I can certainly understand the critique of certain unions when they are in the wrong, but it seems like there is a growing number of people who are against unions in general. Or, more specifically, workers unions. For all the bad actions of unions, you can equally bad actions from management and administration. So what gives? Is there any sound reason there is so much antipathy against unions?
They companies have the media screamers working for them. It is now right wing canon that unions are evil. It’s one of the ways corporations use the media to manipulate people into voting against their own best interests. Everything “liberal” is evil, and of the devil. The facts don’t matter. If you can stuff it into this category called “liberal,” you can make people hate it, because liberals hate Christ.
Because unions are scum-sucking depraved commie bastard nogoodniks eager to eat the heart of freedom-loving hard-working people everywhere.
The line of thinking I have heard is:
“Unions demand higher pay than the market decides, and will not allow poor performers to be fired. As a result US business cannot compete globally which destroys jobs. So supporting a union means you support destroying jobs”
I don’t really buy it, since there is an entire economic philosophy that is supported by conservatives in this country that basically says
Anything that directly and immediately benefits the wealthy and powerful will eventually benefit you too eventually. Anything that directly and immediately benefits you will eventually harm you.
So giving direct, immediate benefits to the wealthy (supply side tax cuts, cutting regulations, cutting environmental protections, removing trade barriers) will eventually trickle down while any benefits that benefit the working class (minimum wages, labor unions, environmental protections, consumer protections, labor protections, etc) will eventually harm them.
That is the thinking I have seen. I don’t buy it. It sounds like something a con artist would say (anything that directly benefits me will eventually indirectly benefit you too. Anything that directly benefits you and harms me will also indirectly harm you eventually). I think it is just a tool the powerful use to subjugate the working class and keep them at each other’s throats, but there you go.
However on the subject of unions there does seem to be an antipathy that extends far beyond just the economics of it (the KKK was strongly anti-union and they weren’t considered an economic organization). I don’t know if that is conscious or unconscious. Labor unions are a powerhouse of getting left wing agendas passed through and left wing politicians elected that aren’t always economic (like fighting racism or anti-gay measures, or fighting for universal health care). So the antipathy could just be a response to the fact that a strong union movement also means a strong left wing movement. However I don’t know if the people who hate unions know that about unions on a conscious level.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/05/10/labor_law_reform_not_just_for_unions.php
There’s elements of what DtC and Bryan say.
But there’s also elements of the fact that to someone who ISN’T in a union, union demands often seem so bizarre as to be inexplicable. When the postal workers complain that 36 hours is too long a workweek, as in fact they have done here, it’s hard for people who work more than 40 hours a week on a regular basis to feel positively about that.
And of course, the unions who act reasonably don’t make the news; it’s the ones who act unreasonably that make news. When a union engages in three days of productive talks that end in a contract, nobody notices; when a civil service union passes vile anti-Semitic resolutions, as in fact happens from time to time in Ontario, people notice. The bad apples are the ones you smell the most.
This works for most anything; look how “corporations” have become these boogyemen in the common vernacular. That 99.9% of “corporations” are just common businesses, charities, and other such organizations run by decent people conducting ordinary business isn’t what makes the news. What makes the news are Enron, BP, and Blackwater, because by acting evilly, they make news.
I separate unions into three categories:
-
Non-coercive unions that use collective bargaining to improve the working conditions of labor by entering into free negotiations with management.
-
Coercive unions that have special legal protections that prevent employers from negotiating freely.
-
Public unions that are employed by government and are paid with taxpayer money.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with the first kind of union. For example, my brother is in a trade union. It is not mandatory - the employer has both union and non-union workers in the same job. The trade union derives its power in two ways - one is the ability to take a large block of workers and go on strike and hurt the employer if their demands are not met, but the other is the value that the union brings to the employer.
This type of union gains in power when its collective employees are more productive. It works with the employer to set up training standards, safety standards, and in other ways to bring added value to the workplace. In exchange, the workers are compensated. If negotiations break down, the union can (and has) taken its members on strike. In some cases in the past, if the demands were unreasonable the employer basically told them to take a hike. That either brings a new round of negotiation, or lots of union guys find new jobs - often with the same employer under a new, non-union contract.
To me, this type of union is about perfect in terms of the power structure of the firm. Collective bargaining definitely keeps the employer in line, as losing a big part of the workforce is very expensive. You have retraining costs, downtime, etc. And if your conditions are really that bad, you can count on the pattern to repeat. But employers like this union, because it gets to offload all kinds of stuff onto the union management - HR duties, training, etc. If an employee gets sick, the union will call the office and pull a temp off the job board. If the employer needs to start a new project or has a failure in the plant that requires an extra block of workers, he can get on the phone with the union and have twenty guys on site the next day, fully trained, ready to go.
These types of unions are valuable to both employees and employers. It’s a win-win relationship.
But when unions become mandatory - when government steps in and forces employers to deal with the union, and makes it impossible for the employer to fire employees without union agreement or fire the entire union if it’s out of control, you wind up with an imbalance of power. The union can (and often does) become destructive to the company. It’s these kinds of unions that tend to push their workers into minimum levels of productivity to boost employment and to keep everyone from having to work too hard. These kinds of unions become very powerful and the top management of the union can be indistinguishable in benefits and power from the management of the corporation.
The worst unions are the public employees unions, because they remove the last check and balance in the system. At least the coercive unions can be forced to the bargaining table if their demands are so unrealistic that the company cannot survive them. But the public unions are paid from the endless supply the taxpayer’s teat. They are special interests and rent-seekers just as other lobbyists are. They use the power and finances of government to benefit themselves at the expense of the people who pay their bills.
Public unions are unaccountable to no one but politicians, and they’ve learned to play the political game extremely well. Not only do they use union dues (taxpayer money) to fund political campaigns, but they have huge memberships who will vote as a bloc and who can be called upon to disrupt society with general strikes, slowdowns, and other pain the electorate will feel - and blame the politicians. Ask Arnie in California how his attempt to reform the public unions worked out.
In New Jersey, for example, a billion dollars in stimulus money was used to give teachers a 4.9% raise - at a time when everyone in the private sector was having their wages frozen or cut - if they were lucky to be employed at all. This year, the stimulus money ran out, leaving a bloated public sector budget that added about 800 million dollars to New Jersey’s already out of control debt.
When the new governor asked the teacher’s union to take a one-year pay freeze and pay 1.5% of their salary into the health care plan to make it fiscally sound, the union refused. This still would have left them with a 2.4% pay raise per year, but they simply flat-out refused to compromise and walked away from the bargaining table. They didn’t count on Governor Christie calling their bluff and announcing a bunch of layoffs - they were too used to politicians rolling over and giving them what they wanted because ultimately it was politically more palatable to increase the deficit a bit than it was to face the wrath of the public unions.
In the end, some teachers and staff were laid off, and others finally agreed to take one year or half year pay freezes. But now, the federal government is passing another ‘stimulus’ bill, which is explicitly aimed at saving or creating jobs. But the teacher’s union wants to use the money to restore pay increases instead of hiring people back who were layed off.
You wonder why the unions are developing a bad rep? That’s why. New Jersey has a higher than average unemployment rate. Most people who work there are facing salary cuts, cuts in hours worked, or at best pay freezes. They are already among the highest taxed people in the U.S. They have zero sympathy for union members who already make well above the average in income and benefits threatening strikes if they don’t get wage increases.
Even Democrats are getting fed up with the public unions. One of the things that made the stimulus less effective than it could have been was that a significant amount of the funding simply went to increasing the salaries of already-employed public union members. That’s not very stimulative. Some of it went into shoring up underfunded public pension programs - again, not stimulative. Infrastructure programs weren’t effective because union prevailing-wage demands slowed down projects. The Davis-Bacon act requirement to pay union wages in all federal contracting jobs means fewer workers with higher pay instead of job creation for lower-productivity workers, again reducing the effectiveness of the stimulus.
If you’re a lefty who believes in bigger government, you more than anyone else should want to get a handle on the excesses of the public unions, because they make government worse and therefore turn the population away from government solutions. Some Democrats are starting to figure that out.
I’m generally liberal, pro-social program person.
I never ever want to work a union job.
Why?
All of the exposure I’ve had to unions is, as RickJay said, bizarre. Things like having to have a union electician and his boss drive over to your trade show booth in order to duct tape an extension cord to the floor. Part time student employees having to pay union dues, if they work for the university they are going to school at. Or having a 3 hr welding job turn into an all day process for 2 people, because of the rigidity of union rules.
On top of that, as an employee, I know that I’m in the upper half of the work force when it comes to my ability to do my job (but then aren’t we all?). Personally, I’d rather make or break it on my own, rather than be dragged down by the sub-standard employees, all while paying the union a monthly due.
Well, I was never terribly sympathetic to unions, but since that time when my department wanted to give me a raise and the union fought against it, I’ve come to feel a pretty good hate on 'em.
Your experience happens to match my very first cognizant contact with union labor (outside of public school teachers.)
I was a helper at a Las Vegas trade show and was unloading some boxes from the trunk of a car. The union guys came up with their dollies and said they were supposed to transport them in. I said the boxes weren’t that heavy and I’d just carry them in myself. They gave me a disgusted look as if I was the scum of the Earth. The union and their harassment was not part of the solution, they were part of the problem.
As a 16 year Letter Carrier and Union Member, I would appreciate a link or cite to those threads. I know I speak for my local branch when I state that we are happy to perform a 40 hour work week, especially considering the declining volume of mail, and personally find it hard to comprehend that fellow carriers would feel differently.
I have been both a victim and beneficiary of union activity. Prior to my employment in the USPS, I was released from duty in a grocery chain because I refused to sign up, even though it was only for a two month summertime job. My current union, The National Association of Letter Carriers, is an open shop, and operates to maintain parity between the letter carrier contract and management. I have been expected to toe the line w/ our contract, and accept the punitive measures when I have violated them… as have our managment when they openly violate said contract.
I understand the angst towards unions, but to paint them all negatively w/ a broad brush is unfair.
I must clarify that I am not saying all unions are like this. As Sam points out, many unions - most, probably - do the job they’re supposed to do. I work with many companies where the union serves the needs of the workers and doesn’t do silly shit like get into politics.
But, again, those unions don’t get into the news.
Shoujin, I am referring to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which is infamous for its… unusual demands, shall we say, not to mention an absolutely frothing anti-Semitism.
There is no longer a need for unions. Back in Gompers day, they were a Godsend. In today’s world they help breed mediocrity, laziness, and ineptitude. They protect the weak, while making sure no light is cast upon the exceptional. The management is made up of teat-sucking bullies. The rank and file, those who don’t want the responsibility of standing up for themselves.
When I got my first job in a supermarket I had to join a union, because of the rules of that union I had to work for something like 2.5 years at that supermarket to get a raise. Since it was a temporary, part-time job I wasn’t too concerned, but it’d be pretty ridiculous for someone trying to actually work there full time. Especially since starting wage was minimum wage.
Summers after that I worked at a smaller, locally owned supermarket, the store owner gave me a raise about six months after I was hired based on my performance.
Experiences like that can definitely make people question why they want to be in a union, especially if you’re in a union that has the ability to stop you from being employed at all if you don’t join up with them.
On the flip side, some men in my family that worked in coal mines (I had a discussion with one of them recently after the Upper Big Branch mine disaster in West Virginia) said that one nice thing about a union mine is the safety standards are enforced very strictly by the unions. At the same time, that same family member said he generally did not like to work in union mines. He said they strictly limited the amount of overtime you could get, whereas non-union mines he could maximize his take home pay. He did say that the best option (at least in that industry) was to find a mine that wasn’t unionized but actually took safety standards seriously. He mentioned a few companies that he felt that label applied to (I won’t mention them by name since he was just going off his personal experiences and it’s not something I want to argue about.)
I had a similar experience where I was contracting and they wanted to hire me. But the job was union and couldn’t come close to matching my salary - and the reason - computer programmers and analysts (I was an analyst) were on the same pay scale as secretaries. So, I could take the job, but I’d get paid as a secretary.
Since I’d stopped being a secretary several years before, going back to secretarial pay - even though it was very high secretarial pay, was not at all attractive.
If I’d still been a secretary and they’d offered me that pay, it would have been very attractive. But unions sacrificing their IT staff so that the secretaries could make more money - that wasn’t a reasonable idea.
I suggest you properly define your public unions. Federal employee unions practically have no power other than to bargain for working conditions. Everything else is tightly help by Congress, including salaries, benefits, etc. You claim about state and/or local government unions may be well founded. But to infer all public unions are scum is disingenuous at best and an uncompromising bias on your part at worst. In holding that view, you are also part of the problem.
I don’t know about the CUPW, so I can’t say if they are anti-Semitic. But it should be mentioned that unions have a tendency to support political agendas that are seen as “left-wing”, which in North America usually includes supporting the Palestinian side in the Israel-Palestine conflict. This does not imply any anti-Semitism, but it’s true that (for example) left-wing politicians and labour leaders have participated in demonstrations in support of Hamas. I would call that naive; someone else might call it anti-Semitic.
Why is that a problem? What is inherently wrong with a union being as powerful as the management of a corporation? Theoretically, they should be able to just fire everyone if need be, right?
How do they do that? What system of check and balances exists when unions are absent that cannot exist while they are present?
What you seem to be arguing for is essentially a claw-back. What other business can you contract to pay something, then whine when your run out of money, while at the same time vilifying the other party in the contract for demanding what he’s due? Honestly, take unions out of it for a second. If your company promised to pay you x more over the next 5 years, then next year they said sorry we ran out of money, just accept what we can give you; are you telling me you would accept it without argument?
Secondly, as someone who has/had several family member in education, in New Jersey, I can assure you that your synopsis of what is going on there is very one-sided. I don’t really think you are being fair to teachers there.
Isn’t that how the process should work? Why is it better to have a situation where one side dictates all the terms?
Did you ever read your own cite? You completely characterized the stance of those districts.
So what you claim is actually not really accurate. It’s not the union, but rather the districts (the ones who took pay freezes) themselves that would like to use the money for raises. Do you have a cite that corroborates the statements you made, or do you admit that you mischaracterized the situation?
Another complete falsehood. While I agree people have little sympathy for the unions, hence the OP, the rest of your comment is demonstrably false. You are using a statistical slight of hand to make it seem like teacher salaries are inflated. Any honest person would compare their salaries to jobs that require similar skills and levels of education. When you do so, their compensation is pretty comparable.
So while you may have a good general point about unions, please stop using flawed stats to back up your claims.
Having worked on both sides of the union fence (labor and management) and grown up in a strong union family, I have a healthy respect for well run unions.
Contrary to the claims of their detractors, it is possible to discipline and terminate a bad employee who works under union contract. The thing is, the employer must have their ducks in a row and have the documentation to back it up. Works for me as either an employee or a supervisor.
Many of the benefits of union jobs extend to their non-union counterparts. Because one grocery store in my town is union, the others have to be competative with wages and benefits to attract and retain employees. When the Saturn plant was still operating in our area, Nissan had to compete for employees and kept the wages and bennies close to and sometimes surpassing UAW levels. Once the Saturn plant closed, Nissan bought out most of the full time employees and went to contract labor at about half the cost and no bennies. They now have a huge turnover and quality issues that had not surfaced before.
To answer the OP’s questions, anti-union sentiment targets people who feel disenfranchised with their own jobs. A blue collar worker who makes $12 an hour generally won’t have much sympathy for a union negotiating for wages at twice that rate. Never mind that if the unions didn’t negotiate higher wages at other places of employment, his/her own wages would be even more abyssmal and there wouldn’t be as much of a market for the goods that he/she produces. That’s just part of the discontent that the right wing targets with anti-union propaganda.
Another is small business owners, many of which pay starvation wages and no benefits. The anti-union activists pander to the fears that the business won’t be able to operate because of union labor driving up operating costs. There are many good, fair small businesses out there, but at least as many would own slaves if it were legal and served to put money in their pockets.
Like anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and christian nation advocates, the anti-union people use fear and discontent to gain a following.
Don’t the pro-union folks do the same thing? I have never had any direct dealings with a union but I know a little about labor history and I’m glad for what they did. While I think most of the big fights have been won I still think there’s a place for unions. There are still places where management will bully workers into skipping breaks, not taking a full 30 minutes for lunch, and encouraging them to work off the clock. I know we have labor laws against that sort of thing but those laws can seem remote to some poor schmoe who is afraid of losing his job.
To a certain degree. IME, as a former union member, it was more about ensuring the continuation of fair wages, safety standards, hours worked (I’m talking about getting one day off after 14 days worked versus after 21 days) and benefits. More of a stress on the positive.