Unions in America: When did the narrative change?

Japan also has a very strong culture where workers are expected to work their asses off for their employer. Japanese auto makers also have bonus systems for employees that work harder, and even with all that Japanese workers make significantly less than UAW workers - especially when you add in vacation time, retirement packages and other benefits.

You’ll notice that the German cars are generally more expensive than their domestic counterparts. Also, German manufacturers make a lot of their cheaper cars in the U.S., and all located their plants in right-to-work states. If you read the article linked to the article above, you’ll see that they do that because they found the UAW’s rules to be non-productive. It’s not just about salary - it’s about work rules, benefits, and especially seniority rules that prevent the worst workers from being fired and which prevent the plant from operating at peak efficiency.

The big difference in the way German and Japanese unions work in those countries is that they are much more flexible than the UAW. They have performance bonuses, employee evaluations that lead to reward or punishment, etc.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest drawbacks to what unions have been doing in North America. The big unions take an adversarial stance with management, and they agitate their workers with tales of management malfeasance in order to maintain their power. The result is they always have to show a ‘win’ whenever they go into negotiations. Once they got their salaries as high as was feasible, they shifted their tactics to negotiating for work rules that benefited the members at the expense of the company, and for retirement benefits that are more likely to be agreed to by short-sighted managers who won’t have to deal with the pain of the benefit for years or decades. This is especially true with the public unions, because they understand how politicians think.

And that’s a good thing. Do we really see the gold standard of American working life to be sitting at a bench making clothes by hand for minimum wage? On the other hand, garment manufacture is something the 3rd world can do, and allowing them to do so gives them a chance to start building an infrastructure and a middle class. It’s all good.

Most jobs like this weren’t killed due to outsourcing anyway. Automation and assembly line work eliminated them. The number of people employed on farms is a tiny fraction of what it used to be. As someone who did manual labor on a farm for years, I’m waving a tiny flag in support of the machines.

Except modern labor parties tend to just be mouthpieces for the unions, because that’s how they get their funding. Labor governments in Britain in the 60’s and 70’s encourages so much union power that it nearly wrecked their economy.

Big deal. When you have a major power imbalance, you find a way to turn it to your advantage. So if you can’t negotiate for wages directly, you negotiate for better retirement benefits work rules that allow you to claim more overtime, more vacation time, personal time, job security, whatever. In the end, it all comes down to increasing the cost of the worker to the public.

Here in Alberta, Nurses haven’t been able to get much in the way of raises for the past 5 years (although neither has anyone else in the recession). So instead, they negotiated for more sick days, more personal days, and rules that paid them more for shift work and overtime. Then many nurses translated that into pay by taking sick time or personal time during their normal shifts, then signing up for replacement shifts at time and a half or double time. They work the same hours as before, but for much more pay. You can always find a way if you have the power.

This shift to negotiating for complex, favorable work rules is perhaps the most destructive thing the unions are doing today. It’s killing flexibility, increasing management overhead, and making the system less efficient. Firing a nurse in Alberta is almost impossible, even in egregious cases. There are nurses who fight constantly with each other, who constantly call in sick, who show up to work late and leave early all the time, and who are very lax with patient care.

If a manager gives them a hard time about it, they file a grievance with the union, which triggers a complex series of hearings and meetings which generally result in the union agreeing to some sort of performance improvement plan, which of course the managers have to come up with and implement. As soon as it’s in place, the nurses’ record is swept clean. So they start the shenanigans all over again. And often, if the manager sticks to his or her guns and demands the nurse be removed from the unit, what will happen is that the nurse will be allowed to transfer to another unit, and no record of the previous infractions are allowed to be transmitted to the new unit so they won’t be ‘biased’. The nurse gets a completely fresh start.

Managers understand this, so they often don’t even bother. They just work around the dead wood. And they view internal transfers of nurses with suspicion, so they don’t often request them. Better the devil you know.

Also, the lax rules around sick time and personal time, coupled with the complex shift rules, means every day managers have to scramble to fill nursing positions because of all the sick calls. And they’re constantly blowing out their budgets with overtime pay. It’s hard to plan and budget when you have no idea what your nurses are going to cost you.

I work in factory productivity improvement. My company sells software and hardware to help streamline factory production. One of the biggest impediments to sales are unions and their rules. We’ll go into a factory and analyze its processes and identify inefficiencies, then make proposals to use software or hardware to improve productivity. In factories with strong unions, this is extremely difficult. In some cases, everything about the job including how many buttons they will push or how far they have to walk between stations is negotiated by contract. So they have archaic 70’s era processes in place that can’t be changed without re-opening contract negotiations.

You might find a worker whose only job is to read numbers off a stack of papers and enter them into a computer. We’ll identify this as inefficient, and offer to add a bar-code scanner to do it at 1/10 the annual cost. But no, that job is specified in the contract, so if they replaced the guy’s job they’d still have to pay him for doing nothing. So why bother improving the process? In another case, the specific user interface was called out in the union contract - the worker’s job was defined as pushing button ‘A’ whenever a piece of work arrived at his station, then swiping his badge to enter his employee number, then putting the material in a queue for processing depending on what a code was. We wanted to add a feature to the user interface that would allow better data tracking, but which would require the user to occasionally click another button and type in a number. This number would be used by the software to analyze failure rates and alter the flow of production to prevent bad parts from being worked on. But no… Making that guy type in an extra number on occasion meant they’d have to renegotiate the job, and they weren’t willing to do that becase it could open entire cans of worms and lead to a big hassle for them.

This is the kind of stuff unions are doing in states where management has no choice but to deal with them.

‘Prevailing wage’ laws that prevent government contractors from hiring non-union workers at lower pay also drive up the costs of infrastructure. Obama’s stimulus was less effective in part because union rules required them to determine the ‘prevailing wage’ in each state before contracts could be bid on, so rollout of infrastructure spending was delayed by months.

Obama’s ‘green jobs’ programs ran into snags in part because union rules precluded the government from hiring the lower-paid simple labor that the plan required, and no one was going to pay $30/hr for someone to staple weatherstripping along a window.

It’s about time for progressives to see that their belief in unions is hurting their desire for a larger, more effective government. Public Unions are destroying government effectiveness and hurting the people they are supposed to be serving. They’ve turned into rent-seekers who have figured out that they can play off the public’s desire for services and the monopolistic nature of their jobs to funnel higher pay and benefits to themselves than they would otherwise be able to get. The people hurt most by this are the people most reliant on government services, which are the people progressives claim to be helping when they advocate for bigger government.

If union brethren are so credulous as to believe a lie of this type any time it’s offered up to them by union bosses, then it’s irrelevant. In other words, they will use violence at will. It makes no difference to society at large if the underlying reason is a childlike belief in the truth of anything their bosses tell them. And what’s the major distance between this event and believing that scabs are “attacking” their livelihood and thus deserving of violence – a view that has been expressed here.

It makes the difference betewen a redeemable system and an unredeemable system.

Someone here has expressed the view that scabs deserve violence? Where? I didn’t see it.

No, that’s his claim, which you can disagree with. But he knows alot more about it than you do.

Calling something a lie that you can’t possibly know, and is subject to opinion, is really low.

Even if that’s true, do you know it’s due to high labor costs? No, you don’t. There are many possible explanations.

You are extremely biased against unions so you’ll believe whatever you want that goes against them.

Ironic statement - you reveal your bias and then complain about mine.

I never said I wasn’t biased. I haven’t given an opinion about this issue. That’s the difference. I have credibility. Nobody can trust what you say about unions or take your opinion about them without a big fat grain of salt.

So renegotiate the contract.

Food stamps?

No, you chose pride. No welfare for you. You starve.

Once upon a time, I was 14 years old during a teachers’ strike. For some reason, the local school board decided to keep the schools open and had a crazy plan to teach with the handful of teachers in the school. (This only lasted this one day).

My bus route went to the elementary school that my sister attended, and then to the middle/high school that I attended. At the first stop at the elementary school, the striking teachers pushed their picket signs inside the door of the bus. The first one actually touched my sister as she ran back to her seat crying. The bus driver had a goofy grin on his face the whole time.

After all of the elementary school kids were sufficiently scared, (and I was fucking terrified seeing my former teachers chanting and ranting), I comforted my sister and told the goofy bus driver that I was getting off the bus and attending school. He told me “Good Luck.” I stood my ground and waited.

When we got to my school, the bus driver rolled down his window and said “We have a kid here that wants to go to school!” in a mocking tone. Laughter ensued outside at the picket line. There was a discussion about who and when my name came up (I was known as a good student) everyone backed off and the leader of the group came to the door. The football coach. Big Dude. He told me that he couldn’t let me go to school because there were no teachers inside, and no discipline. My safety was his concern and he told me to go home.

I was respectful, calling him “sir”, and told him that school was open and that I wanted to go to school. He said that he wasn’t going to “lay [his] hands” on me, but he wished I would reconsider so that I didn’t “destroy my future.” I told him that I was going to school.

I walked through the picket line with all of the teachers refusing to look at me. When I got inside, there was the principal and two teachers who had the guts to cross the line. One was a lady in her 50s who did nothing but sob. The principal told me that nothing was going on in school that day and that I might as well call my parents and go home.

When my Dad showed up to pick me up he made Death Race 2000 jokes about how he almost got a few points, but crossed the picket line.

Twelve years later I returned to my old school on a day off to visit my old teachers. The teacher in her 50s then saw me, starting crying, and gave me a hug. She said that she thought most people had finally forgiven her, and hoped that they did the same for me.

I was astounded. Ever since that day 22 years ago, I lost respect for teachers. They are supposed to be role models and guide young people. They pushed my sister and tried to keep me out of school.

THAT union thug mentality needs to be exterminated and the earth salted so that nothing grows there again.

There are union thugs, there are management thugs, there are street thugs.

uh huh. A city with twice the worker per gallon ratio than Chicago.

Nice spin to suggest the Union Representative mis-spoke when he said the job could not be eliminated. They’re currently looking at saving $90 million a year so I dispute the Union Rep’s claim (and your assertion) that the job can’t be eliminated. They’ve put themselves in a position to be leapfrogged out of a job by way of outsourcing.

The reason the job can be eliminated is that union rules prohibit the common sense crossover of jobs. When a plumber has to wait half a day for another worker to show up and shut off a valve it’s nothing but taxpayer waste brought on by unnecessary union interaction.

It defeats the idea of job security if a union creates a situation that triggers massive overhaul. This isn’t 1946. Detroit isn’t drowning in manufacturing jobs that support discretionary government waste. Unions need to understand that.

So that’s all the city needs to do? Call up the union rep and make changes. You should run for President of the Universe.

I’d also mention the Teamsters Union. Under president Jackie Presser, they were very corrupt (Presser had six jobs/six paychecks) He also got kickbacks from firms that supplied services to the union (printers, publishers,etc.). The Massachusetts local (headed by Area President McCarthy was so corrupt that tyhe Federal DOJ took it over fro 12 years). Imagine paying dues to felons and criminals-that was the Teamsters in the 1960’s,'70’s,80’s.

Why can’t I choose food stamps, again?

It’s true there’s a modicum of lost pride with such a choice. But I would reason that my tax dollars paid for food stamps for just this reason, and taking them when needed made sense to me – more sense than demanding an employer pay me if the employer didn’t want me there and had agreed only under duress to the conditions which allowed me to remain.

Do shilling, unabashed do-no-wrong attitudes, slathering defense of ludicrous behavior, claims of the other side being just as bad, etc. create a negative perception of unions? It would seem so, but I don’t know that this has changed the narrative, as I doubt it is a new phenomenon.

This is hilarious. You’re the same guys who will tell someone complaining about their pay or work conditions that they should just quit and work somewhere else. Like it’s so easy.

But when you’re told a company should just quit a contract and work with another one, suddenly you feel the pain…

Yeah. That was really terrible. What’s your point relevant to this thread?

Don’t enter into a contract that stipulates a plumber must wait a day and half for someone to come shut off a valve if you think that’s a bad idea for you.

Trouble is, expecting union leadership or management to act in anything but their own short-term self-interest is not a real-world solution.

I just pointed out the absurdity of the post I responded to. If you think you can negotiate a new contract then have a go at it. Otherwise thanks for stumbling in with your psychic ability to tell me what I and other people think. Maybe you can rent your superpower out to the FBI and solve crimes.

jtgain, you experienced what you experienced, and I have to admit I’m in no position to say anything authoritative to you about it. But what you describe runs completely contrary to what I know about the attitudes of teachers, indeed, of human beings.

I strongly suspect that in your youth, you misinterpreted what you were experiencing. No teacher thinks of any 14 year old as in any way having a say in the validity of the teacher’s political views and actions. They would not care about that fourteen year old’s views or actions enough to treat you as they say they did, much less to apparently have a shunning attitude about you for years afterward. (As you say was reported by the 50 year old teacher.)

A bus driver and teachers aren’t going to openly, publicly mock a student.* I think they probably thought you were cute and misguided. I think the mocking laughter you report was an expression of something wry rather than mocking. I suspect, actually, that it was a wry sympathy. Not a wonderful attitude to be the object of–but not mockery.

On the other hand, like I said, you experienced what you experienced and I can’t say authoritatively what “really happened.” I have no idea what “really happened.” I have only strong suspicions. They are hobbled by the fact that I have never seen a picket line. I do not know what they are like, and I do not know what people think the rules for them are. I am inspired by this thread to attempt to cross through some picket lines just to see what happens. I live in a right to work state, though, and I don’t think we really do picket lines around here. But I’ll be on the lookout.

*Probably this happened in the 60s in racially tinged situations but you’re talking about open public mocking of a student who was one of their own, not a percieved outsider or member of a percieved lower class