Have unions outlived their usefulness?

A couple of quotes from drachillix:

Maybe that’s what he meant - my apologies if I misread. However, even though the skills are different, the level of responsibility seems similar: managers are in charge of money and other resources, drivers are in charge of passengers (yes, including their lives) and direct provision of the service. Whether an employee wants to advance to management is irrelevant.

Certainly rush hours put a big load on the system, but there are alternatives to hiring part-timers. The company, for example, could propose the option of split shifts, maybe by putting four-hour blocks on the signup sheets where drivers pick their shifts. Costs would be the same.

Drivers go through training and a probationary period before being made permanent, and can easily be terminated then. After that, they can be fired for cause at any time. Part-timers can be fired arbitrarily, and possibly unfairly. The union protects full-timers against that.

Perhaps not. But then, by reverse, making sure that buses arrive on time, or the factory runs the way it’s supposed to is not the worker’s responsibility, either.

I think that’s what I hate about the libertarian argument-that if you don’t like a workplace, you can go elsewhere. For many people in the world, there is no elsewhere. It’s either a shitty job, or no food on the table. For many people, there is no opportunity-you’ve got a family to support, and quitting could mean your family has to suffer.

(This is NOT an attack at anyone, just my opinion on Rand type philosophy.)

This is not to say that unions are not subject to corruption. Of course they are, just as corporations are. BUT, there is still a need for them. There are still people being abused in the workplace, not just in the third world, either. There are people right here in America. My father’s been screwed sideways by the big corporation he worked for.

Trust me, I see a lot of corporations abusing the little guy. And they get away with it. Some places make you sign contracts saying you will not join a union, or be fired. It’s illegal-but they get away with it with scare tactics.

As far as responsibility, maybe the big guy doesn’t owe you jack. But what does that mean? Does that mean he has a right to pay you squat, while you do all the work? If no one stood up to people like this, what would happen?

I’ve always worked in union shops, and I know people have the perception that companies can’t fire people because of the union, but in my experience, the reality is a little different.Union protections against firing are in many instances a procedure, not a ban. For example, I can be fired for abusing my sick leave.According to my contract, they first have to warn me, and put me on sick leave restriction (doctor’s note required for any use of sick leave). They cannot simply fire me with no warning and no prior disciplinary action.If management finds it easier to transfer me than take the steps that will be necessary to eventually fire me (or might cause me to shape up),they are at least as much at fault as the union.

What I mean is, the company cannot fire JUST because you join a union. That’s illegal.
They cannot make you sign a contract stating you will not join a union.

Here’s my problem with unions:

I think it is unreasonable for an entity that purports to work for the worker’s rights to attempt to force people to join it as a condition of employment. I realize that a closed shop makes for a stronger union, and I see the argument that in the end that means better things for all workers, but I have a fundamental problem with telling people they must belong to unions and pay union dues, regardless of whether they want to or not.

A local recent example from my town is Albertson’s, which is a regional (Northwest) grocery chain (headquarters in Boise, ID). Albertson’s has always done pretty well by its employees – good pay, full benefits, reasonable managers – and the employees are by and large happy with their working conditions. But when a new Albertson’s store opened here, the grocery union came in and met with all the employees (with Albertson’s permission, not that they could stop them anyway) to tell them how great the union was and how they should sign up for it – and, of course, pay dues. The employees held a vote and overwhelmingly said “no, thanks.” So the union organized a strike against the store, bussing in union people from out of town, to force the store to become unionized over the objections of the workers. Because the workers “didn’t know what they were giving up” and they “were intimidated by the store into saying no.” So the workers, of their own initiative, took out a full-page ad in the paper reiterating that (a) they had been given the option of signing up; (b) they had overwhelmingly decided they didn’t want to; © now the union was attempting to make them do so anyway, despite their vote; and (d) the so-called “strikers” parading around outside the store didn’t work for the store, they worked for the union.

I confess that a lot of things bother me about unions. I dislike the attitude that “that ain’t my job, so I won’t do it” – i.e., drivers don’t unload and unloaders don’t drive, not even under extraordinary circumstances. I dislike the implicit hostility between the workers and “management,” as if they are on different teams, not the same team, and the implicit assumption that management is always trying to screw the workers. And, yes, I resent the fact that a union fork-lift driver makes more money that I do as a professional because his union has held the company hostage for higher wages – and that I have to pay more for whatever he’s got on his forklift to make up the difference. I resent missing my flight – for which I’ve paid over $500 – because an airline pilot doesn’t think being paid over $100,000 a year is enough.

I am all for safe working conditions and a living wage for everyone. And I appreciate the necessity of having unions to secure those things. But when they go far over those goals to becoming bloated machines that hold the economy hostage to acheive their own ends, and that attempt to force themselves on the very workers they purport to represent, then they rapidly lose all of my sympathy.

Most of the post by drachillix has been responded to very well by others, so I won’t repeat the good points made by pantom, rjk, ITR champion, and Guinastasia.

Oh, hogwash! Sure, if you were giving me a few mill in base pay and another few in incentives that I get even if I fuck up royally, then I’d be happy to put the rest of my income at risk. In the company where I work, the stock is performing like shit, the employee surveys show morale is low…and the senior management is getting compensated just fine, thank you. This “risk” argument is a big bunch of crap.

Well, I don’t know why we are comparing the bus drivers to the accounting dept (which I’ll admit is probably more important in a positive way to the day-to-day life in a company than the senior management). But, I for one would not want to be riding on that bus (or, worse yet, riding my bike down the street) when one of those buses driven by the accountants comes cruising down the road!

I’m not claiming that bus drivers should be getting paid as much as the senior management at my company (although I must admit that, now that I think about it, I have a hard time justifying why not!) I know that senior management have a higher skill set. (For God’s sake, you can’t make decisions this stupid without a lot of training while getting your MBA to have the common sense beaten out of you!)

I’m just asking why people are getting so exercised about these workers threatening to strike when they are getting paid $44K rather than getting exercised by people making tens or hundreds of times more than that and not doing a particularly impressive job at what they’re doing.

As for some of the sad facts about unions pointed out by SpyderA48, yeah, I admit that in the real world, union bosses are subject to the same corrupting influences of all people who get into positions of power and wealth. That’s why it is a constant struggle, not only between unions and management, but between workers and their unions.

First off, we’re talking about $28k/yr in American dollars. I’ve read plenty of threads here in great debates where people responding to “let’s tax the rich up the wazoo” posts try and make an argument that $200k/yr isn’t actually all that much when you have a family, and now someone’s trying to tell me that $28k/yr is an exorbitant amount? Sorry, no way. That’s a totally reasonable salary for any full-time job.

Um, because without the workers there would be no money made? Anyone necessary is equal, you know.

Why not? If the workers at McDonald’s decide they want to form a union and strike for higher wages or better working conditions, what’s wrong with that? It’s free market economics, man. Restrict the supply of labor and its value goes up. If you can organize people such that they will all refuse to work for McDonald’s unless McDonald’s pays them a living wage, then you rock. You are capitalist A #1, high priestess of voodoo economics. And if anyone doesn’t like it, they can go back to Russia!

Sure, you’re all making fun of unskilled workers and their easy peasy jobs compared to your hardcore desk job you needed to go to college for, and outraged that they get paid so much. How dare they try and emulate your middle class lifestyle by asking for more money!

Well, if salary is any indicator of intelligence, these unskilled workers sure seem to be smarter than a lot of you! Instead of going to college, they just joined a union. Sounds like a classic case of jealousy to me. They beat you at capitalist chess with far less effort, and it drives you up the wall so you despise them. You should trying joining them instead of wasting your breath implying that somehow, in some way, they are cheating.

Or to paraphrase, get over it or hire and train a new workforce.

I don’t get it. Any large organization has corruption at the top, and somehow this is a valid reason for being anti-union but a foolish reason to be anti-corporate?

-fh

Until everyone is paid the same for the same time worked, unions are necessary. You may disagree with this scale, but we could use “calories expended” instead, or a combination of the two.

Also, unions seem to have a hard time forming in places that really need them, like Indonesia in China, where government leaders, taking bribes from corporations, have decided that unions have outlived their usefulness.

That bus driver has a manager who is still indirectly responsible for the lives of all the passengers.

IANALL (labor lawyer) but I believe CA at least has laws that force higher pay for employees who work splits over 4 hours apart. Why would any union accept less pay than mandated by law

and the part timers still have the state labor commissions and litigation available.

Its really more like comissions for a sales person, I guess I did kind misrepresent that one. <bow humbly> many senior management contracts have tons of performance based incentives

I just had to laugh at the visual this inspired. Thank you.

A matter of scale, its cheaper to give the big boss of my company a $50,000 raise than to give every employee another $1,000 (theres like 3,800 of us) If we all got that raise and the corresponding 3.8 mil is of course passed on to our customers, higher prices. In the bus driver example a 5% raise = $2,200 a year.

One bus route could easily have 5-10 drivers on it costing us as much as $22,000 a year in taxes or increased fares.

Do the math its either a rate hike or more passengers a day to maintain the service.

So the drivers should never get a pay rise?

The justification is a matter of responsibility, and difficulty. Yes, a bus-driver is responsible for the safety of his passengers, but that generally only requires safe driving on his part. Safe driving is not particularly difficult, we all drive safely every day of our lives, and that’s not even our job. Senior management, on the other hand, is responsible for everything that happens under their command, including the safety of the passengers, and their jobs are more difficult to do correctly. There is a fine line between good management and bad management.

Heck, at a big multinational, the CEO is responsible for the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people. Bad decisions at that level can destroy or severely f-up a company. Case in point, IBM, bad decision making in the 80’s caused HUGE layoffs in the early 90’s, decimating entire towns in the process. Good decision making in the years following, and they’re now building multi-billion dollar manufacturing plants in those same areas. That type of responsibility and effect on a company requires the absolute best people you can find, and those people are very, very expensive.

jodi sez:
The employees held a vote and overwhelmingly said “no, thanks.” So the union organized a strike against the store, bussing in union people from out of town, to force the store to become unionized over the objections of the workers. Because the workers “didn’t know what they were giving up” and they “were intimidated by the store into saying no.” So the workers, of their own initiative, took out a full-page ad in the paper reiterating that (a) they had been given the option of signing up; (b) they had overwhelmingly decided they didn’t want to; © now the union was attempting to make them do so anyway, despite their vote; and (d) the so-called “strikers” parading around outside the store didn’t work for the store, they worked for the union.

The UNION came into my town years ago to unionize the city and county workers, who were then making good pay, good raises, usually kept their jobs in lean times and had good benefits and bonuses.

They had their problems or flaws, like you might rise through the ranks until you reached Old Joe, who had been head of the department for 20 years and you weren’t going to rise anymore until he retired or died. A lot of family members of some upper level management and even lower level employees were hired on. If you went out to clean ditches and worked too well and too fast, you got told by the straw boss to slow it down 'cause there were plenty of ditches yet to clean. For lunch, the bosses might take you to a store and let you buy stuff or let you select a fast food place to go to. City drivers even often grabbed a beer or two while cruising at 25 mph down roads, looking for damaged signs to replace, road kill to bury, dumpsters to replace, meters to read or pot holes to mark for repair.

All in all, it was a pleasant job, even if most of the first level employees were not exactly real smart, but their work required strong backs most of the time, with little thinking.

In came the Union, chatted with folks and met resistance. Very few wanted to join. In came the Propaganda Squad. They cleverly located the most disliked man in the shops, some old guy who had been there probably since the city was built, who was cantankerous and near retirement but hurt no one. Out came the smear campaigns of the 1940s!

They savaged this guy in pamphlets, crudely drawn characterizations, suggested that he was involved in improbable, illegal, management related activities designed to cheat hard working folks out of their pay and was a general all round Nazi/Commie/slavemaster/racist beast!!

Then, once people started signing up, after being promised glorious increases in pay, time off, benefits and so on, out went the Intimidators: the hulking employees lead by the soon-to-be shop steward who intimidated the nonunion employees into signing up. (The shop steward was carefully selected. He had to be fairly bright, gullible towards the Union, have a beef with management and nearly everyone else, and a low self image which the position of Steward would boost him up to over confidence.)

People were threatened with all forms of intimidation. Friends of mine working there were stunned! Friends turned against friends! People were threatened with being beaten up, others were assured that when the UNION took over, they would be among the first nonunion people to be up against the wall!!

The basically laid back City management, Old Boy style, suddenly became corrupt slave drivers. One department head was accused of taking off and going fishing on company time! Abuse of power! He was taking the raises out of the families of the working man by doing this. (He really did, but he was in charge of a warehouse, that, from time to time, had nothing going into it for most of the day. So, instead of sitting around, doing nothing, he would go fishing and take his crew with him! Everyone loved it. No one cared. The work was always done, and he figured it was better to take his guys fishing than have them sit around, doing nothing.

Well, the UNION got in.

This is what everyone got: A shop Steward who is lazy, corrupt, impressed with his own power and reluctant to file employee complaints with the Union or really do anything except collect his bigger pay check. They lost their frequent raises, but got bigger salaries, with annual increases, which actually even out to making less per year than they would have being nonunion. To pay for the increased benefits, people were laid off. Out of their pay, they have to hand over Union Dues.

The good bonuses are all but gone.

The Union requires two people to do one person’s job, which pissed off a lot of loners who liked roaming around in their trucks doing their work alone. The Union also requires these small trucks have a Loader, who loads their trucks with supplies in the morning, then sits around all day.

Management eliminated the beer breaks, the fishing trips, the trips to restaurants, and started pushing the casual work schedule.

Every Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas the city gave the employees big, expensive hams and turkeys, but that stopped when the place went Union.

The city eventually eliminated the department section which had crews going out to read water and power meters and hired in subcontractors in order to meet the increased Union pay and demands for more people. Subcontractors are not Union.

It takes longer now to get pot holes patched and where one used to see two guys out doing it quickly, now there are 4 and it still takes longer. (Two are usually leaning on shovels looking with interest at the hole as one dumps in the bag of cold pack and another tamps it down.)

The great Union promises never came through, mostly. Unknown to the new union employees, the Union made a deal with the management. The employees are not allowed to strike. When the city started hiring in tough, cost cutting managers who treated the employees like dirt, the Union ignored their complaints.

The city employees almost voted the union out, but when they started getting up people for the vote, the UNION professionals dropped by and threats started going around.

The vote never took place.

In the long run, the city employees lost. They lost a whole lot. The only time the Union gets involved with them is when they start trying to vote them out.

Any new hire is given the opportunity to join the Union. If he refuses, then he is intimidated, called a scab and harassed until he either resigns or joins – even if his starting pay cannot handle the sizable chunk of Union dues taken out.

As a result of the City and the County going Union, our taxes went up, the rapidity and quality of the work went down. Like instead of sending a crew out to chop down the over growth in ditches, which would shortly green up again and look nice until it grew too wild, they sent out two guys in a truck loaded with poisonous weed killer. They spray the ditches.

The ditches look like something after a nuclear blast for months and months, with dead, erect trees, leafless bushes, exposed, gray sand, dry, dead brown grasses and are prone to erosion. Instead of chopping down the tall brush and overgrowth and carting it away, now, the bare remains stay until they rot.

The Union, by the way, is the all powerful, Teamsters.

ARRGHH!

I forgot quotation brackets!!

My post beings at the FIRST CAPITOLOZED Union name!!

Ah, (slinking back with embarrassment) make that ‘my post BEGINS’ ---- :slight_smile:

Good points all (well, good points many, at least). Just thought I’d jump in to point out some articles on a few of the many situations today where North American unions are in fact on the front lines in the struggle to force employers to give workers, not executive-level salaries or exorbitant raises, but simply decent treatment and free exercise of their rights:

Labor activism in Mexican maquiladoras

Union organizing among temp workers

Labor organizing among low-paid janitorial, hotel/restaurant, and garment workers

Yup, it’s true that once a union has fulfilled its basic function of providing effective opposition to exploitation by employers, it can and often does morph into excessive protectionism that hurts the efficiency of the company and the opportunities for other workers. It’s one thing to acknowledge this as a problem (though like many others here, I’m not yet convinced that it really is a problem in the particular case of BC bus drivers) and try to suggest ways to improve it; it’s quite another thing to assert, as Barbarian’s letter to the editor does, that “unions are out of control and should be disbanded”. (I’m relieved to learn, by the way, that that letter was actually published in a Vancouver newspaper, as its ridiculous exaggerations will doubtless help to discredit the anti-union cause.)

And as jshore points out, it is no less true that once high salaries for executives have fulfilled their basic function of providing competitive stimulus to attract capable people into difficult and responsible jobs, they can equally easily (and at least as often do) morph into sheer hog-wallowing in the corporate money trough. This arguably hurts the efficiency of the company and the opportunities for workers many times more than union protectionism does. So, as others here have commented, where are all the complaints that high executive salaries have outlived their usefulness, and from now on we should have stringent caps on all forms of executive compensation that aren’t directly linked to the long-term health and performance of the company?

At its core, Barbarian’s and drachillix’s complaining sounds like mere old-fashioned class snobbery to me. Rich and powerful executives are using their clout and connections to extort higher pay from employers? “Good for them, shows how smart they are and how much they deserve their wealth! These are the absolute-best people, and they’re very, very expensive!” Working-class people are using labor organizations to extort higher pay from employers? “The insolent uneducated louts, how dare they attempt to worm their way onto a socioeconomic level that implies that they’re as good as people like me! Don’t these people know their place?”

A little comment concerning these ‘very expensive and very good executives’ who rape companies and get away with it.

Our hospital hired a very expensive CEO, to help make it turn a profit. His salary was something close to a million a year, with perks including top notch free medical insurance, a company car, one of those which do everything for you but wipe yer ass, a large home in one of the most expensive sections of town, large yearly bonuses, paid vacations, travel expense and the clincher: no matter what happens to him, if he resigns, or is fired, he is guaranteed two years complete salary and a years full insurance. Basically, no matter what happens, he is guaranteed over a million in severance pay.

He did not do dick! He reorganized the hospital, raised prices, cut ‘unnecessary personnel’ and pissed everyone off. So many people quit that there was danger of shutting the place down! He did make sure the board of directors got their stock dividends, which was probably why they kept him on longer than they should have. Eventually he was released from his contract and rolled out of town, counting his millions.

The only reason these people get these big payrolls is because the stupid companies are willing to pay them. Time and time again, I’ve been around groups of people at parties and overheard them joking to others ‘you couldn’t afford me.’ To me, that is the epitome of arrogance.

I knew a researcher in a biolab who basically made $200 an hour for checking other peoples work. Far too much money!

I once asked a plastic surgeon how much he cleared on a $10,000 operation done in his own office. He would work anywhere from 2 to 4 hours and take home, clear $4500! The rest went into his support staff, office expenses, supply costs, sterilization and cleaning costs and malpractice insurance. $4,500!!

A corporate lady whose job was to come up with schemes to make money for both her company and others, like persuading Joe’s Fast Foods to buy up the 2 station Clydes Radio Network, which is showing a good book, hold onto it for two years, then sell it off for X million in pure profit, was earning $150,000 a year! Just to read articles, news reports, stock reports, do research and put together a plan.

What it boils down to is that people these days figure they are worth more than they actually are, and companies go along with it.

Like the Dentist charges $750 for a root canal, cap and post. Look how TINY the object he works on is. Smaller that your little finger nail! Using sterile procedure, he kills the nerves, drills them out, packs the ‘canals’ with paste antibiotic, seals the openings with plastic plugs, has a fake tooth made, inserts a gold or steel post in it, drills a hole in the tooth, and glues the assembly in place.

Total cost of supplies: $100. Total time used? Two hours on two different appointments. That’s $375 an hour!

I had a root canal done 15 years ago, that cost me $100 with only a filling done. It finally fell apart and the replacement – no ‘just a filling’ allowed anymore, cost me $750!!

Now, back to Unions.

Yes, unions are needed. Yes, they do a lot of good but they also tend to breed 1940s style corruption in the upper ranks, like the Mafia being involved in the Teamsters retirement funds and siphoning off millions before the government got involved. Like Union employees going absolutely nuts if they strike or are involved in a dispute.

I was around during the AT&T Union strike years back and used to drop in on a small field office to do some work for them. They were a bunch of cool guys!! Until the strike. Suddenly, I could not get in to do my work. They same guys who I used to joke with blocked me out and got nasty if I tried to pass. The management, nonunion, had to run the office and these guys who used to pal around with the union employees were suddenly treated like shit by the same people they used to buy lunch for or have some beers with and they were not the decision makers for the company!

Suddenly, the happy, pleasant place turned ugly! Even after the strike, the relationship between the managers and the employees was never the same. Those union people went completely fanatical. They even blocked the courier who was delivering their pay checks from crossing the strike line!!

I mean, he had their money on board and would not let him in so the managers could get the checks and hand them out!! The managers had to meet him down the road!

I’ve met far to many union workers who are absolutely cocky about making huge hourly wages for doing what amounts to hardly anything all day long and bragging about how they’re going for another raise and the bosses better approve it or they’ll strike!

Unions need to be reorganized and closely watched leaders installed. That guy on the GM assembly line who puts tires on one side of a car, with power tools, making $30 an hour, with an enormous retirement plan, expensive medical plan, guaranteed breaks, time and a half for over time and working in a real safe, air-conditioned environment with all sorts of safety gear is Union and over paid. Which is one reason why we pay $14,000 for an $8000 car

** Kimstu,**what exaggerations in my letter are you referring to? I may be outraged, (and justifiably so, I think) but I have not exaggerated any facts.

I do think asking for an 18% raise is out of line, when the company funding yours is cutting $7 million from its annual budget, wiping out many bus routes, and eliminating all service between 1:30 am and 5:30 am.

I’d hesitate to call my beefs class warfare. Last time I checked socioeconomic class was partially dependent on income, and I earn far less than your average Vancouver bus driver.

But if I was a bus driver, I could earn $44k in just 6 months.

I’m mad because a union is inflicting harm on me, when I have absolutely nothing to do with its dispute. I’m mad because a strike will not affect management in any way (remember, this is a strike that will save a money-losing government corporation money). I’m mad because striking union members will set up picket lines outside the garages for the few buses that will be running, and thereby disrupt the lives of more people who depend on public transportation.

As for medical arguments: This is BC. The govt provides health care for everyone for about a dollar a day. If you can’t afford that the govt pays it for you.
Extra benefits for Canadians are dental, eyeglasses (eye exams every 2 years are universal), and the cost of medication (which is cheaper here than in the States, at least judging by the number of U.S. seniors who cross the border :slight_smile: )

and some random stuff.

It’s Monday, and the bus strike is in day two. Yeah.

hazel-rah, the figures quoted by me are in CDN bucks. This may be worth less than American, but $44k per year Canadian is about $6000 more than what the average Canadian FAMILY earns. Often this is with TWO people working.

TRANSLINK’s board of directors voted to give themselves a %7.5 raise, and $125 per meeting. They are an non-elected board composed of elected mayors and city conuncillors from Vancouver and environs. TRANSLINK is in charge of all transportation aspects in the area, including public transportation and road construction.

The bus drivers on strike belong to a subsidiary of Translink called Coast Mountain Bus company. Managers for that company haven’t had any raises.

Barbarian: *I’m mad because a union is inflicting harm on me, when I have absolutely nothing to do with its dispute. I’m mad because a strike will not affect management in any way (remember, this is a strike that will save a money-losing government corporation money). I’m mad because striking union members will set up picket lines outside the garages for the few buses that will be running, and thereby disrupt the lives of more people who depend on public transportation. *

I think it’s perfectly understandable for you to be cheesed off because the strike will disrupt your life. But I don’t see how you can expect to have effective labor organizations without the real possibility of occasional strikes, nor how you can expect a strike (especially of employees such as bus drivers) to be effective without disrupting the lives of various people who aren’t to blame for the dispute. And no matter how genuinely or legitimately cheesed off you are by the hassle of a strike, I stand by my statement that assertions to the effect that unions as an institution have “outlived their usefulness” or are “out of control and should be banned” fall into the category of ridiculous exaggeration.

Just to add to what KIMSTU said, it is precisely because strikes disrupt the lives of the citizenry of Metropolis that they are effective. It may piss the people off at the strikers, but it may also piss them off at management, and either way it will inevitably put pressure on management to settle the dispute so that services can be resumed. The fact that it is a major pain in the ass for everyone is almost always a point in the Union’s favor.