What all are wrong with labor unions? I haven’t heard any good argument that labor unions are bad. Most are just anti-communist, pro free trade tirades that have nothing to do with how people really live.
So what all is bad about a labor union? the only think i can think of is that they may increase wages, which cause the company to go bankrupt, cut employees, or move overseas. Is there anything else thats bad about them?
First off, I work at a car company. My skewed view of life is now obvious.
I suppose the thing unionized companies complain about the most is competing with non unionized firms; the wages and benifits they pay are naturally higher, making life tougher for them. Bad in itself? Not really, just comparitively. But a fair complaint, just the same.
Secondly, it makes it tough to respond to change. When the union rules are the only thing the workers see as being on their side and protecting them, its obviously tough to adjust those rules as business needs require. And we all know that companies that are not flexible don’t respond to changing business conditions as well as they could.
I was so dissapointed today when I found out that I can’t recycle glass bottles (clearly a good thing to do) because the unionized janitors thought it was too dangerous. I’m all for keeping them safe, that is one of the most important benifits of having a union, but I just wish both sides could work together for a better solution. There has got to be a safe way to recycle glass bottles, but the animosity surrounding union jobs makes it so tough… not impossible, but harder. And in this case, I think we all lose out.
I haven’t had any experience with them directly, but my dad is a member of the US Postal Union. His biggest complaint is that there are people who work for the post office who rarely if ever come to work, but they can’t be fired because of the Union. Unfortunatly, because of that, everyone else has to work harder(partially due to hiring freezes due to budget problems).
He doesn’t hate the union and is glad for the job security it provides, but feels that the union should be a bit more discriminating in who they protect.
Very little in theory. In reality, they aren’t well-regulated, and are prone to thuggery, extortion, and corruption. Overall, IMO, unions are a Good Thing, but they could use better oversight.
I’ve only had firsthand experience with faculty unions at community colleges, but from what I’ve seen, some are excellent and some are terrible. There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground. At one campus, our little group struggles against the unit members’ apathy and fear. At another campus, it’s a big, strong, active group with a lot of people involved. Of course, much of this depends on the administrations as well. They can work with the union to make things better for the campus and especially for the students, or they can turn everything into a battle.
It seems to me like they have an aspect in common with the worst bureaucracies:
Once they have accomplished what they were created to accomplish, they must manufacture new concerns in order to justify their continued existence.
And like the worst bureaucracies, it can be a great racket. For many, the only real work you have to do is come up with reasons for people to give you money. If you play it right, you never have to show positive results, just promise them if people give you more money. (See the teacher’s union.)
Upshot: they exist to advocate for their members’ interests. And too often, those interests boil down to “more money, less responsibility”.
Hope this post doesn’t come across as an anti-communist, pro free trade tirade that has nothing to do with how people really live. :rolleyes:
Just a few quick ones (from a Danish point of view):
Labour unions are founded on a principle of force and coercion. If one worker for some reason does not want to participate he often is faced with no other possibility than quitting his job.
Labour unions are looking out for the interest of the currently employed only – and often fight for legislation that is directly opposed to other people outside the labour union. E.g. higher wages, shorter working hours, longer vacation, etc. effectively keep a large segment of the workforce away from any realistic chance of regular occupation, because they, for one reason or another, don’t have qualifications that can match such high expenses.
Or because they often favour legislation that harm workers in other countries, as when they struggle against free trade agreements, or free movement of workers within the EU – which is harmful to all the new member states.
Labour unions can force its members to contribute to things they find wrong or directly morally disgusting. In Denmark labour unions support one party (The Social Democrats) with large amount of money. Money taken from the members, of which goes to support a party a large part of the members does not vote for. Also there are some labour unions that are active in foreign politics, such as of boycotting Israel.
Labour unions are often massively bureaucratic and wasteful and often corrupt with the members’ money.
/Rune
So are corporations; the difference is, however, there are more government regulations for unions than for corporations.
[quote]
Overall, IMO, unions are a Good Thing, but they could use better oversight.*
I work for a union, and every penny that’s paid to me has to be documented, sometimes in quadruplicate. Also every minute I spent at work is documented-- what I’m doing, how much of my day was spent doing what, etc.
I’m not arguing with you quothz, just clarifying with some of my experience. 
There is the potential for corruption in unions; but the good thing is every member of the union has the power to make changes.
I think the important difference is that if you think one company has too much corruption (which supposedly will result in bad products and services) you are completely free to choose another company. On the other hand if you think a labour union engage in too much corruption, you, as a worker, very often do not have such free hands – but are forced to choose between supporting a (in your opinion) corrupt labour union or quitting the job.
Agreed, if you don’t like the union, your only alternative may be to quit. On the other hand, the same thing applies if you don’t like your employer.
That said, there are unions that are too big and powerful. If the union controls a whole industry, your only option is to change careers. Sometimes that applies to corporations too; consider the old “company towns.”
What if you don’t like the way your country is run? Are your only options then: a) to support a lousy government by remaining a citizen or b) moving? Of course not. You can work/ campaign to get change. Same thing applies with labor unions. The Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) is an example of this. Sort of a political party within the IBT working to bring about whatever changes they feel need to be made from the top on down.
Well-run unions (and I agree not all are well-run) are just mini democracies where all the workers have a voice. If the workers aren’t able to voice their needs-- and be heard-- then the union has failed.
Happy
Personal ancedote here…
Yesterday I was listening to one of the local AM radio hosts. His topic for callers was give him your best “lazy worker” story. Call after call poured in, some of the comments (paraphrased) were:
I worked in a factory and my co-workers would hit 100% of their quota by 11:00 a.m. and then do nothing the rest of the day.
At the Post Office we had guys who would call in sick once a week, every week, and they’d never be fired.
Now, I’m not trying to say that applies to everyone in a union but it kind of reinforced my own problems with unions.
MeanJoe
Doesn’t this belong on the Humble Opinion board?
I grew up in PA, where unions were quite strong, and what I know of unions makes me despise them.
Thuggery: I remember a trucker being shot during a trucking strike. I remember roofers getting pushed from roofs for not joining the union. A friend of mine, from MI, had a brother who was the local union rep. At one trade show, he plugged in a projector. Another union guy told him if he ever did that again, they would break his arm.
Bureaucratic overgrowth: My sister-in-law and brother-in-law had to belong to a union in order at the local textile plant. You’d think if anyone needed a union, it would be someone working in a textile plant. Nope. The union did absolutely nothing for them but collect dues. The plant closed a couple of years ago. At no time did their union so much as write a letter to its members.
Political Machine: The teacher’s union is the best example. In the US, you essentially have to belong or you have lawsuit protection. The teacher’s union always supports the Democratic candidate, even if his policies oppose that of the union. I remember this most distinctly in the Dole-Reagan election. One of Dole’s planks was to reform education. Most of the reforms were opposed by the union, but the union supported him anyway. Not to mention the fact that, as the vote tally indicates, many teachers supported Reagan and not Dole.
That one makes me chuckle. My friend with the union rep brother used to tell of their “elections”. Every year, bus loads of guys no one had ever seen before would show up and vote for the incumbent.
Psst…they’re both Republicans.
When this happens, the national union, or in a worst-case-scenario, the federal government has every right to, and should, come in and establish a trusteeship until the union/local can reorganize under decent elected leadership.
But I’m glad I made you chuckle. And this probably should be in IMHO.
My arguement is that we don’t damn the democratic process when local/state/national governments become corrupt. We work at reform. Most unions are good, functioning democratic organizations. You only hear stories of the corrupt ones, so that often becomes the image people have of labor organizations. And that’s unfortunate because the successes of organized labor effect all of society (how you enjoying those two-day weekends and 8-hour work days and health & safety/wage & hour standards?)
There is nothing inherently bad about labor unions. They were formed with the goal of protecting workers’ interests - that is, decent wages and benefits, safer working conditions, more control over the workplace - against the interests of the companies and the capitalists that run them - that is, generating an acceptably large margin of profit. Any quick examination of the labor history of the 19th and early 20th centuries will illustrate just how strongly those interests can (and still do) conflict.
Happy Lendervedder is correct when he says we shouldn’t damn the unions wholesale just because we hear more about the corrupt ones than we do about the well-run ones. There is nothing inherent in the concept of a union that leads them irreversibly to corruption and thuggery; unfortunately there’s nothing inherent in unions that protects them from such degeneration, either. It all depends on the strength of the democratic traditions within the unions and the willingness of the rank-and-file membership to take on both the bosses and the union leadership if and when necessary.
I also work for a union (and I belong to 2 unions–the one I work for and the one that represents the people who work for the union) and in my job, I often represent people who have been fired. Every once in a while this is a bad worker who deserves to be fired, but we still represent him/her. Why? Probably because management did not do its job and fired the employee without progressive discipline (one of the biggest advantages for a unionized worker is progressive disciplne, it protects the worker from being fired because the supervisor doesn’t like his hair color–it is the thing that separates unionized employees from at-will employees).
Take the worker who calls in sick one day out of every week. Once the supervisor notices a pattern, the employee should be warned, ususally verbally (I’m using a general progressive discipline scheme, specific contracts may call for more or less process), if the employee keeps doing it, a written warning or reprimand. If he still doesn’t get his act together, maybe a reduction in pay or a short suspension. If still no improvement, fire him. If the management has gone through this process, given the guy a chance to improve, documented the problems, etc. then my union would not challenge his firing.
Progressive discipline is flexible–coming to work threatening to use the loaded gun you’re carrying or beating up your co-worker will get you fired even if you’ve been a perfect employee until that time. And, absent heave-duty mitigating circumstances (and I can’t think of any for the examples just given), the union won’t challenge the action.
I recently represented an employee everybody hated–at least half the work group was glad she was gone. But, management fired her for using “too much” profanity without defining what was “too much” in a workplace where a level of profanity is common. Management decided that they should tone down the profanity (a good intention) and decided to make an example out of this worker. Even the people who wanted her fired saw that this was dangerous. Management can change the rules, but people have to be warned. She got her job back and management posted new rules about profanity. Now if she, or anyone else breaks those rules, they can be disciplined.
On the other hand, I have a friend who is a teacher in an area with a weak union (an association, really). The only protection against firing for 5 years is that the School Board must approve the principal’s decision. My friend dared to make two student athletes stay in class to finish a test instead of allowing them to leave to get their team picture taken, and then come back to finish the next day. (The students knew about the test and the pictures and could have arranged to take the test at another time, but they didn’t). The principal, after admitting that my friend was an excellent teacher and had revived the language department, fired her because she had a “bad attitude”. The school board also acknowledged that her teaching had been excellent, but upheld the decision. Such is life for the non-union worker.
yes it did, go home to your swastikas and class III firearms. I say that because many people i’ve met who are anti-labor union are blindly pro-conservative and everything that goes along with it, they have never benefited from a labor union and probably never even seen one in real life.
I almost expounded so far as to say “so are corporations”*. But that’s a can of worms. I’ll pause for a moment to note that most unions, like most businesses, are benign enough.
I’ll take your word on the regulations. Corporations have to pay special attention to public relations, however; they answer to stockholders, customers, potential customers, and the media. So when dealing with an external enemy, corporations must tread gently. Many corporations are not above a little abuse of process or monopolistic behavior when given a chance, of course.
On the other hand, corporations are often free to treat their employees terribly, unless the employees have a strong union to protect them. Retribution and extortion with threat of demotion or dismissal are common fare for wage-slaves, although it’s more subtle in a white-collar environment.
Unions have to sing and dance a bit, too, but not to the same tune. Their responsibility is to look after their members. And the members are very likely to approve of - and even participate in - a little mummery if it seems to be in their interest**.
Because of the strong loyalty unions command of their members, they are able to act more directly, using injury and destruction as means to achieve their ends with regards to both internal and external dissent. Union officials have also been known to draw inordinately large salaries and/or perks, accept bribes, and use their positions for personal or familial gain***.
Unions are also curiously political animals. Their endorsements are very influential. Occasionally these endorsements are not based on the candidate’s political position****.
So while union protections are better than nothing, they generate their own unique problems.
The correct answer: employee-owned corporations.
*Of course, all employers can abuse their hirelings. The worst atrocities often occur at small businesses. It’s just that corporations can do it on such a grand scale.
** Some unions seem to have aquired a reputation for being involved in organized crime. I can’t imagine why that could be.
*** This is also true of every position of power ever devised by mankind, not excluding the Papacy.
**** Unless that position involves the candidate on his knees, holding up a suitcase full of money.
I thought the recycling of glass, esp mixed glass actually cost more then making ‘new’ glass.
Anyway I am a conserative who fully supports unions. Unions are the people banning together to set up fair labor policies. I would much rather have that then Gov’t regulation.
Unions are great in theory, but in my experience, lousy in practice.
As most unions currently stand, they value seniority at the expense of individual merit, and I predict that many will disappear in the next two decades as baby boomers retire. Once they go, so do the unions.
Unless unions get re-invented from within, but since that requires valuing ideas and merit…