[QUOTE=Happy Lendervedder]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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…
[QUOTE=Happy Lendervedder]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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)
[QUOTE=Happy Lendervedder]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.