Then the post office would be run more efficiently and at a lower cost to the consumer. Sure, it would suck for the guy who got laid off, but union featherbedding does too.
And sometimes it’s greedy and short-sighted unions screwing things up for a business.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, I sort of do. At least now in the year 2012, in the private sector.
But that was after many long, painful years of learning and a reality check that unfortunately couldn’t save a hollowed-out Detroit, Cleveland, Youngstown and many other rust-belt cities where private sector union membership was once the norm.
Sam Stone gave an example of how corrective action can take place after 1 year if the balance gets out of whack. Private sector trade show customers took their business elsehwere, and perhaps the NY union learned a lesson.
I absolutely do not believe your argument is the case with public sector unions, who now outnumber private sector members in the United States. Because the balance you state above does not exist. There is no force ‘pushing back’ to find a balance that makes sense. In fact, the force that should be negotiating with public sector unions on the other side of the table (government leaders and politicians) actually sit on the same side of the table because of union campaign support…often via mandatory deduction of dues. And all done with your money, to boot!
When a lack of balance or corrective action exists in situations like this, it will only rectify itself when catastrophe strikes and Armageddon arrives. Witness the bankruptcies of cities in California, the situation in Greece, and the impending doom in Illinois. That is what is required to wake people up.
Wisconsin was a heartening example of how the situation rectified itself in time. But the weeping, screaming, and gnashing of teeth it took to get there gives you some idea of how entrenched public sector union interests are, and how hard it will be to find a solution before real pain comes home to roost. Sorry to mix metaphors.
I have a feeling that if you have been laid off, or if you are someday, we wouldn’t hear you say “wow, this is great! My former employer is now more efficient!”
But you miss the point. This has nothing to do with unions. A non-union shop could have the same issue. Unions simply make work rules and wages and stuff enforceable in a contract. It’s not like you wouldn’t complain about things like that in a non-union job too. The only difference is that a union worker has recourse. He has a voice.
And sometimes it’s greedy and short-sighted managers.
That was a story from a random anonymous guy on the internet. I don’t give it much weight. Show me a letter from the trade show saying “sorry, we can’t live with your work rules that your unions are demanding so we’re going somewhere else” and I’ll believe it. It’s quite possible there was a different reason and someone blamed the unions.
If you really think the government just gives unions whatever they want, you’re really naive. It might happen in some state and local governments, but not everywhere, and not on the federal level.
More empty union-blaming. See what I’m talking about?
Hold on. You just said “the force that should be negotiating with public sector unions on the other side of the table (government leaders and politicians) actually sit on the same side of the table.” Yet Walker was exactly what you wanted to negotiate with unions - someone who was hostile to them. So why didn’t he just negotiate? He could have gotten a better contract with tough negotiations, just like you wanted. Instead, he tried to destroy the unions.
I would think so. But what I’m trying to do (in the absence of hard data, having only anecdotes to go by) is grant them as accurate for the sake of argument, then asking what the implications of that would be. Even if these anecdotes are being accurately reported, I’m saying I don’t see how they indicate there’s something wrong with unions in general. Rather, they seem to be examples, at worst, of unions acting against their own interest. And this isn’t supposed to be a particular problem from a conservative mindset–people acting against their own interest is par for the course, and the invisible hand should smooth everything out, shouldn’t it?
Is this a matter of law? Where can I find out more information about this?
Why? If they aren’t true, they’re pointless.
And there is ALOT of false information out there when it comes to union-bashing (and other topics, of course).
Okay, but the problem is that, if the stories are true, they are also acting against the interests of the business, and all the other employees of that business, not just their own. So it’s a legitimate point. If it’s true.
Public facilities like a city-owned convention center might have such rules, but private ones can’t be forced to hire union labor. They can choose to, or not to, or they can require their vendors to, or not to. So this is really just a choice by the local government, the same as any private owner of a facility might make.
The union goon thing was inflammatory and false.
Sure, I wouldn’t enjoy losing a job to someone who can do it better and cheaper, but that is true for anyone who is incompetent at his job. If I’m a better candidate, I want a system that rewards my skill and hard work.
This has nothing to do with competence.
In this case, someone who was LESS competent was being asked to do a job. The reason was because he was paid less.
The point of forbidding that is to prevent undercutting of a union contract’s pay standards by making the lowest-paid workers do more of the work.
But if someone with less skills who is paid less replaces you, that’s not rewarding skill and hard work.
No, I sure wouldn’t. Nor would I rejoice if I got laid off from GM because the company went bankrupt, and much of the reason was unions negotiating unsustainable deals for their retired workers.
I’m not sure I understand you. I would not be complaining about union featherbedding if there was no union featherbedding.
I think that is much of the reason for the change in narrative mentioned.
It isn’t true that only union members have recourse if they are being screwed. Most workers in the US do not belong to a union, and they are not being screwed any more than union members are. In the case of GM and so forth, they might be, but unemployment is lower in right to work states than heavily unionized states.
Sure, sometimes. But, like I say, sometimes it’s unions.
One of my first jobs was in a factory. I got the job because my judo instructor (who was a manufacturer’s rep) recommended me. And I was not going to embarrass him by doing a half-assed job. I was required to join the union. And sure enough, the third day on the job the shop steward showed up and told me to slow down, I was embarrassing the other workers.
Wave away the anecdote if you like. The trouble is, when enough people have these kinds of personal experiences, the narrative is going to change whether the union bosses like it or not.
Regards,
Shodan
If they are “negotiated” with management - management agreed to them and signed the contracts - why are you putting all the blame on the unions?
I am challenging the idea of “union featherbedding.”
You have GOT to be kidding.
That’s not true.
Their pay is lower though.
But what would the consequences be if you hadn’t? Could a steward punish you? Of course not.
[quote=“Shodan, post:93, topic:633126”]
Actually it is. Cite.
The difference is probably statistically insignificant. And it’s got an enormous correlation-causation problem. The idea that right-to-work laws are the only cause of employment is silly.
Absolute bullshit.
You cannot blame one party for an agreement they both negotiate and sign.
Sorry, no dice.
Any budget contains income and outcome, with numerous items in both categories. When there’s a budget shortfall, the cause is really all of the items, but obviously some more than others. There must be some reason why the budget disaster in California was so much worse than in all the other states.
It’s true there was political corruption in California. But you’ll never guess who gives the most campaign cash to California politicians. The public sector unions have greater political power in California than almost any other state. They use all kinds of thuggish tactics to block the democratic process, tactics that aren’t available in other states. In short, public unions are part and parcel of California’s corrupt political system.
I can speak only from my personal experience. When I first joined the nurses union, it was a simple and LOCAL organization. I personally knew the founder and forever president, Kathy Sackman. Kathy recently retired after 38 years as president.
In the beginning, UNAC was so helpful and focused on negotiating “wages and working conditions”. Then, the worst thing happened, it grew. And grew. And got huge. The dues grew accordingly.
Sadly, this union merged with a national organizing partner and then their focus changed towards politicalization of the nurses. The dues grew even more. Dues were obviously being spent on endless political fliers and stupidly expensive meetings and conventions.
The union staff was no longer comprised of people I personally knew, or had even heard of. I had once been voted as a local chairperson and had been involved with grievances and such. Once we went national, I was horrified at the increase in dues and the ways our money was being spent.
I completely lost interest and threw the expensive “newsletters” away unread. Success was/is now measured by size of the union, not by local satisfaction or performance for individual members.
It got too big. It became too political. It lost it’s way.
That’s why I am skeptical towards the motives of LARGE unions, especially those unions with national affiliations.
Classic leftist thinking.
The answer to your question is: if the mechanic can also move mail, then good for them. Why should I force my employer to keep me in a job that someone else can do better or cheaper?
Do I really want to have a job only because my employer is forced to retain me, under threat of reprisals? What kind of pride exists in that work?
If “negotiation” were truly free and open, then I’d agree with you.
When unions “negotiate,” they do so by threats – threats of violence and intimidation against strike-breaking workers, and in some places the protection of the law preventing companies from firing striking workers. A negotiation has to include the ability to walk away.
Without worrying about what may happen to your kneecaps if you try.
I think under union rules, hand-waving away evidence can only be done by The International Federation of People Who Have Been Refuted and Don’t Like It. And only on Thursdays.
Regards,
Shodan
So you’re now unemployed, because you had too many skills, so your skills were not rewarded. Wages and employment overall have gone down. Great!
But you’re still missing the point. If you have a contract, it should be respected. Someone else shouldn’t do your job and get paid for it, otherwise your pay level is meaningless. It simply protects your contract.
It’s a different thing from whether we should have union contracts at all. If you don’t think so, fine, but that’s a different issue.
So you would never work on a contract basis? What’s the difference between having a union contract and being a sole-proprieter contractor? If the employer violates an employment contract, there can be “reprisal” in court too. Same idea. No loss of pride. Union workers must still do their jobs; if they don’t, they can be fired.