I crossed a picket line today

In My Humble Opinion
121

Oh, I don’t know, I suppose I thought of the Company first because you intriguingly referred to them as Company X, which piqued my curiosity.

So, would it be possible for you to tell us the name of Company X AND Union X? I don’t see why not. Unless all those negotiations were privileged or confidential?

If everything happened just as you said it happened, I would agree that the Union screwed up in this case. If we knew the names of the Union and the Company, we could find out what contemporary news articles reported about the matter.
:slight_smile:

122

there’s nothing wrong with unions. but, I’m sorry, I have to agree… Healtcare is expensive. $25/week? damn. $100/month… that’s sweet pay.

I duno, I feel like my business is not a vote. So I’m avoiding it all… which I realize is in a sense voting… but, I’m going to a different store, for my major buisness, from now on. I don’t want to contribute to it at all. there are waaay to many people in this world busting their asses for a living, for someone with such cushy benefits to be whining. about having to actually pay for your health insurance. and so little, at that.
I dunno… seems like starving out your employer, is shooting yourself in the foot. no supermarket, no job.

123

I promise to try not to get drawn into any more fights in this thread, as per the OP’s request. Personal accusations are b.s., we’re supposed to be discussing an issue here. Reminds me of arguing politics with my dad, which could sometimes get very personal and hurtful. (He’s more mellow now.)

Did you really think my first post sounded pompous? I meant for it to sound positive, life-affirming and feel-goody.

124

tclouie wrote

You still haven’t said whether what you said was a quote from the book, so I’ll assume it was.

Well, I found the article which is likely the same or a companion article. It’s by Mr. Byrne and published April 15, 2002 in Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_15/b3778017.htm

In this article, it says

I’ll repeat what Mr. Byrne said again: in the year before this article, the average CEO ended the year with over 15 million fewer dollars than he started the year with.

It goes on to say that John Chambers ended the year $931.4 million dollars poorer as a result of his employment as Cisco’s CEO.

So, clearly your quote for that year was inaccurate; you said “the average CEO makes 411x what their workers make, as opposed to 13-24x in Western Europe”. For that year, the average CEO lost money, and a lot of it for the priviledge of working at their company.

How many unions have a clause that in tough times they’ll take a cut so drastic that they end up with fewer dollars in their pockets at the end of the year than at the beginning?

Would you accept that sort of clause, tclouie?

125

First of all, it’s obviously not the same article. The date is different. So you can’t claim Mr. Moore is inaccurate about what he claims the May 6 article said.

Second of all, the fact that CEO compensation declined in a recessionary year does not, by itself, disprove what Mr. Moore said about how much they make compared to what workers make. It does not say whether that CEO, even making less, made ten times what a worker makes, or a hundred times, or a thousand times. It does not say anything about that at all.

So: wrong article, irrelevant reference.

Also, I have no problem with CEO’s taking a pay cut in a bad year while workers don’t. If you’re already making millions per year, a pay cut is not as serious an issue for you as it would be for someone who’s making five figures. Same principle as progressive taxation. Plus there’s the issue of responsibility: CEOs have decision-making power, and if their dunderhead decisions run the company into the ground, they should be more accountable than the rank-and-file employees who were just doing what they were told.

By the way, Michael Moore is not a “comedian”. He is not even primarily an “entertainer,” although he may be entertaining. He got his start in journalism and publishing.

As a young man, Mr. Moore edited a pro-labor newsletter in Flint, whose title I can’t recall at the moment. He then went to the West Coast to be the editor of Mother Jones magazine, and was promptly fired because he wanted to publish articles about factory workers.

He then became nationally known with his documentary, “Roger and Me,” which uses humorous narration to make a point. He has basically worked in documentaries and publishing ever since. “Canadian Bacon” is his only “entertainment” film; all his other work is non-fiction. His TV series “TV Nation,” although humorous, was 100% non-fiction. (The term “reality television” hadn’t been invented yet.)

Although Mr. Moore does use humor, wit and sarcasm in his presentations and in his material, so do Molly Ivins and Jim Hightower and, what the hell, Rush Limbaugh.

He is no more a “comedian” than they are.
:slight_smile:

126

I have to say the level of bile and hostility on this issue expressed between you all is simply :eek: astonishing to me from a European prospective.

Elsewhere on SD I was reading a thread about whether the majority, or rather the bias, of the SD boards was liberal or conservative (to use the standard US media speak - centre right or hard-right in Eurospeak). The conclusion seemed to be it has a liberal bias (perhaps because it is dedicated to fighting ignorance ;)).

More than anything it shows me the USA is a strange strange country where an internationally recognised universal human right such as the right of labour to organise should be so roundly attacked as “extortion” etc. The power of labour versus the power of undemocratic big business is simply pitiful, I would suggest a better target for your bile might be the true greed, corruption and outright criminal behaviour shown by so many senior executives of companies during the stock market bubble of which Enron and WorldCom is only the tip of the iceberg.

Labour Unions have a perfectly justifiable place in a “free” market if you define “freedom” as the right of companies to benefit from government subsidies (US and EC aggriculture), extraordinary levels of aid (airline industry post 9/11) and public spending that goes straight into the pockets of big business (the US “defence”. er war, budget). Get real guys!!

127

No…that’s not my response. But thanks for trying. I wasn’t trying to write a post that everyone would believe at face value… my experience on this board is that no matter how many newspaper articles you cite or reference…there is still a large population that won’t change their viewpoint and/or their biases no matter what the evidence.

My purpose in posting was to add fuel to already raging fire that shows that the original mission, vision and values of Labor Unions in this country has died…or more likely…isn’t needed to the extent is once was anymore…and here is an example that I witnessed first hand that has shaped my thinking.

However I do think you are correct in that I was quick to jump down tclouie’s throat for his/her request…it’s a fair question…which is why I offer an email address for anyone who wanted the answer.

128

I think what many others in the thread have posted is that it should not be “regardless of whether the reasons for the strike are reasonable or not”.

IOW, if the unions are striking because they don’t want to pay $25 a week towards health care coverage for their families, it can be a reasonable conclusion that the unions are being either greedy or short-sighted.

I would be more pro-union if they treated their employers a little less like robbers and a little more like the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Well, not exactly.

European unions are just as subject to the disciplines of the marketplace as any other entity.

I am sorry, but this does not make sense to me.

If health care were so expensive that no one could afford it, how is it that government will be able to afford it? What sources of revenue do you think that governments have available, apart from the taxes paid by their citizens?

It sounds very much like you are assuming that the Magic Health Care Fairy is going to wave her wand, and reduce the cost of health care. If she can do it for Uncle Sam, she can do it for me, and she doesn’t seem to be doing it for me.

There ain’t no free lunch. If medical costs are too high for anyone to afford, they will be too high for everyone to afford.

Same for unions. And for everyone else.

Regards,
Shodan

129

Notquitekarpov,

One thing I would like to point out to you and others is the HUGE difference between European Labor Unions/Works Councils and North American Labor Unions.

I had a project with a global manufacturing client company who was not doing well financially and they decided to cut 10% of their workforce across the board (mgmt, salaried and hourly).

Just about everyone I talked to knew that the company was in trouble and that workforce actions were coming and were necessary to ensure the long-term viablilty of the company.

At the company’s 8 European plants, discussions about the 10% reductions were civil, professional, logical, etc. At two of the European facilities, the local works council recommened that we cut MORE than the 10% of the workforce to improve the financial performance of the company and eliminate redundant positions.

At the North Amercian plants, discussions were chaos. They were illogical, emotional and the farthest thing from professional I could imagine. Threats of violence were common…and 1/3 of the plants used this situation as an opportunity to strike…discussions dragged out for months and as usual…productivity, quality and of course profitability at the North American plants decreased greatly. Damaging an already weakened company outlook.

Obviously there is a lot more background needed to fully explain the unique situations and history for each plant…both labor and management did not have a great history of good decision making IMO…but my overall point is: There isn’t near the same attitude of partnership and cooperation between North American labor unions as exists between European Labor Unions/Works Councils.

I think you see words like “extortion” and raw bitter emotion from both sides of the North American Labor/Management equation because of the lack of civility, professionalism and partnership that they have shown each other…unlike what you probably have witnessed in Europe.

130

Mr Obvious - to paraphrase your post, “One thing I would like to point out to YOU and others is the HUGE difference between European Labour Unions and Works Councils.”

They are very different beasts, Unions may be represented at EC Works Councils (only mandated in the EC outside the UK (and maybe one or two others) who opted out of the Directive) but Works Councils are not Unions and do not represent the interests of the workers as the primary function. I used to work for a company that generally did not recognised collective bargaining (one of the main points of being in a Union in the UK) but did have Works Councils so they could say all their European workforce was on level playfield. Only we were not, the WC was only advisory and therefore quickly became a mechanism for requesting more sodas in the fridge.

Generally outside the UK I would say co-operation of the Work Councils where it has happened has been where Unions are respected and their rights respected and not attacked. I agree it is a two way street but you can bet the EC unions did not become puppies because they were being marginalised by their employers at every turn.

I"ll think of your post the next time I see the French riot police hosing down protesting Unions with water cannon…

131

tclouie wrote

Even though I’ll agree with you that he’s not in the least bit funny, I believe I’ll take the liberty of continuing to refer to him as a member of the profession he’s chosen, namely a comedian. His movies are attempts at comedy. His book(s?) are attempts at comedy. He’s a comedian. And fyi, I would categorize Rush Limbaugh similarly.

Well, the article I cited was written by the same author within one week of your cite, on the exact same subject material. So even if it isn’t the same cite, mine is an actual cite that you can go check for your own rebuttal. As opposed to what you offered, where neither you nor I have actually seen what was supposedly said.

It contradicts exactly what you said. It states very clearly that during the previous year, the average CEO lost money – and a shit load of it at that – for the priviledge of working for his company. You claimed that the average CEO makes 411x what the average worker makes. So if the average worker makes $40k/year, you would expect the average CEO to make $16.4m. In fact, the average CEO lost over $15m.

Clearly for that year you’re flat-out wrong, and I have your author to thank for the research and information. Well, really not your author; your author is the comedian. But your author cited this author, who is clearly saying your comedian lied. (again, assuming what you stated was a quote from your cite, or rather your recollection of it. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here that this is Moore’s error, and not your own.)

Of course you don’t. It’s not your money. As long as you get your above-market (i.e. unfair by dictionary definition) union rates, why should you care if someone else loses money?

Ah, now you’re making sense: people should be held accountable for their actions, and should be rewarded or punished accordingly. And as it turns out, I completely agree with you: It’s fair that CEOs lost a shit-load of money that year. Just as it’s fair that they make a shit-load when they do well.

Further, I’m glad to see this people-are-responsible-for-their-own-actions side of you! Naturally, as you feel CEOs should be responsible for their own personal actions, you’ll agree that workers should be responible for their personal actions as well, and that since collective bargaining is the anti-thesis of individual responsiblity that it should immediately be disbanded. Yes?

132

I appreciate your note…good information to have…however one thing you’ve said is totally incorrect.

“Works Councils are not Unions and do not represent the interests of the workers as the primary function.”

I understand Works Councils are not Unions…however as this passage from the EU illustrates:

“In addition to the trade unions, and theoretically separate from them, are the works councils, which exist at the plant level as the elected representatives of all plant employees, whether or not they are union members. According to law, the works councils look after the economic, social, health, and cultural interests of employees. This, in practice, means involvement in matters of discipline, safety, sanitation, dismissal, and transfer, as well as the handling of grievances and the implementation of collective bargaining agreements. Works councils in corporations also have a voice in management, electing two members to the corporate board of directors with all the rights and duties of other directors.”

If you want to argue that some Works Councils are ineffective and don’t represent their workforce well…I can’t argue with that…I know of Labor Unions that suck at doing their job as well…but why else would a Works Council exist, but to represent their workforce?

133

Well, I should amend my comment a bit. I don’t exactly expect costs to climb so much nobody can afford it. Rather I would hope that people ( and this could even be CEO’s saddled with the expense of providing healthcare to their workers ) would get sufficiently exasperated at the system overall that they would insist on making national healthcare a not-for-profit priority and eliminate private health insurance entirely ( except perhaps as a boutique service ).

Yes, yes, I know - There is a cost to government burecracy. But whether it is a worse way to go is an open question to me at this point. I have less faith in free markets than some.

That’s because you don’t believe in her. You have to believe man, really believe. She can’t help you if you think she’s imaginary :p.

There is for you if you “dine and dash” :D.

That goes without saying, I would imagine ;).

  • Tamerlane
134

Story on Channel 4 in Los Angeles today:

Seems as if the strikers at “strip mall” stores are deliberately driving customers away from ALL stores in that mall.

So they’re not only hurting the supermarket company, they’re hurting the small businesses and employees of the non-striking stores.

Stores that have no say whatsoever in negotiations. Stores like a barber shop, or a pet shop, or a Thai restaurant, or maybe a mom-and-pop thrift store.

My question, not being that well schooled in union procedures: Could the union be sued for keeping customers away from a non-union business and driving it into bankruptcy? Or is there some special “no-liability” clause for unions and union workers?

135

IIRC it was a union that helped make the working conditions for mine workers more humane. So I think it’s fair to say that in the past there have been unions that were beneficial. But all 3 strikes that are happening in Los Angeles right now are union led. Do you think it’s possible that unions have run their course so to speak?

136

A fair response, but I think being “sufficiently exasperated at the system overall” is subject to the same objection. How is a system that a majority dislikes going to be improved by making it non-profit?

I have worked for health care systems that were not for profit, and know more than a little about the cost of government-paid health care vs. private paid health care. At the very least, there were no significant cost savings if the government paid - just the opposite, in fact. And, in my experience, government programs are much less responsive to the demands of the marketplace than private business.

That’s where you are wrong.

I never clapped when Tinkerbelle died in Peter Pan, and she came back to life anyway.

I don’t want to hijack this into a health care discussion. But I think a good big chunk of the reason health care costs so much is that people are insulated from seeing what they are spending directly. And the unions’ desire to continue that, by refusing to increase their contribution to family coverage, is a demonstration of that kind of magical thinking.

As I mentioned, I don’t want to hijack. Thanks for your thoughts, which are always interesting.

Regards,
Shodan

137

Alternately, could it be that the companies are squeezing all workers, and the unions are the only ones who have the leverage to fight back?

138

I, for one, wouldn’t want to cross 26 miles of open ocean to go shopping.

139

First, sorry for resurrecting the thread, but I was away.

I’m assuming that you also have cites that state these particular store’s insurance costs and the quality of the medical insurance offered to the store employees. Average paid by employees is a freaken meaningless number, as “insurance” varies between “everything paid” to “$10 co payments” to “no perscriptions, $1000 deductable before they pay anything, with a lifetime benefit of $10k”. I, myself, pay several hundred dollars a month towards my vary good insurance coverage. But there’s other coverage options that I would also balk at paying $5/week for.

If $5 a week is a significant portion of the premium, I would imagine that it’s on the shittier end of the scale. If it isn’t a significant portion, then I think that the national companies are testing the unions in a local market to see what their response would be to asking them to give an inch, so that in other markets they can try and take a mile.

Of course, you’re ignoring the fact that the three stores in question control 91% of the market in question. Therefore, their competition has to absorb the same costs that they do, so the poor union store doesn’t have to compete directly with a non-union threat. (Of the 9% of the market not controlled, a vast majority of it is taken up by Trader Joes, a specialty food store that traditionally doesn’t stock the same product lines as the major chains, and Gelson’s, a higher end store that already charges higher prices across the board than the poor union stores.)

-lv