What do conservatives have against labor unions?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Sam_Stone

I picked $50/hr for a non-unionized auto worker because that’s what the non-unionized auto workers at Toyota and Nissan and other American car manufacturers cost.

cite?

As for what makes wages rise and fall, I’ll just have to refer you to any Econ 101 textbook.

Sure. Can you recommend one? Thanks.

[Sam_Stone]

Cite: Economist Mark Perry. Hourly compensation ranges from $41.97 at Nissan to $47.60 at Toyota. The ‘Big Three’ range between $70 and $75

I haven’t read it, but I’ve heard good things about Principles of Economics by Greg Mankiw, who teaches introductory economics at Harvard.

This is what Mankiw has to say about wages:

Here is the basic logic taught in economics textbooks:

Economic theory says that the wage a worker earns, measured in units of output, equals the amount of output the worker can produce. Otherwise, competitive firms would have an incentive to alter the number of workers they hire, and these adjustments would bring wages and productivity in line. If the wage were below productivity, firms would find it profitable to hire more workers. This would put upward pressure on wages and, because of diminishing returns, downward pressure on productivity. Conversely, if the wage were above productivity, firms would find it profitable to shed labor, putting downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on productivity. The equilibrium requires the wage of a worker equaling what that worker can produce.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Sam, the Economic Data chart from your first cite shows the WAGE RATE of a GM Assembler as $26.09, with a COLA of $1.77, for a total of $27.86 as of March 5, 2007.

In the next category, “COMPETITIVE LABOR COST COMPARISON” “2006 Average Labor Costs” it just says GM $73.26.

That’s a $45 difference, and I have no idea where the extra $45 came from, or what the 2 numbers are trying to show. <ok, i sorta found that on the UAW webiste>

The UAW says that their average member earned $27.81/hr straight time in 2006.

They then explain

@UAW

In addition to regular hourly pay, the labor cost figures cited by the companies include other expenses associated with having a person on payroll. This includes overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll.

Companies that have not been doing business in the US since before the middle of last century would of course have lower legacy costs, right?

@UAW

How much value do UAW members contribute to their employers?

American autoworkers are among the most productive workers in the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical autoworker produces value added worth $206 per worker per hour.1 This is far more than he or she earns in wages, even when benefits, statutory contributions and other costs are included.

@US Census

1 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures 2005 data

Is this information false? If not, how did the unions ruin companies by providing $206/hr worth of value, while only taking $73/hr in compensations?

I realize this is all somewhat off topic, but I’m trying to understand your arguments and their basis.

[Cyberhwk]

@treis

Yeah, I don’t believe this for a minute. Why would an employer go through the hassle of firing someone and hiring someone else just because they asked about lunch time? It’s a royal pain in the ass to do either of them. I simply don’t believe it happens.

TWICE, actually, at my job in the past year. One woman got fired for doing something that wasn’t even against the rules. It’s not a royal pain in the ass when there’s excess labor or you can simply squeeze the remaining workers for more.

@curlcoat

The biggest problem I have with unions is they tend to get a very high wage paid to un- and low-skilled workers.

I’ve always thought this was the answer to the OP. Everyone holds a pre-conceived notion about how things “ought” to be, then fits their world view around their notion. So it’s not that conservatives don’t like unions, it’s that they hold a view on who should be paid what, and how much any given employee is worth, then turn against everything that prevents that view from becoming reality. So is the view of the pro-union contingent. They feel they’re worth more, so they find a way to change things.

[Carson_O_Genic]

@treis

Yeah, I don’t believe this for a minute. Why would an employer go through the hassle of firing someone and hiring someone else just because they asked about lunch time? It’s a royal pain in the ass to do either of them. I simply don’t believe it happens.

In a non-union shop, the boss is God, Old Testament version. Instead of voluminous anecdote, I'll quote you a poster from a typical break room bulletin board:

  "Our employees are important to us. To estimate your importance, plunge your hand in a bucket of water- the hole that is left when you pull your hand out is the size hole that will be left when you leave."

[CurtC]

As someone who’s an economic conservative, let me propose an analogy to show my distaste for labor unions.

Imagine the grocery stores in your area all agreeing that they are going to charge you $5 for a loaf of bread. Then they threaten any other stores who may want to sell you that bread for $1.50. That’s not freedom, it’s collusion.

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@CurtC

As someone who’s an economic conservative, let me propose an analogy to show my distaste for labor unions.

Imagine the grocery stores in your area all agreeing that they are going to charge you $5 for a loaf of bread. Then they threaten any other stores who may want to sell you that bread for $1.50. That’s not freedom, it’s collusion.

As an economic libertarian, I don’t have a problem with either of those situations, as long the grocery stores don’t use actual force or threat of force.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[JXJohns]

@Carson_O_Genic

In a non-union shop, the boss is God, Old Testament version. Instead of voluminous anecdote, I’ll quote you a poster from a typical break room bulletin board:

  "Our employees are important to us. To estimate your importance, plunge your hand in a bucket of water- the hole that is left when you pull your hand out is the size hole that will be left when you leave."

Only a fool thinks they are irreplaceable.

[Frylock]

@CurtC

As someone who’s an economic conservative, let me propose an analogy to show my distaste for labor unions.

Imagine the grocery stores in your area all agreeing that they are going to charge you $5 for a loaf of bread. Then they threaten any other stores who may want to sell you that bread for $1.50. That’s not freedom, it’s collusion.

What kind of threats are they making in this scenario?

-FrL-

[villa]

@CurtC

As someone who’s an economic conservative, let me propose an analogy to show my distaste for labor unions.

Imagine the grocery stores in your area all agreeing that they are going to charge you $5 for a loaf of bread. Then they threaten any other stores who may want to sell you that bread for $1.50. That’s not freedom, it’s collusion.

To me this totally sums up economic conservatism. It’s about dressing up the preservation of privilege in the language of freedom. This analogy ignores the fact that for the overwhelming majority of workers in the overwhelming majority of market conditions throughout the overwhelming majority of economic history, the employer will have significantly greater market power than the individual worker.

Calling cooperation between individual workers in order to rectify this imbalance of power “collusion” is simply justifying enshrining the present structure, and makes the term freedom pretty meaningless to me.

[smiling_bandit]

@villa

To me this totally sums up economic conservatism. It’s about dressing up the preservation of privilege in the language of freedom. This analogy ignores the fact that for the overwhelming majority of workers in the overwhelming majority of market conditions throughout the overwhelming majority of economic history, the employer will have significantly greater market power than the individual worker.

Calling cooperation between individual workers in order to rectify this imbalance of power “collusion” is simply justifying enshrining the present structure, and makes the term freedom pretty meaningless to me.

Except it doesn’t rectify any balance of power. You simply create new power centers to exploit people, and this time they produce… nothing! Unions inevitably cannibalize the industries upon which they feed, destroying the jobs which hey profesed to protect. Additionally, They kneecap people who don’t want to be part of the union (sometimes literally) and frequently force them into the union.

But mostly, unions are just useless. I have no problem with collective bargaining. Unions, as a means of acheiving this, are little more than a protection racket.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@smiling_bandit

Except it doesn’t rectify any balance of power. You simply create new power centers to exploit people, and this time they produce… nothing! Unions inevitably cannibalize the industries upon which they feed, destroying the jobs which hey profesed to protect.

Cite please? I am unaware of any research that shows that unions “inevitably cannibalize the industries upon which they feed”. I’m sure your cite will show that this is true of all unions, in all countries, in all industries, right? Thanks. I look forward to reading that research.

Additionally, They kneecap people who don’t want to be part of the union (sometimes literally) and frequently force them into the union.

Cite? I am a union member, and if your assertion is correct I may be lax in the kneecap-breaking department.

But mostly, unions are just useless. I have no problem with collective bargaining. Unions, as a means of acheiving this, are little more than a protection racket.

Dude, unions ARE collective bargaining. Collective bargaining doesn’t happen without unions. That’s what they are for, what they were designed to do.

[Sinaijon]

Haven’t seen it mentioned yet, but government unions, especially teachers’ unions are literally sucking on the government’s teat.

Here in MN, the biggest single item on the state government budget is education. You know who spends the most money lobbying? The teachers union.

So the union lobbies for more money, in turn gets more money from dues, and then lobbies the gov. for more money. Tax payers are essentially paying the salaries of guys who are asking for more tax payer money! There is no checks or balances.

Just like business monopolies aren’t desirable in a free economy, neither is a monopoly of the work force, like in Detroit.

[gonzomax]

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/11/auto-workers-70hour-38hour-or-28hour.html The auto workers do not make anything like 70 bucks an hour. Using that in your arguments is totally dishonest. Stop it. The fact is even the 28 dollar per hour figure is obsolete. Workers have given back over and over. New employees have lower rates,less benefits and worse retirements.
The cost of an employee is quite different than their rates anyway. When you hire an employee ,you provide secretarial.parking,cafeteria employees and many other costs are incurred. That is not part of the wages.That is part of the cost of hiring an employee. That is quite different.

[gonzomax]

Auto Union Embraces Two-Tier Wages | Labor Notes Heres the wages. Now change the arguments to deal with the facts.

[XT]

@Snowboarder Bo

Sam, the Economic Data chart from your first cite shows the WAGE RATE of a GM Assembler as $26.09, with a COLA of $1.77, for a total of $27.86 as of March 5, 2007.

In the next category, “COMPETITIVE LABOR COST COMPARISON” “2006 Average Labor Costs” it just says GM $73.26.

That’s a $45 difference, and I have no idea where the extra $45 came from, or what the 2 numbers are trying to show. <ok, i sorta found that on the UAW webiste>

The UAW says that their average member earned $27.81/hr straight time in 2006.

Because wage rate and compensation are two different things.

Cite please? I am unaware of any research that shows that unions “inevitably cannibalize the industries upon which they feed”. I’m sure your cite will show that this is true of all unions, in all countries, in all industries, right? Thanks. I look forward to reading that research.

Well, I’ll leave it to SB to decide whether or not he wants to attempt to provide you with the cites you are requesting, skewed the way you want with all those added caveats. My guess though is what he’s talking about are US unions, illustrated by the manufacturing industries that have essentially priced themselves (and by extension by and large entire sectors of US manufacturing) out of the market.

Were I to guess about what he’s thinking of, I’d say the airlines, auto manufacturing (as well as broader manufacturing sectors like steel), trains and perhaps the earlier telephone industry. Perhaps he has some other examples…these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Granted, US manufacturing’s demise may have been inevitable, regardless of the unions. US workers are probably going to be paid more than India or Chinese workers…but the unions haven’t helped any. It really does you no good to collectively bargain well if you kill the industry you are working for, no?
As for the OP, I think that some conservatives dislike unions because of their impact on industry. Some dislike them because of the some of their more unsavory practices and abuses. And some dislike using the government as the hammer of the unions to force business to acquiesce to the unions demands.

Personally I have no real problem with unions (except when the government steps in to force business to go along with the unions position…I have the same problem with the government gets involved on the businesses side as well btw). As others pointed out, collective bargaining is perfectly compatible with a free market. And if workers basically price themselves and their industries out of the market…well, that’s tough. No more jobs in that sector, best find something else to do I guess. My problem is that we then try and ‘save’ those businesses by either subsidies or tariffs or other artificial measures, or simply attempt to prop up businesses that just aren’t competitive because of their labor costs because we don’t want people to lose their jobs. I have a real big problem with that.

-XT

[Sinaijon]

@gonzomax

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/11/auto-workers-70hour-38hour-or-28hour.html The auto workers do not make anything like 70 bucks an hour. Using that in your arguments is totally dishonest. Stop it. The fact is even the 28 dollar per hour figure is obsolete. Workers have given back over and over. New employees have lower rates,less benefits and worse retirements.

You are just spinning it the other way. I don’t think anybody really thinks they are making $70 cash take home now. But for every $28 they get now, besides the $10 in current benefits, they will also be getting $x in the future as pension benefits. Even though the money isn’t being actually transferred now, the employee is acquiring an asset and the company is acquiring a liability.

The employee has in essence negotiated a deferred salary payment. Trying to claim that the deferred payment doesn’t count leads me to believe you don’t know much about accounting.

[XT]

He also doesn’t get the difference between wages and compensation. It’s like people think all those benefits and such are free, cost the company nothing…and so don’t factor into the discussion. They have an impact on the price of goods and services though, so they are kind of relevant to the discussion.

-XT

[black_rabbit]

@xtisme

He also doesn’t get the difference between wages and compensation. It’s like people think all those benefits and such are free, cost the company nothing…and so don’t factor into the discussion. They have an impact on the price of goods and services though, so they are kind of relevant to the discussion.

-XT

Actually, he gets them just fine. You don’t.

But then what’s the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn’t come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits–namely, health insurance and pensions–and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages–again, $28 per hour–and you get the $70 figure. Voila.

The $70 includes the value of benefits for retirees in the numerator, but does not include the actual retirees in the denominator.

Next time you decide to be condescending, you might want to RTFA first.

[XT]

@black rabbit

Actually, he gets them just fine. You don’t.

And I disagree with your disagreement…I think it’s YOU that don’t get it. Well, at least you aren’t alone in this as several others seem to be having the same problem.

Next time you decide to be condescending, you might want to RTFA first.

Next time you may want to check who you are posting quotes from…you know, to confirm who is actually saying what? Or you could just lump us all in together…well all probably look alike to you, ehe?

-XT