Using collective might for collective bargaining: that’s the point, really.
Representatives of people who would otherwise have no representation (thanks for pointing that out to me, yojimbo): good.
Public sector workers’ unions using their position to fuck up everyone’s life because they’re in the position to do it (as opposed to, say, workers in a jam factory): not so good.
Refusing to use email for 5 years because “it would make us more efficient, and we’re not being paid for our greater efficiency”: really not that good.
Holding out for totally unrealistic pay deals leading to employers’ withdrawal of the place of employment to a non-unionized environment: silly.
Attempting to bring down democratically elected governments in order to set up Socialist republics: naughty.
Part of our company is union. Strange workings. Contract came up for renewal. Negotiations were done. They voted no on the contract on the advice of union officials. Planned to strike. We sent non-union workers in to be in place in case the strike went through. They renegotiated again for one day. Set up to vote on the contract again. Union officials encouraged a yes vote to the contract and it was passed. Thing is nothing was changed on the contract from the first vote. They saw the non-union workers coming in and decided that they would rather take the contract than lose the jobs. I read the contract. The benefits aren’t as good as what the other workers in the company have. But there’s no way those union officials are gonna let go of those people, even though they are hurting them more than helping then.
We were told by a higher up that he didn’t even understand what it was all about because they knew they were going to accept the original contract from the beginning. A show for the public was all it was.
I remember when my then-girlfriend entered business school, and literally on her first day, the entire incoming class got a lecture on dirty tricks for union-busting. If I wasn’t already pro-union, that cinched it for me.
There’s an experiment I read once that’s kind of interesting. Get a group of 30 people or so, and tell them that you’ll give a million dollars to any pair of people who bring you a pink slip of paper and a white slip of paper. Hand out 25 pink slips of paper (representing workers) and 5 white slips of paper (representing employers). Tell people that they can only make deals with one another in good faith, but the object of the game is to get as much money as they can: you’re trying to determine the values of the pink slips of paper and the white slips of paper.
If everyone plays the game well, the pink slips of paper will be worth $0.01, and the white slips will be worth $999,999.99. You can change the proportions – requiring four pink slips to every white slip, for example – and the results will still be the same.
Now change the rules slightly: allow the pink slips to unionize. The value of the pink slips and white slips is no longer rigid: as long as you have fewer than 5 pink-slip-holders opt out of the union, though, you’ll see the pink-slip-holders get a lot more of the 1 million bucks. If five people opt out, though, the value of pink slips goes back down to one penny apiece.
That was, for me, the best representation of why unions are important.
Daniel
He was a manager, so it didn’t affect him, but once the workforce voted in the union, Corp HQ was making noises about just shutting the place down and transferring the equipment to one of their other factories. They may do that yet. No matter to us, tho, as my husband starts his new job with a different company next week.
Trouble is, the pink/white slip combinations are only worth $500,000 on the open market to begin with, and the consumers pick up the the extra $500,000.
Danielwithrow, when the pinks unionize, how much of the money do they get? Do they get all of it? Is there any inherent reason why the pinks are worth more than $0.01?
I think the value of unions is directly related to unemployment. Higher unemployment allows more abuses by management, unions can help prevent that. Low unemployment makes unions unnecessary as people can easily move from job to job if the terms are unacceptable. When times are good, unions foster an adversarial relationship between management and worker, which is not in anybody’s best interest.
FairyChatMom is on the right track here. A business contact and very good friend moved from York PA to nowhere MS specificaly because of the union. The plant in question was up and operating in York PA for almost 50 years. The union has been in that plant for as long as my buddy has been working for them. (almost 30 years) The company in question finally said they could no longer afford to pay the astronomical prices for labor (almost 35 dollars an hour). They literally picked that plant up welded the equipment to railway cars and moved it here to Mississippi.
My take on the unions? Do what you want but when your job no longer exist don’t say I didn’t say I told you so. By the way Mississippi is still the last jumping off point for companys moving to Mexico and China so while we typically haven’t been very strong in manufacturing we are getting there. If the unions ever make it down here the companys will be gone. They are already doing it now.
I too am a little disturbed at the reason for this current strike. I mean, have they read any of the fucking press on health care costs? They are skyrocketing! Workers have to shoulder SOME of the burden. Furthermore, when we (as employees) have to pay for some of the cost of our care, we have an incentive help keep costs down. The copay burden should not be so great that we will forgo care that we need, but they should provide a disincentive for abusers to not take advantage health care resources.
Jesus christ.
Our graduate student employee union got their panties in a twist over the same goddamn issue. Nobody likes to pay more, you fucking nitwits, but the university is paying millions more. They’re taking most of the hit themselves, in a year when the state is TAKING BACK MONEY they previously appropriated to us. So you have to pay an extra fucking five bucks when you go to the doctor? GET OVER YOUR FUCKING SELF.
I have to confess I’ve had a long-time beef with the GEO (the grad union). Most galling to me is their propensity towards melodrama and hyperbole. When they issue emails and flyers, you’d think they were freedom fighters in central america. Their language of oppression, etc, is so fucking laughable.
No, actually, it’s not just laughable, it’s offensive. I understand the value of unions to some kinds of workers. I once worked in a situation where I felt totally fucked and powerless, in a job I needed, and I fantasized about what organizing with my colleagues in other offices might do for fairness and well-being. But jesus, most of these people are in grad school for a few fucking years. Ten at the most, and then only if they’re dysfunctional morons like me. They will graduate. With their post-baccalaureate degrees, they will go on to be in an elite segement of society with white color jobs. No, they may not earn a huge annual salary, but for most of them their vacation, sick pay, maternity leave, retirement benefits and the like will probably be on par with other professionals. So, IMHO, for them to appropriate the language of the whipped peasant working in the sugarcane fields is OBNOXIOUS.
I’ve got another story about our local union, but I’ve ranted enough. I can see their office window from my office window, so I am going to flip them the bird and then take deep cleansing breaths until I stop seeing red.
Cranky, this GE strike was negotiated in the last contract, it is a 48 hour only strike, and GE employees haven’t gone on strike since 1969.
In addition, GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt, made $87.4 million in total compensation 2001, and the company reported a projected profit of $15.1 billion in 2002.
So I really think that this cash-strapped company needs to shift a fair amount of health care costs to the employee. It’s only fair.
From the article it looks to me like GE is shouldering about 80-90% of the healthcare increase. That sounds pretty darn fair to me. Of course, since they’re profitable, they should just give more and more to the workers, it’s not like the shareholders should ever make money on their investment.
As a matter of fact, yes GE should pay the entire increase. Perhaps they should take the increase out of their CEO’s compensation package.
I think you’re right about unemployment being related to the need for a union, although there are also tiers of employment: if there are more people who can do skilled jobs than there are employers for skilled employees, then those employers have a pool of virtually unemployed people who compete against one another for low wages.
As for the first question, you’d expect the unionized pink slips to go to the white slips and say, “Look: there’s a pot of $5 million at stake, and both of us have to cooperate to get it. Let’s negotiate a fair amount for both of us.” If either side refuses to negotiate, nobody gets any money; so both sides have an interest in giving the other side a palatable deal.
MacroMan, when you say:
I have no idea what you mean. The open market consists of consumers and vendors, right? So if consumers are willing to pay an extra $500,000 (for a total of $1 million), then how on earth do you arrive at an open-market value of $500,000?
Daniel
and
So by your logic, when GE does not have such a spectacular year, they can put the premiums back to the employees? After all, fair is fair.
How about taking the amount that GE currently spends on health benefits for each employee, increases their salary by the same amount, and then provides no health coverage. Let the employees find their own without the benefit of a group program. Lots of luck…
And besides - if the person managing my money was able to provide almost a 26% return on my investment, I would make sure he or she was well compensated for it.
Ah yes, unions. The guys who volunteer to help you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs in return for dues.
Regards,
Shodan
We could also behead the CEO and distribute his wealth to the surfs. Look, It’s not as simple as “Well, the CEO has more money than seems fair, let’s take it away. Problem solved.” It would be the equivalent of coming after me and forcing me to pay the auto insurance of coworkers who didn’t make quite as much.
Whether a CEO is overpaid or not is a moot point. His compensation is separate from any pool of funds that would go toward health care costs. For better or for worse, he has a legally binding contract.
I’m not commenting on the fairness of the healthcare situation here, just on this Robin Hood fallacy.
Yes, you’re right, the CEO is making too much, we wouldn’t want to overpay him. It’s not like he can take his skills to another company who wants to make a few billion dollars in profit, and actually pay him to make that happen. Fuck, he’s totally replacable, anyone can be a CEO, what’s the worst that can happen, bankruptcy?
Heck, there’s lots of money here, let’s just give everyone a 10% raise while were at it. We have buckets and buckets of money and that will never ever change. Never in the history of the world has a successful company become unsuccessful, and had to fire thousands of people or go completely under.
There’s a reason why HE is a CEO and you’re not. Putting you in charge of running a company is a guarantee of losing your investment. Getting loose and stupid with money during good years just makes bad years harder to get through.
Danielwithrow, I’m wondering if the union might just say to the 5 whites “we’ll take $4.9M and you get the rest”. Unions (and management) are not known for being all that fair, they just squeeze the other side for all they’re worth. That’s one of the things I hate about unions, the adversarial relationship all but guarantees that fairness doesn’t get discussed. With low unemployment, management can’t squeeze too hard because people will just leave.
As for choosing between the evils of Unions or Upper Management, I’ll though my lot in with upper management. Whether they do so by choice or by necessity, their treatment of employees must at least pass legal scrutiny.
I’ve seen my fare share of intimidation and destruction by unions, and to the best of my knowledge this doesn’t pass legal muster.
I’ll also misspell half the words in my post…
I have no problem with the rights of workers to band together to demand fair treatment, unfair treatment, or whatever they want to demand. What i have a problem with is their strongarm tactics of preventing by force the company from seeking to replace them with someone who is willing to work for what is offered.
Cheesesteak you are kidding right? Please tell me you’re kidding.
I can not believe that anyone can justify a $87.4 million/year compensation package. Unless Immelt is shitting gold coins, there is absolutely no justification for that kind of compensation.
As for whether unions are good/bad I used to believe that unions were a bad thing. Until I move to TX with the fallacy of “right to work”. Right to work my ass. I’ve never encountered a system that was so thoroughly designed to fuck the employee as “right to work”.
For example, a manufacturing plant in Houston whose product I’ll bet about 50% of the folks on this board have in their homes fired three people who discussed under their breath the idea of unionization. In addition probably >80% of it’s employees were illegals with fake SSN and everyone knew it. But it sure kept costs down, as there were employees who had gotten a total of $.10/hour raise in 5 years.
But hell, who gives a shit, the salaried guys were making good cash.
Fuck living wages. After all, the peons got pizza for working overtime. Bastards, they should have been happy to have a job at all.