you, you have the right to seek decertification. If they aren’t properly representing enough people, you should have no problem garnering enough votes for the decert.

As to your motion being shut down as “illegal”… First, you do not appear to know the constitution and by-laws of your own union. Learn them. I can cite whole passages of my local’s C&BL from memory. Your motion may have been illegal for a number of reasons. In my local, if the President calls a Special Meeting it is to discuss one issue and one issue only. No new business may be brought to the floor. No old business may be discussed. Any attempt to do so will be derailed quickly. Not saying that applies to your union, or to that particular meeting, but your statement “whatever that means” shows that you are likely ignorant of the rules you operate under. You have the ability to change that; I suggest you do so.

34

And yet you seem to absolve your clients of any responsibility. This is the attitude of the slave: I must do for master what master cannot do for himself; that is my purpose.

This is BULLSHIT. If I have a client that is consistently late with paperwork, misses deadlines, then tries to heap it all on my head to fix, I stop working for that client. I don’t give a flying fuck how much money I make from them. Yes, I have done this. More than once.

Why should I work hard to correct the mistakes of an incompetent boob? My clients who are ill-prepared then look good, and get more jobs, for which they will soon be able to charge more money. My pay rate will not rise as fast or as much as their invoicing, so all I’m doing is enabling an idiot to make a ton of money, while I make a wage. Soon the idiot is rich and I am still middle class. FUCK THAT. If you don’t have the balls to tell your clients to meet their own deadlines or take their business elsewhere, well, it’s your life to lead.

Before you get all agro about that, let me say that in most cases, my union brothers and sisters and I will often go the extra mile to help our clients out. We also take pride in being “go-to” people who are clever and resourceful enough to “fix” things that are broken. But a client who consistently asks us to break the rules set forth in our contract will eventually meet with a terse “no, we aren’t going to do that” and we will go to lunch, coffee break, etc. as our contract specifies. I love the work that I do, but your emergency is not my problem. It may be my opportunity, but it isn’t my problem.

35

Happy Lendervedder: Have you even looked at your contract yet?

My short answer is, “Yes” I can quote significant passages from memory and often correct my committee members on the wordings found therein.

Happy Lendervedder: My only response is: Be as involved as possible. Know your contract. (…)

I am involved, more than I have time for… but that’s not the point (more on this in a sec…)

Snowboarder Bo: But don’t go crying that something is “unrealistic” just because it will take a lot of hard work and struggle and sacrifice. Sometimes that what it takes.

And sometimes “that’s what it takes” is an urealistically higher effort than the results warrant. I’m sure you’re not suggesting my failure to run for president in order to remove that billboard is something I should be ashamed of(?)

Snowboarder Bo: As to your motion being shut down as “illegal”… First, you do not appear to know the constitution and by-laws of your own union.

I understand that neither Snowboarder Bo nor Happy Lendervedder know what me and the many others working with me have done to effect the changes we’re after - how much studying, preparing, etc. I presume they’re trying to offer helpful advice on how we may continue the fight. To that extent, thanks.

However poorly I explained the situation, there were a number of times when a true breakdown of democratic process occurred. Why? Because the union leadership - for their own reasons and based on their own principles - disagreed with what many fully paid up, members in good standing were trying to introduce. Not just once, but many times. Let me zoom in on one particularly acrimonious general membership meeting.

At this meeting I made a motion and unlike others times there actually was a vote. Yes, they took a vote after disallowing the members on the floor to debate - only fierce speeches against the motion by the national rep and local president sitting at the head table.

Let me say that again: the only ones allowed to speak on the motion were those at the head table - not the members. This is NOT how democracy works. Perversions of democratic process like this occur EVERY TIME a motion is brought forward that is not endorsed by the local union leadership.

(I don’t want to detract from my point by getting into the nature of the motion, but like the DB/DC thing was our attempt to reintroduce something that the union, in its wisdom, negotiated out of the contract)

I’m sure some will say, “you can appeal, you can complain, you can find another job, you can read the bylaws more closely, you can run for office, etc.” We are exploring and taking what steps we need to. I relate these anecdotes not to ask how we can fix the situation. My point is simply: my union only represents me in issues where I agree with them. If they disagree with me, they have the power, the money, the clout, the organization, to trump me. It’s as if I need an organization to protect me from the organization that’s “protecting” me from my employer (we are considering hiring a lawyer).

The reason I zoom in on this meeting is because of what happened the next day. I met with the bargainning committe chairperson privately. She graciously let me say to her what I had intended to say to the membership if debate would have been allowed. At the end she said, “My God, you’re right!” She then took steps to table our concerns during the next contract negotiation - despite the fact that the “vote” defeated the motion!

I do not suggest, nor do I believe, incidents of this extreme nature are common worldwide. But do they indicate something that is systemic? When power is consolidated in the hands of (some) unions, and the power is used to to further an agenda NOT representative of its members, then the members get in the way.

I want to be fair to Snowboarder Bo, Happy Lendervedder, and others who seize upon one or two of the (too) many points I’ve been trying to make. I don’t want to bore readers, so I try to be as terse as I can (shyeah, look at the length of this and th OP) - not get into too details that could detract from the larger points I’m trying to make. As such, I didn’t adequately detail the anecdotes I’ve used in trying to illustrate those points. I see where you’re coming from in raising the concerns you’ve raised.

But just because “that’s the way it is” doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be. I honestly question if unions (certainly mine, maybe others) are doing the job they should be. If not, why not and what’s the alternative.

In the same way it is unfair for me to suggest that because I have bad experiences then all unions are bad, it is also unfair to suggest that just because you have a good experience then all unions are good and I should quit whining. I postulate that the things that I see are rooted in something larger than just my local, or just my city (and incorrectly suggested therefore in all the unions in all the world). Wherein lies the truth, and what if anything can we do to improve?

Do you agree with the Wal-Mart boycott?

Are there no ill-effects on the company, the economy, and eventually the worker if contract after contract is only “improved” and the mantra of “no concessions” is dogmatically followed?

What are your thoughts on the “Union made is better made” ad campaign?

What about the comparison between the Big 3’s woes and Toyota’s successes? Is the union a negative factor here, and if so how can it be fixed?

What about union activism? If a union is going to be a legislative lobby group, is is appropriate for its policies to be formulated so far removed from the grassroots (I’ve never been asked to vote on any ad campaign, or any stance on any piece of legislation, or any cause I’m funding - nor has my immediate representatives that I have voted for).

What about mega-unions? Should we bust’em up (oooh, union busting - fightin’ words) and go back to the days of focussed guilds?

Nitpicking the details of the negative experiences some people have had with the union is sidestepping these larger questions (and these experiences are not bullshit for those who experience them)

36

I admit I do not know, um, anything about Canadian laws as they pertain to unions. What little I do know about US law I learned from painful first-person experience. But in the US we do indeed have an organization to protect us from our organizations. The National Labor Relations Board does this (or is supposed to). The very situation you describe happened in my local, as I said, but we went to the International for help, and they stepped in and put us under trust (this is a gross simplification of the whole situation, but still pertinent to this discussion).

As I said, if you believe that your union is not doing their job with regard to your employment, then you have the right to seek decertification of the collective bargaining group. You will then be free to seek new union representation or to negotiate the terms of your employment for yourself.

I don’t believe that all unions are good or bad. I can tell you that people percieve my local here in Vegas in a VERY different way than they see the locals in Chicago, New York, or Detroit. And all of the locals see the International in a different way. <shrug>

I do believe that unions are necessary. Why? We cannot trust each other to do what is right. It isn’t just some mindless mantra when I say never forget that your employer’s goals are different from your own. It’s the plain truth. An employer’s goals are to maximize business profits. Your goal is to maximize your profits. Since your profits come out of potential employer profits, you are ALWAYS in conflict with your employer.

No. If the employees don’t want representation, and they vote it down after a fair campaign, then they have spoken and I respect their decision. But I have no faith that Wal-Mart has ever allowed a truly fair campaign, based on my own experiences here in Vegas and from what I’ve read elsewhere.

As I read this, it’s a loaded question. In every contract, someone must give up something, and so there will always be ill-effects felt by someone. Not sure where you were going with this one…

I have no problem with this. A product produced by domestic union labor is more beneficial to the domestic economy than a similiar product produced by non-union labor. Trickle-down economics (ha!) aside, more money in more hands is better than the consolidation of wealth, and unions help to make that happen. Is the product a better product, as the ad campaign implies? In many instances, yes. I can tell you that in my field, a union crew will outwork, outperform, out-hustle the vast majority of non-union crews, and the product will indeed be MUCH better. True for all unions, all locals, all products? Prolly not, but it’s not a perfect world.

I would say again: no line worker making $50k/year can possibly do as much financial damage as a $6,000,000 bonus for each exec with a corner office. The math simply doesn’t work. It would take every line worker screwing up constantly for months to wreak havoc, and no employer has a contractual obligation to continue running at a loss, no matter what the union says. Part of the deal is that the union must supply qualified, competent labor… not just the first drunk who shows up. IF the union is consistently violating the terms of the contract, there are methods spelled out in the contract, and in law, for recourse (in our contracts there are, anyway).

No, it is not appropriate. Your case sounds more unique than common, tho, because you are represented by a union with a majority of members who do not even work in your field. Unions must be politically active, because businesses are politically active. I know from my own experience with IATSE and the Teamsters (I did the lighting for their constitutional convention a couple of years ago, as they were coming out of federal trusteeship) most of the decisions you are talking about are made at the national level, and without being present yourself, you have to trust that your reps are doing their job. If you feel that they aren’t, you can run for their office or raise a big stink in a number of other ways.

If by “we” you mean the government, no. But you are always free to seek decertification and then form your own collective bargaining unit, or simply negotiate on your own. Do mega-unions function well? I’d guess no, because their very nature makes it difficult, if not impossible, to focus very well. But whether or not they should exist is entirely up to the membership and should not be interefered with by government(s).

I also wanted to mention something about your question: Is this systemic in all unions? Yes and no. It is systemic with all organizations comprised of human beings. People like control. It is very difficult to wrest control from those who have it. And people with a little control will always seek more control. Governments stick their noses in EVERYWHERE even when their own rules say they cannot (see Bush v. Gore, Wickard, et al). In a union, as in a government, as in all of life’s travels… CONSTANT VIGILANCE! And participation! The union is yours, but only to whatever degree you are willing to own it.

37

And no doubt, this was an attitude learned and emulated in your union shop. I’ve been there, seen that…many, many times. I even got sucked into that philosophy for a while when I was in the union. Other people though see this more as a challenge, not slave work, and find a way to make it happen. Thankfully, that is my current philosophy.

And as an employer, I would try to resolve these deadline issues before I would go to the flying fuck card. At least give them the courtesy of trying to see the issues from your viewpoint, and then give them a chance to improve. I do that with my employees, my clients, my business associates, etc. Maybe you do do this, but your quote here is short on the method used with problem clients. Have a longer fuse with these folks and try to get them to work with you better, because eventually, you may end up with more clients and you’ll get to the point where you will pick and choose your workload and the “best clients will get priority”. I’ve done this a few times and some clients straighten up, others end up on the back burner or have been dismissed/terminated in business relations.

And that Bo, is the double-edge of the union sword that you are speaking of. No matter if you’re the best employee in the union or the worst, you’re all the same in the eyes of the union. That’s one of the BIGGEST reasons why I left to go out on my own. True, unions keep you from being poor or working excessive hours with little pay in unsafe working conditions, even if you’re the ultimate slacker of the local…but they will never make you rich (unless you’re a union executive). The better (smarter, harder working) employees of a union would likely be better off to start their own business and be in control of their own salaries, free from the slackers, clock-watchers, goldbrickers, etc. that drag unions (with good employees) down. Why should you subsidize some slacker when you could actually be paid what you’re actually worth? I dropped that dead weight and realized my true potential.

And idiots don’t become rich, unless by dumb luck, they have a winning lotto ticket.

Then it becomes someone else’s (a competitor’s) opportunity then…but hey, I hope it was a good lunch or coffee break that you had. There’s something to be said about having pride in work, done professionally, expediently, safely, and without whining…and unions can never claim a monopoly on that…no matter how many billboards say otherwise.

Your emergency might become my act of heroism. Try seeing it that way.

38

With all due respect, Yeticus, I think you took parts of my post out of context.

I guess the word “consistently” was too vague for you. I had one client like this for 5 years. I tried to help them by identifying problems after a job was complete and making recommendations to correct them. These were ignored time after time, and the same mistakes and poor planning recurred every job. Finally, I stopped doing work for that client. You do me no small dishonor by assuming that I have a short fuse.

I echo your sentiments that this is a challenge, etc. with the last lines in my post-

I thought I was being clear that I DO want to help, I DO try and help, but when I am EXPECTED to save the ship every time it leaves port, something is wrong. I am not hired as a lifesaver. If someone wants to discuss that position with me, then I’m always willing to listen. If I find that it is endemic to the employer, and they are unwilling to change their modus operandi then I simply stop working for them. I thought I made that clear; perhaps I did not.

As for rising to the top… well, in my union that does happen. As you show more ability, more knowledge, and more expertise, you find yourself with more work, more responsibilties, and higher pay. I’m not really interested in getting rich, but I’m definitely not interested in fulfilling my employer’s responsibilities on top of my own. I am not paid or contracted to do those things.

Let me try and illustrate my point with a metaphor: A woman who does not know how to swim jumps in to the deep end of a pool. She has seen others do this, and watched them kick and flail their way to the ladder, climb out, and repeat the process. She kicks, she flails, but it is all wrong and she begins to sink. I, being the pool attendant, jump in, get her to safety, and give her pointers on how to swim. She jumps in again, and is able to swim no better because she is not following my instructions. I save her again, and try and reinforce my previous instructions. She jumps in a third time, a fourth time, a fifth time… but eventually, I’m going to weary of this game, and she will need to find another saviour. I’m just the pool attendant, not the lifeguard. Now, if she wants to offer me a job as her lifeguard, we could certainly discuss that. Does that make my point clearly?

Also, for one party to deride the other for wanting to adhere to the mutually-agreed upon contract is BULLSHIT. You don’t like the terms, you shouldn’t have signed it. If you did sign it, deal with it. Change them in the next round of negotiations or don’t sign the next contract. But don’t whine that I’m hurting your business because I refuse to do the things I told you I’d refuse to do.

39

So? Every transaction is between two parties who’s goals differ. When I go to the shops to buy a tube of toothpaste, my goals are to get the best toothpaste for the minimum amount of money. The toothpaste makers goals are to sell me the cheapest toothpaste for the greatest amount of money. I’m in conflict with toothpaste makers, so what? I don’t need to collectivise with my fellow toothpaste buyers to negotiate a toothpaste contract.

40

Well, but labor markets don’t work exactly the same way as markets for commodities like toothpaste. Toothpaste products are abundant, cheap, more or less interchangeable, and devoid of market barriers, at least from the consumer’s point of view. Jobs, on the other hand, are often scarce and specialized, requiring significant investment of training, time, and resources to qualify for and obtain them. Obviously, people selling their labor have some very different market conditions from people buying toothpaste.

Even for goods and services, real-life markets often have significant differences from the ideal perfectly competitive markets of Econ 101 courses. And labor markets are even more different. You can’t assume that collective bargaining is unnecessary for employees just because toothpaste purchasers do okay without it.