Resolved: Unions are Big Smelly Bullies

You have unions to thank for weekends, eight hour workdays, overtime, safety, benefits, training, sick days, vacation days, right to have your greivances heard by someone other than the boss, and oh yes, higher pay.

All the laws mandating these things were urged by unions.

As for the argument that they aren’t needed anymore because we have all of this now, the answer is that non-union shops pay a lot less as a general rule. Moreover, doctors are now starting to unionize in face of finding out that they are in fact rather disrespected employees of HMOs taking instructions in treating their patients from college drop out insurance adjusters.

Aircraft mechanics are unionized. Airline pilots are unionized. Flight attendants are unionized. Baggage handlers are, I believe, unionized. The men and women who work on aircraft assembly are unionized. And they’re the ones losing out when airlines cut 100,000 jobs.

So if your precious free market works, why is the government giving the airline industries $15 billion in bailout money and they’re still cutting jobs?

Because unions, Olen, are seen by many to demand higher-than-market wages.

So then the companies find it necessary to get money from the government and lay off thousands of workers in order to remain competitive on the market. Right?

Pretty much, yep.

OK… so, if wages didn’t go far beyond “market level” companies wouldn’t have to seek government handouts and more workers would have jobs.

Two questions:

What is “market level”? How is it determined?

If not to push for higher wages, what is the role of a union?

That first question should be “What is ‘market level’ for wages?”

Well, the airline industry is certianly an exception in many things, but “market level” would most obviously not be defined as some sort of nonsensical national standard, but an area one; that is, what is the going rate for laborers who do this sort of work? Now, unlike—say—forklift operation, I’m sure many jobs in airports are somewhat unique, though we can certainly make a swift comparison between baggage handlers and, say, UPS employees; ticket clerks to cashiers in general; help desk people to, well, help desk people; and we all know management is the same everywhere anyway, right? :stuck_out_tongue:

If Continental decided they weren’t going to pay a penny more than $6.50 an hour for baggage handlers, they (the prospective employees) could go to some package company or general shipping area and get at least a few dollars higher—which, of course, are also unionized, so perhaps you can begin to see that once unions have entered the picture in wages the “market value” of labor loses any real meaning.

In something like fast food work, however, there are largely no unions so we see what unskilled labor generally goes for: about $7 an hour. But even that is a bit of a misnomer, because many union places will hire unskilled labor and provide higher salaries, so that $7 is even affected by competing with unions.

Of course, all that money has to come from somewhere. When an entire industry is affected by something, as the airline industry clearly was here, no amount of striking is going to create money, but the company is obviously locked into the slaries they must provide people. the trade-off then becomes: can we adjust salaries to respond to the labor market, or can we eliminate job stability? Because there’s no free lunch here.

But you knew all that; I know you did. What I can’t figure out is what you are getting at.

Now, the government, of course, has a vested interest in not losing and entire segment of the industry when there is nowhere that can absorb the labor: so, subsidies. Nevermind that airline travel isn’t just for people, bt all sorts of cargo all over the world. Our “just in time” society hinges on planes up and running, so unless we want to significantly change society for good we had better bail out the industry, who has been just barely keeping its head above water money wise (after years of being in the red).

But you probably knew that too. I feel you are ready to levy a large, powerful argument on me but I am not carrying a powerful enough flash light to see it.

As far as what unions are for, raising wages should be the last thing. That’s the damn employee’s job to get his own income. Unions, IMO, should be there to protect against practices which the government would like to if they could just manage some damn efficiency, like OSHA regulations, working-day regulations, overtime pay and handling, etc. But buddy, when it comes time for review, your performance should be under evaluation, not which union pin you wear on your shirt.

Are you saying, then, that the market level for wages is determined by whatever they’re getting paid?

It seems here that you’re saying company management should determine the market level for wages. Is that the case? If not, then what determines the market level for wages?

But why is that? What determines that rate? You’re saying what the market rate is; I’m asking why it is. Who, or what, sets it?

We can get into the role of unions and their effect on workplace issues such as pay and grievances later once we get the basic question here answered.

The market rate is set sort of by trial and error.

Employers offer compensation (wages, benefits, working conditions, and intangibles like job satisfaction - pretty much everything that a person might consider when deciding to accept or refuse a job). They then check to see if they are able to hire and retain enough employees to make a profit. If not, they raise the rate. If they have set the rate too high, they can pick and choose to get the ‘best’ for whatever job they need to fill. Or reduce the rates and save money.

Is this what you are asking? I get the feeling you are getting ready to make a point, but I don’t know what it is.

FWIW - unions exist mostly so that people in semi-skilled or unskilled jobs can exert leverage on their employers to get wages that they could not get on their own. Auto workers are more highly paid than workers in comparably skilled positions, because their unions have struck or threatened to do so, and are in a position to prevent the companies for which they work from replacing them with other workers who will work for less money.

No, I am not a member of any union. My current job is such that I am in enough demand that the threat of my leaving is enough to bring about an increase in my compensation that exceeds that which I could bring about by banding together and preventing my employers from replacing me with cheaper labor.

I no longer think of union vs. scab vs. management in moral terms. All parties involved, without exception, want more money. All strikes in America are about money. All strikes in America are designed to benefit those who are already part of the union at the expense of everyone else.

It is a mistake, in my view, to automatically identify any party in a labor dispute as the good guys or the bad ones. Usually they are both - or neither.

Is that what you were asking?

I get the feeling that you think that either
[ul]

  • the layoffs in the airline industry are union-busting tactics, or
  • unions are the first step in passing laws that prevent any company from laying off any workers, which will solve all labor problems.[/ul]

Or something. Feel free to expound; I am interested in finding out your point.

Regards,
Shodan

No one explicitly sets the market level for wages; it is a statistical average/agreement across an industry for what the work is worth. It is a combination of how many workers there are (typical macro supply and demand can effect wages, where “labor” is what is in demand and “laborers” supply it), how much the industry can afford to or desires to pay, and what the laborers themselves are willing to seel their labor for.

Remember our discussion about value being in the eye of the buyer? The market level for wages in theory demonstrates this. The advent of unions striking for wages, however, demolishes it by bringing a non-market-controlled element into the equation. Consider that unions, in effect, are the equivalent of an oligopoly in business. Both can do good things, and the mere existence of either does not ensure that shit will hit the fan, but it does guarantee that market forces no longer operate in the same manner.

So it is with the “labor theory of value” you espouse. Consider that unions are like a monopoly on labor, and they can use that monopoly power to their advantage at the expense of consumers of the laborers’ products.

The value of a dollar in a monpoly is not the same as a dollar in a free construct: its value no longer fluctuates in response to supply and demand of the industry and its market. What do you think?

I think there’s some kind of irony in this statement. It brought a grin to my face, at least.

That said, I have little else to add. I can think about this from both a management standpoint and a labor standpoint, and feel angry at the “other side” either way.