How so?
You’re a union member, and apparently an active one.
Not any more.
I told you, I’ve retired. That’s neither here nor there.
Lance, there is no one right answer. Furthermore, it might be more relevant to hear opinions of non-union folks who know how/why their negative opinions originated and can better say what would change their (negative) opinion.
Certainly you have some ideas of how unions and their membership can improve public opinion, don’t you?
Unions who represent public employees have a harder road to travel in reversing this trend. Public employees are paid by the taxpayers. Taxpayers often feel their interests are NOT represented by either party when wages/benefits/working conditions are being negotiated are feeling screwed without any K-Y. When the economy is down and municipalities are going broke, the public unions better be willing to soften their demands. If there is no money, there is no money.
Sometimes, the public workers unions take a hard-nosed stance that defies understanding. here is an example.
I believe it is entirely possible for non-public-worker-unions to reinvent themselves to be viewed on a more positive level by the public.
However, when public-worker-unions get thrown into the mix, things deteriorate rapidly. The public may (rightfully) take a VERY dim view of SOME public worker unions for quite awhile.
Any reports of violence from the Chicago teachers’ strike yet?
So, the Chicago teacher’s strike is over.
Sure was alot of violence, huh?
Did they hire replacement teachers and did people cross picket lines or are you still out on your stawman argument.
I was responding to the claim on this thread that violence is nearly universal.
Yep you are still out on you faux debate topic. That claim relating to violence was in relation to and in the context of crossing a picket line.
Hopefully you find someone to argue the strawman you have built.
Sure it was. Then it became only strike pickets, etc.
Nevertheless, the claim, whatever it’s latest version, was never proven. Oh well.
Which ever it is doesn’t change the fact that you are debating a position no one on this debate claimed.
Who Think Union Corruption is dead:http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/09/19/four-former-members-teamsters-local-face-racketeering-charges/VBXTn5ZQuvhYAExvCyrdCM/story.html?comments=all#readerComm
Once again, that is a Non sequitur, I didn’t mention the employers because they are party to the negations either way.
Why do you think that private union membership has dumped to 5%…and how does your odd red-herring side tracks help describe it or offer how we can improve that?
Gee, is corporate corruption dead?
So are unions, so why mention only one party?
A combination of the massive loss of union jobs and aggressive tactics by employers, supported by anti-union presidents and changes in labor law and policy, making it harder to organize and easier to bust unions. Duh.
Um…If the workers weren’t unionized how would the union be party to the negotiations?
Cites please,
Not all states are right to work states. How is it harder to organize and bust unions in those states?
Yet non-governmental union membership is still dropping.
I’ve heard several people on this baord seriously contend that governement employees should not have the right to collective action. I’ve heard this sentiment parroted by conservative politicians as well.
I could be wrong but don’t think the protections for striking workers is what you think they are.
You are only guaranteed a job when the strike is over if youa re striking over unfair labor practices Unfair labor practice - Wikipedia unfair labor practices basically amounts to interfering with or discriminating against people who are in unions or trying to form a union.
“In the U.S., as established in the National Labor Relations Act there is a legally protected right for private sector employees to strike to gain better wages, benefits, or working conditions and they cannot be fired. Striking for economic reasons (i.e., protesting workplace conditions or supporting a union’s bargaining demands) allows an employer to hire permanent replacements. The replacement worker can continue in the job and then the striking worker must wait for a vacancy. But if the strike is due to unfair labor practices, the strikers replaced can demand immediate reinstatement when the strike ends. If a collective bargaining agreement is in effect, and it contains a “no-strike clause”, a strike during the life of the contract could result in the firing of all striking employees which could result in dissolution of that union. Although this is legal it could be viewed as union busting.”
There is freerider problem. All non-unionized shops benefit from the pay scale set by unionized shops but as there are fewer and fewer unionized shops, the effect starts to vanish and the remaining unions become less powerful.
And that’s OK with you?
Don’t you think there is a freerider problem? Do you think an individual business can sign a union contract that agrees not to hire anyone that does not join a union?
Is your mind changed by the links to “strike action” above?
I don’t know about the fifty states but this is not the case federally.
See Countervailing power - Wikipedia
I agree this is to some significant degree, what this election is about.
By your rationale, paying taxes is wrong. When I force you to pay taxes, I am frequently forcing you to work for the benefit of the country as a whole.
She can refuse to date someone because they are black, should we permit employers to refuse to hire someone because they are black? There are differences between personal relationships and personal relationsips.
Tell me how they did that to themselves? When we talk about all the great jobs America used to have but don’t have anymore, we are talking about union jobs. We might not realize it when we say it but we are talking about union jobs.
There are big problems with public unions that make them special. For one thing, as voters, when they become large enough they can essentially hire the people who they work for. And allowing campaign contributions from unions means that politicians have a vested interest in doing what the union wants. Finally, because they are paid with taxpayer money, the people negotiating with them have less of an interest in protecting that money.
Imagine a private company in which the CEO was able to draw from a huge fund of investor money without consequence - let’s say that the fund is ‘dark’ and the investors can’t see what he’s doing with it. Further imagine that the unions were allowed to give millions of dollars to a CEO who does that they want. Further imagine that the CEO is elected in large part by votes of the union members.
Can you not see how such a system would create an incentive model that would eventually lead to the employees capturing most of the wealth of the company and running it into bankruptcy? That’s what is happening in California today.
Really? It seems to me that there’s a pretty big wage and benefit difference between unionized and non-unionized shops in the auto industry.
The ‘freerider’ problem will only exist in conditions where unemployment is very low, and union and non-union shops are co-located in the same competitive region. Only in that circumstance would unions drive up the price of labor in non-union shops. In a competitive market where employees are free to choose jobs and employers are free to choose employees, non-union employees are generally paid based on their marginal productivity, not because there’s a union shop down the street.
There IS a freerider problem with unions, though. That would be the unions themselves if they’ve used government protection to carve out an advantage they wouldn’t otherwise get in the marketplace. That drives up the price of the goods made with union labor. Now, normally products made with non-union labor could out-compete them, but of course unions also advocate for trade protections and government bidding rules that give their labor a monopoly. When Japanese cars first started hurting the domestic car market, the unions joined with management to lean on the government, which got Japanese auto makers to ‘voluntarily’ restrict imports in exchange for not having tariffs slapped on their vehicles.
One of the biggest free-rider problems is caused by the Davis-Bacon act, which forces all government contracting to pay union wages for labor. This drives up the cost of government and the cost of infrastructure, which is then borne by the taxpayer. The unions are free-riding on the backs of everyone else.
And of course in the recent past, the Obama administration actually broke bankruptcy laws to screw over GM bond holders and give the unions a special break they wouldn’t have gotten had GM been allowed to go into normal bankruptcy re-organization. And the non-union workers at Delphi didn’t apparently benefit from any free-rider association with the UAW, because they got hammered.
And of course, at today’s share price GM was basically given a gift of tens of billions of dollars from the taxpayers, a lot of which went towards propping up union salaries and benefits. The union workers came out of the GM debacle largely unscathed in terms of salary and benefits, but with a lot more power over the company.
The key there is ‘used to have’. The pay and benefits of the big union workers in the auto and steel industries were simply not sustainable, and they helped crater those industries.
But what really killed the unions wasn’t the pay - it was the work rules. Lack of merit pay, seniority rules, strict control over work tasks… That works when a union worker is standing on an assembly line turning bolts. When all the workers are of equal productivity, it makes sense to have a collective bargaining arrangement to protect them since they can’t protect themselves as well.
But union rules are devastating in white-collar jobs or modern blue-collar jobs that are increasingly technical and therefore workers have a huge difference in productivity. Hobbling a workforce like that with straightjacketed work rules and seniority-based power is destructive.
Look at the teacher’s unions. There was a recent paper which showed that the difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher was dramatic - a good teacher will teach about a year and a half worth of material in a school year, and a bad teacher will teach about half a year worth of material in a school year. The paper also found that you could fire the worst-performing 10% of all teachers, increase the class sizes of all the others to accommodate their students, and school performance would increase dramatically. And yet, the union rules do not allow for the promotion of excellence or the demotion or firing of non-productive teachers. The teacher’s unions are the biggest obstacle to better schooling in the United States.
I believe that paper is by Eric Hanushek at Stanford, if anyone is curious. Although maybe he just reviewed it. I’ll see if I can dig it up if anyone is interested.
Then why does the right attack federal employee pay (federal employee unions cannot bargain for pay)?
I don’t really think about local finance and politics that much but for the most part, I don’t think teachers are overcompensated. I don’t think their benefits are too generous. And lets face it, when the right whines about local and state employees, they are mostly talking about teachers.
Like I said, it is the result of the low concentration of union shops in the auto industry. If the entire auto industry were unionized, a new entrant would have a tough time trying to implement these much lower wages you speak of.
Really, because the productivity of the US worker has been going UP (since the industrial revolution I think) and yet wages over the last several decades have remained relatively stagnant.
Those things may be a problem but I don’t think thats a freerider problem.
I think you fail to understand bankruptcy law or what happened during the GM bankruptcy. Its been explained on this message board several times but people keep repeating this bullshit like they don’t care about the truth.
Two basic tenets of bankruptcies are:
-
noone should be was worse off under a reorganization than they would have been under a liquidation, and
-
anyone who is offering financing to the debtor in possession can propose whatever conditions they want on the new financing and people can accept it or reject it but the bankruptcy trustee can FORCE everyone to accept the plan as long as rule one (above) is not violated.
The GM bond holders all got at least as much as they would have gotten under a GM liquidation. The creditor committee for the bondholders were holding out for more than what they would have gotten under a liquidation because they wanted the government to make them whole for at least some of their losses and they were wiling to hold the auto industry hostage over it.
So the US government, as the party bringing new money to the table, gets to propose the conditions for their new financing. The bankruptcy trustee can “cram down” those conditions on all creditor committees as long as no party is worse off than they would be under a liquidation. The plan can favor some creditors over others as long as noone ends up with less than they would have gotten under a liquidation.
Now the US did this without actually going through a bankruptcy process because the effects of a bankruptcy would have been devastating and costly to fix but noone ended up worse off than they would have been under a GM liquidation.
The employee pensions were also creditors and they got a much better deal than would have gotten under a liquidation but noone was worse off than they would have been, the bondholders are just pissed off that they couldn’t hold the auto industry hostage and force the US government to give them a much better deal too. Of course the union also had to make concession that would affect them going forward while the bondholders would just take their money and go home.
If you want to criticize how the government’s plan favored the pension over the bondholders, then fine BUT after you consider the expected cost of the failed pensions to the PBGC, the generosity seems much less generous.
I thought you ought to know.
Your welcome.
Maybe, but teachers have as much of a right to organize as anyone else. The school system is free to do a lockout (a la NFL referees) and just create a system that would entice the best teachers to work during the lockout and perhaps attract a bunch of awesome new teachers. But they don’t do that because noone thinks that this would work.
I have my problems with teacher’s unions (I was familiar with Michelle Rhee and her efforts) but I don’t think they’re the biggest obstacle to better schooling. I think the biggest obstacle is our attitude towards education.
It may be best if you don’t quote half a dozen people in your reply if you want the debate, it is easy to miss.
Many of those “Union Jobs” were lost not matter what as the country and the world decreased the costs of automation and moved towards a new information economy. This is something that will get worse for those “Union Jobs” in the future. (think what will happen to the truck drivers, taxi drivers etc…as their work is automated)
The unions have failed to adapt to that change and have left millions of Americans with no way to organize.
If you want to have this discussion vs. play word games am open to the debate…but not if you are going to cherry pick and appeal to emotions.