Shove it up your collectively bargained asses

[Dead_Badger]

@Kimstu

No, but the unions have such agreements with a lot of theaters and producers in Toronto, and that’s the type of agreement they’re also pushing for with Blue Man.

And I don’t particularly have a problem with those agreements, as long as they’re not borne of monopoly duress. In answer to your question of whether the objection is to the union’s negative tactics; yes, that is exactly the problem. They are, in my view, abusing their position to try and force Blue Man Group to sign an exclusivity agreement, which is just wrong.

I should have said “If Blue Man ends up signing with the unions, and you want to see a show in Toronto with non-union theater workers, you can go see something that isn’t the Blue Man Group at a non-union venue.”

Well, no disagreement here; my only query would be whether the Blue Man Group producers were able to enter into such an agreement free of monopolistic pressure. I would similarly be incensed if (say) ClearChannel Canada refused to hire anyone who was a member of a union, since that would be an almost identical abuse.

[CandidGamera]

@Kimstu

Why do people consider this type of union tactic okay when workers are being seriously abused in sweatshops, but not when a union’s just trying to expand its power? Even if you do see a significant moral distinction between the two situations, how are you suggesting such union tactics could be regulated in practical terms, so that they would be allowed in the first case but not in the second?

Well, the Government can regulate wages, work conditions, etc. to meet certain minimums based on the standard of living for an area.

Unions came about to prevent companies from riding roughshod over the workers - that is a noble and good goal, and they’re pretty effective. But that power they’ve put together lets them ride roughshod over the companies in return. And they sometimes do that.

So, the government can step in, prevent the workers from being trampled, and prevent the companies from being bankrupted.

Seriously, if the local Kroger’s grocery stores here had made the choice to go non-union last year during a strike, they’d all be out of business now.

[Dead_Badger]

@Kimstu

Well, how is a union in, say, an abusive sweatshop supposed to negotiate a better deal for workers, except by exercising monopoly control over the sweatshop’s entire labor market? The only time an employer needs to listen to a union is when the union can say “You can’t keep your doors open without my members, so you have to agree to my terms.” If there’s enough non-union labor available to fill the jobs, the union’s demands just get ignored.

You are describing a situation of monopoly employment, whereby the sweatshop owner is in effect the only employer in the local economy. In this situation it is indeed less worrying for the labour force to effectively fight fire with fire. However, it would be far better in my opinion to have a regulatory environment whereby monopolistic actions by any corporate entity (and that includes unions) is addressable under law. I’d far rather have neither side acting monopolistically than both, and believe this is achievable.

This still doesn’t address the situation above, however, in which only one side, the union, is abusing a monopolistic position. I do believe, as you suggest I might, that it is a completely different moral situation.

[Cheesesteak]

@Dead Badger

And I don’t particularly have a problem with those agreements, as long as they’re not borne of monopoly duress.

Are there any union agreements that can be made without monopoly duress? That’s the entire point of a union, to take the labor pool, bring them together to a single entity and bargain as equals, rather than as corporation to individual. Without the monopoly aspect, the union is just a small, high cost, sub group of the labor pool, completely without bargaining power.

[Kimstu]

Kimstu: *If you seriously believe that unions have no right to lean on businesses for anything except the basic protection of the most fundamental workers’ rights, then you’d probably be better off advocating for stronger labor regulation across the board by government and the elimination of unions altogether. *

CG: Well, the Government can regulate wages, work conditions, etc. to meet certain minimums based on the standard of living for an area. […] So, the government can step in, prevent the workers from being trampled, and prevent the companies from being bankrupted.

DB: **t would be far better in my opinion to have a regulatory environment whereby monopolistic actions by any corporate entity (and that includes unions) is addressable under law. *

Well, somewhat surprisingly, we all seem to be on more or less the same page here: the way to deal with monopolistic tactics by unions is to improve regulatory protection of workers, so that we don’t need unions exerting “monopoly duress” to keep workers from being exploited.

[Dead_Badger]

@Cheesesteak

Are there any union agreements that can be made without monopoly duress? That’s the entire point of a union, to take the labor pool, bring them together to a single entity and bargain as equals, rather than as corporation to individual. Without the monopoly aspect, the union is just a small, high cost, sub group of the labor pool, completely without bargaining power.

Well, no; it’s still possible to form groups without completely uniting; the concept of competition amongst unions is hardly an absurd one. It’s when the unions get together to stamp out the very possibility of anyone working in an entire city (or country, or industry) without joining them that they move beyond collective bargaining and into outright monopoly. I, as a member of the workforce, would like to have the choice of which union to join, or whether to join one at all. If I were a Canadian theatre worker, they would be trying to remove that right from me. Why should my right to negotiate terms with an employer be abrogated simply because other potential employees say so? Isn’t that the very antithesis of a competitive market? How does this benefit employees? If the union no longer has to offer a benefit to its members to get them to join, but can merely force them to do so by monopolistic practices, what good is it?

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@yoyodyne

Not only that, but Coke and Pepsi make payments or price reductions to venues as the incentive to sign an exclusivity agreement. Unions typically have the opposite, a higher cost disincentive.

With the result often being better paid and better treated stiffs actually doing the work. Heaven forbid someone put the interests of the stiffs over the corporation/company.

And as far as monopolis go, that’s bullshit. There typically is more than one ‘union shop’ company in a town offering the same services, and they still have to put in bids to be awarded the contract. No one is saying you have to go with Company A and that’s your final offer. They’re saying you have to choose between Company A, B, C, D, etc. because their employees enjoy the benefits of a union. The non-union shops have the unfair advantage over union shops when it comes to bidding because they offer their workers less money and less in the way of benefits typically, and could even put less people on the job, so their bids are considerably lower.
I don’t understand why so many people have more sympathy for companies than they do for the people they employ.

@Airman Doors

But the vast majority of them are total, unmitigated bullshit, just a group of professional extortionists.

I work for a union. I’ve dedicated my life to bettering the existance of workers-- through getting better pay, benefits, job security, respect, pensions, paid time off, and a voice on the job. I have never in my life extorted anyone. And I have never seen any of my peers or superiors extort anyone either. Believe me, if we could and did, it would make our struggle a hell of a lot easier.

But extortion is illegal. Am I saying it hasn’t happened? No. But when it does, it is resolved, through legal measures, as well as internally. But every day unions-- and by unions I’m talking about organizations run by working men and women, with leadership elected by those very same working men and women-- are acting within the law.

Do illegal things happen at the corporate level? Yes. Therefore are corporations bullshit, too? When illegalities and corruption is discovered at the corporate level, it is remedied through legal matters, same as with any other organization. And in fact I’d wager there is a lot more government regulation, as well as self-regulation, of labor unions than with corporations. I speak here knowing how much, seemingly endless, paperwork I have to fill out to justify my expenditures, whereabouts, travel, and activities every freaking week.

Do illegal things happen in the military? Yes. Is the military bullshit, too? When people carelessly paint a picture of the military with a wide brush, I’m sure it offends you-- as it does me-- because it overgeneralizes, and it belittles the good work you and most of the other people who have dedicated themselves to the protection of their country. Similarly, when people carelessly paint a picture of organized labor with a wide brush, it offends me, because it belittles the millions of people who are members of unions; as well as the employees of unions, who have dedicated themselves to the protection of workers.

Happy

[Weirddave]

@Dead Badger

Well, no; it’s still possible to form groups without completely uniting; the concept of competition amongst unions is hardly an absurd one. It’s when the unions get together to stamp out the very possibility of anyone working in an entire city (or country, or industry) without joining them that they move beyond collective bargaining and into outright monopoly. I, as a member of the workforce, would like to have the choice of which union to join, or whether to join one at all. If I were a Canadian theatre worker, they would be trying to remove that right from me. Why should my right to negotiate terms with an employer be abrogated simply because other potential employees say so? Isn’t that the very antithesis of a competitive market? How does this benefit employees? If the union no longer has to offer a benefit to its members to get them to join, but can merely force them to do so by monopolistic practices, what good is it?

And therein lie the crux of the matter. As entities formed to protect their members from outright abuse and violation of their rights, Unions were vital. However, those protections are now provided by government fiat, and unions had to cast around for other justifications for their existence. They settled on wages, and thereby caused a fascinating paradox: Unions cost people jobs. Look at the Blue Man Group situation. If unions are able to force BMG to run a union shop, their current non-union employees will lose their jobs. Also, theater costs will likely rise, leading to less staff being hired (simple supply and demand: If the cost of something (labor) is set artificially above market price, then less of it will be purchased). Ultimately, Unions can drive companies out of business-they inflate labor cost so much that the company is no longer competitive, and it folds. Everybody loses their job. Unions are frequently a good example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. I’m not even going to get into how many unions now function as political machines, funneling millions of the dollars they extort from their members into specific political causes, regardless of weather or not the individual worked supports those causes. The whole worm riddled union apple is rotten, and needs to be tossed in the trash.

[Weirddave]

@Happy Lendervedder

I work for a union. I’ve dedicated my life to bettering the existance of workers-- through getting better pay, benefits, job security, respect, pensions, paid time off, and a voice on the job. I have never in my life extorted anyone.

If you have ever forced a worker to join a union as a condition of employment and then proceded to automatically deduct union dues from his check, than this statement is a bald faced lie. You extort from people each and every day. You can tell yourself it’s “for their own good”, but don’t be blind to what it is you’re doing.

[CarnalK]

*Wierddave said:*The whole worm riddled union apple is rotten, and needs to be tossed in the trash.

But corporate and government troughing are things to be fixed not abolished, I presume? Or should we toss the banking corporations in the trash, perhaps the mutual fund companies, maybe the energy industry. Perhaps Iran-Contra showed us the whole fed government is worm riddled, toss it?

[Weirddave]

@CarnalK

But corporate and government troughing are things to be fixed not abolished, I presume? Or should we toss the banking corporations in the trash, perhaps the mutual fund companies, maybe the energy industry. Perhaps Iran-Contra showed us the whole fed government is worm riddled, toss it?

Nice strawman. Whatever problems corporate America, or the U.S. or state governments might have have no bearing on a rant about unions. If you have a specific beef with a corporation, post a thread. If it’s interesting, maybe I’ll post to it.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Happy Lendervedder

Similarly, when people carelessly paint a picture of organized labor with a wide brush, it offends me, because it belittles the millions of people who are members of unions; as well as the employees of unions, who have dedicated themselves to the protection of workers.

If the goal is actually to protect workers then more power to you. However, all too often I see it as protection pf workers paychecks regardless of the sense it makes. Great for the worker to be sure but crappy for pretty much everyone else. The company is less competitive and consumers of the product are forced to pay higher prices for the product.

The government has largely dealt with the horrors of sweatshops and the like in the US. Minimum wage laws, child labor laws, OSHA guidelines, anti-discrimination laws and so on.

My brother was forced to join a union when he was 16 and working as a bag boy at a local grocery store. Did being in the union do him any good? Nope, he hated them as all he “got” out of it was the union dipping into his paycheck.

I have worked convention shows in Chicago where a union electrician came by and made me unplug the computer I had plugged in. Then we had to wait 1.5 hours for a union electrician to come by and plug in the PC. My client was pissed as he was paying my company $300/hr (there were more than just me there) to sit on our asses till we got something plugged in.

My mother tried to hire some members of the Chicago Symphony for a benefit she was organizing. She wanted 8 (IIRC) and they said she had to take 12. It did not matter if she wanted only 8, she was paying for 12 like it or not.

My dad bought a bookshelf for his office some years back. Part of the deal was the vendor would deliver and assemble the bookshelf free of charge. The kid who came into his office to do this had forgotten some tool or other and had the staff call the building engineer to see if he lend him the tool. The engineer came up, asked the kid to show his union card and then asked him to leave when he said he was not part of a union. My dad then had to hire the building staff to assemble the bookshelf (my dad is totally inept at that sort of thing) which cost him about as much as the bookshelf did in the first place.

The economy DOES run better with rules but I do not see unions helping matters at all. The US economy has shown itself to be more nimble in responding to economic changes than other countries because it is not as locked into unionized protectionism as other countries are (witness France for example). Yes it can be rough on many people as they lose jobs but they retrain themselves or do whatever to move into other jobs. An organization that tries to minimize the flow of workers is ultimately not good for anyone and can even harm its own members as they force businesses to outsource ro move to other countries or just plain go out of business.

[Kimstu]

HL: I have never in my life extorted anyone.*

Wd: If you have ever forced a worker to join a union as a condition of employment and then proceded to automatically deduct union dues from his check, than this statement is a bald faced lie.

Really? Requiring workers to assume certain obligations as a condition of employment is “extorting” them? Is it equally “extortion” if it’s your employer that requires it instead of your union?

As for union-worker horror stories, everbody’s got some union-worker horror stories. Everybody’s got some corporate-policy horror stories too, but I don’t see them making sweeping generalizations that corporations are useless or “not good for anyone”, as Whack-a-Mole appears to claim about unions.

No, it’s certainly not a strawman to make comparisons to corporations in a rant about unions. In fact, that’s been a central issue in this discussion since I first brought it up in post #2: why do people get so vehemently bent out of shape about problems with unions, when the same or similar problems in the case of companies are generally just accepted as an inevitable fact of business life?

[RickJay]

@Kimstu

CG: Coke people and their sympathizers don’t picket you for daring to choose to serve Pepsi.

They would if they thought it would work. Is it really just the negativity of the marketing strategy that’s bothering you here?

If Coke tried to set up a picket line of a Pepsi business the picketers would be arrested and imprisoned. Union line pickets usually involve actually physically preventing people, with force, from entering the establishment. I’ve seen a few example, and they’re nasty. Only striking workers, for some reason, are allowed to get away with this.

[Zebra]

@Whack-a-Mole

The government has largely dealt with the horrors of sweatshops and the like in the US. Minimum wage laws, child labor laws, OSHA guidelines, anti-discrimination laws and so on.

HA! Do you really believe this? Are these laws being enforced by the Bush administration?

Come on. The current adminstration is really big on posting voluntary guidelines for businesses to follow. Guess what? They don’t volunteer.

Howard Radzely of the Department of Labor said that under DOL rules employers had to provide adequate rest room facilites but did require employers to allow employees access to the rest rooms.
Still the government is protecting workers?

[Standup_Karmic]

It seems to me that a union is a business like any other. It’s inventory is workers. If it wants companies to buy its product, then it needs to have some kind of competetive advantage. Picketing and endorsing boycotts is most decidedly not a competetive advantage.

There are those who buy a Pontiac rather than a Kia, a Cadillac rather than a Pontiac, or a Bentley rather than a Cadillac. Why? Because they perceive value in it. What value does the union provide to the company who buys their product - the workers? Are their workers better trained? More productive? Do they in any way contribute to giving the company a competetive advantage over its own competitors and make it more profitable?

This isn’t GD, and I’m entirely too busy this week to go looking for cites, but limited experience and a plethora of anecdotes tells me that unionized environments tend to be less productive on average. Is there any benefit to the company to employ union workers, or does this serve the employee alone?

Furthermore, I detest the “seniority” standard of advancement in pay and position. By this reasoning, as a Canadian, I should only be permitted to buy my household wares and clothing from the Hudson’s Bay Company (they were established in 1670 after all). They have vast seniority over The Gap, Pegabo, Mexx, and various other stores I like to frequent, therefore they must be eminently most qualified to earn my shopping dollar.

Kimstu: Really? Requiring workers to assume certain obligations as a condition of employment is “extorting” them? Is it equally “extortion” if it’s your employer that requires it instead of your union?

Yes. It is extorting them. The union has through some means (be it reasonable negotiation or strongarm tactics) established that it is the only way to a job at a particular shop. And by God you will pay them key money to get in that door. It is extortion because it is not the union that is employing them. It is “representing their interests.” And if you want your interests represented, you better pony up some of your pay. Sounds like a very close cousin of protection money to me.

Regarding the Coke/Pepsi exclusivity and its comparability with union/non-union, it most certainly is not a valid comparison. A valid comparison would be if Pepsi came into a university and said, “you will sell Pepsi, or not only will you not sell any cola at all, you will not teach any students. We’ll be damned if we let 'em across the picket line.”

[Kimstu]

RickJay: Union line pickets usually involve actually physically preventing people, with force, from entering the establishment.

Then that is illegal, and should be addressed by the police:

The Taft-Hartley Labor Act (1947), however, outlawed mass picketing (i.e., the use of force and intimidation to prevent people from crossing picket lines) and it limited the use of pickets by outlawing secondary boycotts (i.e. using pickets against a third party that might force an employer to settle a strike). Although picketing raises a number of issues under the First Amendment right to free speech, court decisions have generally prohibited the use of vile and obscene language and of threatening gestures by the pickets.

However, nothing in the OP’s link suggests that the “informational picket” established by Toronto theater workers infringed the law in any way or involved any use of force whatsoever, and it certainly didn’t prevent anybody from entering the picketed establishment.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@Weirddave

If you have ever forced a worker to join a union as a condition of employment and then proceded to automatically deduct union dues from his check, than this statement is a bald faced lie. You extort from people each and every day. You can tell yourself it’s “for their own good”, but don’t be blind to what it is you’re doing.

So, if you work in the US, you automatically pay income tax as a condition of you working here. Thereby, under your reasoning, this is government extortion. Even more so, because a Canadian citizen that works in the US doesn’t have the right to vote, despite being forced to pay something out of his or her check. You don’t pay taxes, you go to jail, right?

But if enough of the members of a union want to have an open shop, or even decertify the union, as long as they’re dues paying members, they have the power of their vote.

@Weirddave

If you have ever forced a worker to join a union as a condition of employment and then proceded to automatically deduct union dues from his check, than this statement is a bald faced lie.

I wanted to requote that one sentence and say ‘fuck you’ for calling me a bald-faced liar. I don’t force anyone to join the union as a condition of their employment. It’s the contract that the workers and management agree to that requires this. Get it? As a condition of employment, both the workers and management agree that this should be a closed shop. If one of those two parties (either a majority of the workers or management) didn’t agree to this condition, it would not be there. And not all contracts do require this (either because of state law or the will of the workers).

But I repeat, I have never extorted anything from anyone.

But if your state legislature feels that that is okay to allow closed shops, and you don’t feel it’s okay, it’s your right as a citizen to work to change that law.

[Kimstu]

SK: The union has through some means (be it reasonable negotiation or strongarm tactics) established that it is the only way to a job at a particular shop. And by God you will pay them key money to get in that door. It is extortion because it is not the union that is employing them.

In other words, the union has established a contractual agreement with the employer that it will hire only workers belonging to the union. Therefore, in order for the employer to fulfill its contract with the union, you must join the union when the company hires you. [On preview: As HL has explained in more detail above.]

So? As most people would say about any other employer-imposed condition of employment—say, mandatory health insurance coverage with an expensive premium—“If you don’t like it, you don’t have to take the job.” Why does this vitriolic ire spew forth only when unions are involved?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Kimstu

SK: The union has through some means (be it reasonable negotiation or strongarm tactics) established that it is the only way to a job at a particular shop. And by God you will pay them key money to get in that door. It is extortion because it is not the union that is employing them.

In other words, the union has established a contractual agreement with the employer that it will hire only workers belonging to the union. Therefore, in order for the employer to fulfill its contract with the union, you must join the union when the company hires you. [On preview: As HL has explained in more detail above.]

And how was that relationship established? You people have gone to great lengths to point out that the unions are a check on businesses, so why would they want unions there, exactly? Of course, they don’t, which leads one to believe that the union made it a point to push that upon the business. In other words, they are maintaining a relationship where anyone who works at that company has to pay the union dues whether they want to or not.

So? As most people would say about any other employer-imposed condition of employment—say, mandatory health insurance coverage with an expensive premium—“If you don’t like it, you don’t have to take the job.” Why does this vitriolic ire spew forth only when unions are involved?

Demonstrate to me that there are companies that MANDATE health care. Just one company that makes you get it but won’t pay for it.

This vitriol spews forth because the costs of a union are passed on to me, I have to pay them what is more or less protection money if I work for them, and they close the doors for other people to work somewhere unless they pay their “dues”.

So, if you work in the US, you automatically pay income tax as a condition of you working here. Thereby, under your reasoning, this is government extortion. Even more so, because a Canadian citizen that works in the US doesn’t have the right to vote, despite being forced to pay something out of his or her check. You don’t pay taxes, you go to jail, right?

Taxes provide services for the common good (although I disagree with a lot of that, too). And yes, it is in fact government extortion. If a Canadian works here, he pays here, same as I would if I worked in Canada. Canadians do not have a natural right to work here, any more than I do in Canada, and that right to work has a price: he has to pay taxes.

But this isn’t about taxes. It’s about the strongarm tactics of labor unions.