For example, local government (Detroit) having to employ a horseshoer, even though they have no horses. The union head declares that “it is not possible to eliminate positions.” Link
Does the contract say they can’t eliminate those positions? If not, then you have no point. Unfortunately, the story you cited doesn’t say. It vaguely implies it by quoting the union official, but he’s actually saying that the city has too few workers in general, not that it needs to employ a horseshoer.
So unless the contract forbids dumping the horseshoer, you have no point.
So here is the Gallup data on how we view unions:
You can track Union approval go from 72% or so in 1936 (highest was 75%) to 52% in 2011 in the chart.
It would be interesting to map this against the percent of the US workforce who are union represented - I would assume a high correlation (as fewer are represented, fewer support).
As for the factors that drive negative views of unions (my random hypothesis list):
- Not as many people being represented.
- Public Employee Union horror stories in the press e.g. sexual predator teachers who stay on the payroll while the representation process works itself out.
- The outright power of public employee unions (when the LA Times says that the teachers union is the most powerful force in California politics - that does not help your image given the state of our state).
- Pay levels that others find too high, especially during a recession. Again - this is a bigger issue with public employee unions.
- Articles about union related violence.
- The grocery strike in CA lost support when they messed with Thanksgiving supplies. People who WERE supportive changed their mind when they couldn’t get their groceries.
So what you have is a lot of bad press, without much good stuff. Bringing up Triangle again and again is ancient history, and nobody thinks that a schoolteacher or a cop is locked into a sweatshop where they will die in a fire.
I personally think that the unions represent a capitalistic good - workers should be able to band together and offer their services as a group. I think that some unions have been as shortsighted as their corporations when it comes to short term profits at the expense of long term viability.
I think that public employee unions need significant reform. Their ability to impact the elections that determine their own pay levels leaves an opening for corruption that is too large in my opinion.
As for the trade shows, I just palm $20-50 to the union guy working my area, and I get left alone when setting up my own stuff - and my power and net is always working fine too. My gear gets magically delivered early, and picked up on-time letting me make my flight. I learned that one long ago, and budget for it.
Thanks for that post,** Algher. **
Regarding the Detroit position–it is for a farrier–shoeing horses is a tiny part of what they do.
Mostly, they are custom iron-workers.
If the sewer & water boys have him around, it is likely for custom pipe shaping.
Are you okay with Algher’s assertion that it is necessary to bribe a union official in order not to be harrassed at a trade show?
Agreed. And I even get this crap as a member of a union. All the time, I hear the union stooge say “If you didn’t have a union, your employer could do “A,” “B,” and “C” and then where would you be?”
“A” is usually some ridiculously unsafe work condition that is covered by OSHA… i.e. Management will send you up on the roof to patch the leak without gloves or water when it’s 110 degrees outside!
“B” is usually some far-fetched job requirement that is specifically outlawed by civil service rules… i.e. Management will force you to work 50 hours a week!
And “C” is usually so retarded that I debate internally whether or not to punch him… i.e. Management will make you strip down to your undies and dance in the street to lure patrons in!
The job is as posted and cannot be eliminated. that’s the whole point about mentioning it in the first place. It CANNOT be eliminated. You’re trying to hand-wave this away by saying they give the person something to do. That’s a poor business model to work with. It does not serve the business or municipality or the union workers themselves because that extra job comes out of everybody’s paycheck.
No.
There is NOTHING in the cited article that proves that the job can’t be eliminated.
There was just a union official saying it can’t. And when you read it, you see that he actually meant that the city was short of staff, not that that particular position is legally or contractually permanent.
You have no case at all.
The trouble is, and part of the reason unions are negatively regarded, is that he was lying.
The water department is bloated, expensive, and inefficient. The union boss responds by saying it needs to be made even more expensive, bloated, and inefficient.
That’s part of the reason why “the narrative has changed”. Because big labor has become just as bad as what it said it was fighting.
Regards,
Shodan
First of all, no, he wasn’t. His comment was misinterpreted. He was just saying that workers are needed, not that they are legally or contractually required to be kept.
Second, that wasn’t the original claim. The claim was that the job couldn’t be dropped. It wasn’t about a lie.
Says you. He has a different opinion. Unless you are intimately familiar with the details of the city’s budget and staff, you don’t know any better than anyone else. The union guy certainly knows more about it than you do. You’re just automatically taking the side of management and against the union, because you are biased.
Please quote me where I said “Unions are bad”. I never said that. I know I never said that because that is not my position.
You asked about the possible causes of changing perceptions concerning unions. Unions can be a very good power base for otherwise powerless workers. In my particular situation, my union represented a not-so-powerless group, highly educated and licensed individuals who could pretty much find employment anywhere. Such worker groups are less likely to get replaced without cause. Having said that, I think that the traffic controllers also thought they were irreplaceable, and that attitude played a part in their failure.
In this economy, workers who previously might have thought of themselves as irreplaceable better think again. I know dozens of young people who would jump at the chance to step into the shoes of a firefighter or a teacher. Pretty much any profession with prestige, decent pay, and benefits.
With that said, my overall perception is that less skilled workers are more easily replaced in a work stoppage. They probably know this and and thusly become far more staunch union supporters than I ever was.
Here is a question:
Do you think union workers who are unlicensed, with less formal education/training and therefore more easily replaceable are more or less likely to resort to violence (a sign of desperation) during a work stoppage or a lock out? Does desperation and knowledge you can be quickly replaced play a part in the genesis of union violence?
I tend to think it does, but I could be convinced otherwise.
Not exactly exceptionally logical. We’re all approaching this from our own perspective which is often based on our own experience as much as by what we read.
" The union guy certainly knows more about it than you do." And, who is *more biased *than “the union guy”. His personal income depends on defending his position that more workers are necessary.
More workers = more dues = a raise for him = a huge bias.
Of course. I didn’t say he was right or we should accept what he said. He’s certainly biased. I’m just saying that his opinion is worth more than Shodan’s. As is the opinion of city officials.
That’s the lie.
So did the consultant, and the editorial writer.
Based on the fact that Detroit pays twice as much per gallon of water as comparable cities, no, my opinion is worth much more than the self-serving shit dished out by the union boss.
No, he doesn’t. He’s just greedy and self-serving.
I hope you don’t expect anyone to believe that you are not biased, because I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Regards,
Shodan
All 500 of them believed this? And they believed their union brothers had been attacked by office equipment and windows?
Ok. Then I have a new reason unions are viewed negatively.
Both. But if I can only earn a living at the point of a gun, metaphorical though it may be, i’d rather be on food stamps.
I assume so. 
Word travels…
To reiterate: This is not a good example for your point because it is apparently not a case of union members thinking violence against opponents is legitimate in itself, but rather is apparently a case of union members thinking that violence against violent opponents is legitimate.
I would point out that Japan and Germany both have VERY strong labor movements.
We got outmanaged, outdesigned and outproduced, not outpriced.
As for the garment industry, we were never going to hold onto that industry. Garment manufacture is a labor intensive process that requires a skill that you can pick up in about 2 or 3 weeks. Labor costs are a big part of the cost of production and you simply cannot compete on mass market clothing manufacture. This leads to skill atrophy and now hardly anyone makes clothing in America anymore.
A labor party would be good. A party that was more interested in long term outcomes for people who work for a living.
Just would like to point out that federal unions are not allowed to negotiate for wages.