I dunno, Smiling Bandit, I have a suggestion for you, and it may be kind of laughable but here goes … why don’t you NOT join a union? That would solve your problems in that regard, wouldn’t it? Insanely difficult, but there it is.
I really think you worded your OP all wrong if you don’t want to hear about why people wouldn’t want to join a white-collar union. Here, I will answer your OP, exactly as it’s written:
Probably nothing.
I don’t think it could help raise my wages…I make higher than average for my profession already.
This wouldn’t help me, because I don’t get my insurance through work.
I have already negotiated a 6.5 hour workday, so I’m pretty happy with that.
Maybe, not sure how they would do that, and I’m pretty happy with what I’m doing, so I doubt I would have need of this type of service, anyway.
I work for a small-family owned company, and they are really good to me (see my answers to your questions, above). No complaints, so I don’t know what a union could do to help me.
Well, I’m not against unions for workers who think they could use them. But, I don’t see what a union could do for me. You have thought up a pretty good list, here, but none of it is relevant to me or fulfills a need I have. I can’t think of anything else that a union could do for me, either. So I don’t see any reason a white collar union would be attractive to me.
OK, EC, I answered your OP. Do you still believe your questions can’t legitimately be answered by saying “nothing?”
Well, while I agree that a union shouldn’t automatically seek out adversarial positions and should in fact work with employers when at all possible, I think that where there is conflict between management and labor, the union should take the employees’ side. That is what they are there for, after all.
Might be possible in a small union, but sizable unions take administration. I like your ideas here, just not sure how practiceable they would be.
I agree with that “gatekeeper” notion especially. The goal is to be inclusive, not exclusive, and I have heard that some unions are not inclusive at all.
Gee, it seems like a lot of you have too much money and free time and wonderful bosses, or are self-employed. Bully for you. But I have to ask, why are you posting here?
Well, I don’t have a ton of money or free time, although I am lucky to have a pretty nice boss (although to my own credit, I work hard and give her reason to value me as an employee) and am compensated fairly enough.
As far as why I’m posting here (and by “here,” I assume you mean in this thread), it was because you asked a question in the OP and thought you wanted peoples’ opinions.
Maybe I was wrong?
I think you were wrong about the question. The question is: see the thread title. Not, “Why do you think white collar unions are bad?” or “Would you join a white collar union?” as so many seem to think.
You are right…the question was “What would it take to interest you in a white collar union?” To which I maintain that “nothing” is a perfectly legitimate answer, and doesn’t violate your last paragraph in which you say: “OK, this is not a thread for posting about why a union could never work or what bad effects unions might have for corporations or capitalism.” If you consider an answer of “nothing” to be threadshitting, then you have a very unusual definition of it, I think.
But, whatever…if you want every other post of yours to be “read the OP, that’s not the kind of answer I want,” then go for it.
But that requires that employed members subsidize unemployed members. And if more than a tiny fraction of the union members are unemployed at any one time, that’s going to be a sizable expense, which means sizable union dues…for a service the people paying the dues won’t currently recieve! And how long does a member have to be out of work before the union decides to kick them out? A year? How many people are going to get a union job for a week, then quit so they can get free health care indefinately?
It just won’t work to expect employed union members to heavily subsidize unemployed members, because that gives members a gigantic incentive to join the subsidized group. And most people won’t join a union that requires very high monthly dues, they’d rather get the money up front and take their chances about getting sick or getting fired.
Health insurance through your union would have to work like regular old insurance, just using the union as your risk pool rather than your co-employees. And it would be offered on a take-it or leave-it basis, and anyone who took it would have to pay just about 100% of the monthly premiums themselves. The advantage is that the union could be a larger risk pool, which means lower premiums, and your health care doesn’t change every time you change jobs, only if you change careers and quit the union. It would work exactly like COBRA, except you’d have it as long as you’re a member of the union.
But this option really only makes sense in industries where most employees don’t already get health insurance through their employer. Which means, since white collar workers almost always get acceptable insurance, there won’t be much demand for it, because alternatives like COBRA already exist. It would be attractive to workers in industries that don’t provide health insurance, but those industries aren’t white collar, unless you include lower-rung office temps as white collar workers. And those people usually CAN get insurance through their employer…they just typically have to pay 100% of the premiums themselves. And if you’re a 20something healthy person with no dependents, paying a few hundred dollars a month for insurnace is a waste of money, unless you’re hit by a truck.
Of course, you could just expand that union to include “everyone”, and make monthly premiums mandatory for everyone, and make your expected payments a function of your ability to pay, and remove the ability to opt out…and then you’ve got what they have in Canada.
Costs are so high, in part because every time a doctor pulls some hair out with a band-aid he’s got to go to court and defend himself. Don’t even get me started on the OB-Gyn liability issues. Further, costs are through the roof because the insurance industry has the entire country by the balls. Nervous, litigious, chicken-hearted people stumble through life just waiting for the next cup of hot coffee to get dumped on their laps, and rather than pay the feckin lawyers, the insurance company settles, and every time they do, everybody else pays. The gulf coast is a prime example of that.
Truly, when you’re unemployed, you likely can’t afford that $900, however if, while you’re working, you save adequately, you can subsist until another job is available. Granted, jobs aren’t easy to come by all the time (though at 4.6% unemployment, anyone who wants a job SHOULD be able to get one) but as people live further and further beyond their means (why SHOULDN’T I get a bigger TV!) when that rainy day comes, and you find yourself swinging in the wind, why should everyone else foot the bill?
This one…
I know that laws “prohibit” this activity, but brother, I would stake your reputation on the fact that 3 of every 10 union (dues) dollars find their way into one unions PAC or another.
When I was with the Teamsters, I was close to several other locals and agencies, whom I spoke with often and not a SINGLE member gave to the PAC, this of some 150 members, because the union took so much money in the first place, that giving them anymore was like pulling teeth.
The Teamsters have this “DRIVE” deal now (linky…) that they’re couching as a “voter registration” movement in contract negotiations (they want the language about donations in contracts) and it’s just another PAC.
Granted, business lobbies hard and I’m against that too, but when it comes to unions, rules seldom apply completely, if at all.
Because your thread inspired me to say what I said and because I didn’t feel like going to that other thread to make my point.
The answer is still no.
I just realized how this looked…
I don’t mean to say the victims of the gulf coast are "Nervous, litigious or chicken-hearted"I meant to link that to the “The insurance industry has the country by the balls” comment, by I mean that the insurance companies gambled that nothing would happen by selling insurance, and now that they’re going to have to actually make good, and the victims have to pull teeth to get what they paid for in the first place now, in the name of profit margins, we’re all stuck footing the (higher insurance) bill.
The Teamsters have never been known for playing on the right side of the fence, but every dues dollar for every union has to be accounted for to the NLRB. That would be the Bush-appointed NLRB. The very labor-unfriendly Bush-appointed NLRB. Seriously, if 30% of all dues dollars went into political coffers, you don’t think the NLRB would be raising red flags from sea to shining sea?
I can’t speak for the Teamsters, cuz as I said, I have no affiliation with them, but I will guaran-damn-tee that “3 of every 10 union (dues) dollars” from my International union does not go into the national PAC. I can’t speak for every local or district council, just as every federal employee can’t speak for every city or state government.
But let me get this straight: you’ve had one less-than-stellar experience with one historically less-than-stellar union, and suddenly you’re staking my reputation on something you really have no idea about? Okaaaay.
I think unions do know how much it costs to employ someone-- most unions have employees. Also most unions’ negotiating teams cost out contracts while in negotiations, so they’re well aware of what the benies cost. Not to mention the fact, most unions are actually fighting for health-care reform at all levels of government. But this is also why most unions don’t like to budge on health-care costs in negotiations: if they can force the company to shoulder most of the costs, maybe corporate America will join the workers in the fight for health-care reform. Looks like the UAW is actually making headway with GM in this respect.
I’m pretty sure that the Teamsters (at least) have a dandy way to account for those funneling dollars. I’m not saying I know what it is, but…
Well, rhetoric for the pit and all that, apologies if I’ve over-dramatized things, but I’m not talking about the pipewashers local 13, I’m talking about the mother of all Labor Unions. Granted, not every union is crooked, and I should not have painted with a broad brush like that, but there are shady tactics employed by every union I’ve dealt with, even when the management has been dealing as straight as they can be. (That includes UAW, IBEW and SEIU)
I think the component that most unionistas miss is the necessity of a profit margin. Without a substantial margin of profit, investors will not invest, without investment, companies die, or worse, never get off the ground. That, or if they’re already established, are beaten into submission by unrealistic entitlements that, if they effect the bottom line too severely, the jobs go away.
Fortunately with GM, it seems like a real life-saving balance was struck between two venerable organizations who have lost both influence and money to overseas competition over the years. With a $51 billion dollar liability facing them, (which is roughly twice their Market Capitalization) the two choices are work with the union (and the union with them) and both survive, or both take a hard line, and both go down together.
The 50’s are over. As is the time of working in one place for forty years, and retiring with a enormous pension and lifetime healthcare, conversely, also gone are the days of gigantic monolithic companies and insane profits, it’s just now that both sides are feeling the heat of modern globalization, and realizing that if they don’t survive together, they’ll die alone.
As far as this “forcing the company to shoulder the costs” bit to entice involvement… I say bollocks.
Anyone who wants health care reform, needs to start with tort reform. Healthcare is a business too, so then is insurance to cover that, and insurance companies, especially big ones, NEVER LOSE MONEY in the long run. EVER. Through economies good and bad, through war, disasters both natural and man made Insurance companies will profit, because the law allows them to, nay, REQUIRES them to exist and thereby profit. The only way to change healthcare, is to change insurance.
Good luck.
What does this even mean?
Do you mean administrators? How can they? Administrators are not members of the teachers union-- they are management. Yes, they are constantly pushing for teachers to do things that are beyond their contractual obligations and which are unfair. That’s part of why we have a union, because there seems to be this pervasive idea that teachers aren’t teaching because it’s their job and they need to get paid for their time. No, we are all altruistic and should be doing more, more, more. There is this push to do extra, to volunteer chunks of your personal life. I have actually heard teachers, who work full time, snidely referred to as “part timers” for not doing extra, free work on their own time; I can tell you that you that you have trouble getting tenure if you don’t volunteer, and the pressure doesn’t let up afterwards, but you are protected and can say no without fear of reprisal.
I do extra stuff, when it’s volunteering, not when it’s pressured, required, or mandated. I bet this happens in a lot of other jobs, but most other jobs don’t make you feel like you don’t care about kids and aren’t really into having your job if you don’t give away several hours of your personal time a week, including lunch and prep periods, gratis. Makes me glad I have a union to fall back on.
This stereotype is really freakin’ annoying. Everyone who bitches about teachers unions had that one bad teacher they claim couldn’t be fired because of the union. It’s a tired trope and it’s not even close to the sum of what the teachers union does.
There’s a substitute teachers union forming in this area, and it’s a very good idea. Those subs haven’t had a raise in about 2 decades, and they just do not pay a living wage for what is a very hard job that’s quite important. They too get asked to do far more than what they are paid to do, and they need protection, because they are very vulnerable. A building administrator can blacklist a sub for personal reasons and that sub just will not get a job in that building again, despite the fact that we have a massive sub shortage and, if you need to call in sick on a Friday or Monday morning, likely no one will teach your classes AND other teachers will be asked to work on their breaks for free to cover for you. There needs to be a union, and I hope they are successful in forming one.