I used to find this rationale persuasive. Then I considered the history of Solidarność. The inherent perfidy of public employee unions seems less persuasive in contexts where the government behaves like a conventional employer.
I think unions exist to level the negotiating table. If the union makes stupid demands, it’s the job of the business to say no. The union isn’t always right, but the workers are better off that it exists. Instead of whining that public employees should give up their unions 'cos they have it too good, private sector workers should organize themselves.
Ultimately, the best solution for many (but hardly all) industries is to move to a co-op or employee-owned structure, where the union is the management is the stockholders, & all their interests are aligned. Other industries will have to make do with a sort of guild system.
And self-important loners like Sam will die in the streets gnashing their teeth & wailing at the moon that they lost every job because their daemons of self-importance prevented them from being joiners, which, as a self-important loner myself, I admit is probably as it should be.
If the unions go away completely, everything they accomplished since Gompers’s day will be reversed. Today’s world is how it is because unions have been a political force.
As for protecting the weak from the exceptional, yes, that’s rather the point.
No, that’s not the point. The intent is to protect the workers collectively from the power embalances and potential abuses between the company and the workers as individuals.
“Protecting the weak from the exceptional” is protecting incompetance and mediocrity:
-Raises and promotions based on seniority and tenure instead of performance and acomplishments
-Not allowing employees to perform any tasks outside of their narrow job description regardless of the benefit
-Demanding compensation out of line with the value of the service provided
-Resisting any change or improvements
Unions have become largely irrelevant these days for a number of reason:
-Increase in the number of jobs for highly educated highly trained professionals
-Increased mobility allowing workers to change jobs or careers more easily
-Less adversarial relationship between labor and management
People get turned off to unions when they see the UAW driving up costs while American car companies can barely run. Or the MTA union demanding higher wages while services are being cut and fares are increasing. Or teachers unions constantly complaining they don’t get paid enough.
Like NJ governor Christy said. No one forced you to become a teacher.
Even a diehard union sympathizer shouldn’t say this because it’s incorrect. The main point of the union is collective bargaining – strength in numbers. An entire membership of exceptional workers could form a union. The NFL Players Union might be an example. Those 1,696 guys represent the best football players in the world. The union doesn’t protect any weak players; it’s simply a collective bargaining structure. How are weak players “protected” when the team owners can just cut them from the roster and find someone else willing to work (play) for minimum wage of $310k per year?
Protecting the weaker incompetent workers has become a negative side effect of unions. It shouldn’t be proudly claimed as one of the primary motivations for it! Well I guess that’s another downside to unions – it distorts the thinking for why it actually exists in the first place.
Oh, really? It’s so nice to see a fan of unions admit this. That there are exceptionally talented and stellar workers among us and weak ones. and the union is there to keep the exceptional ones from doing as well as they could and making the weak ones look bad. And you think this is a good thing? A moral thing? No. Unions protect people, yes, but they do so while giving people the opportunity to excel. If a union os in place, I just have to do the minimum. With no union in place I need to continually compete with my peers. And that is a very good thing. I need to find the job that best suits me, where I will do better. I will also seek ways to stand out among similar workers. Coming in 10 minutes earlier, staying later, keeping a neater appearance and workplace, etc. When all people are doing that it helps all the individuals and the organization as a hold.
I worked at a fish processing plant which had a union. It was the only unionized fish processing plant for farmed salmon on the B’C. coast. The union’s overwhelmingly main source of income was from worker’s and fishermen in the wild salmon industry. Many attempts to organize other aquaculture plants had failed.
There was and still is a great deal of controversy around the existence of aquaculture in our area and calls for an end to it by those who feel threatened on behalf of the wild salmon.
Lo and behold, one day I saw the union rep for the worker’s in my company on tv speaking out against aquaculture.
Several month’s later the employer made a final offer seeking concessions and warned the union that if they couldn’t see things his way he would have to shut the place down following the completion of his latest contract with an aquaculture company.
The plant was shut down and the equipment disappeared. 100 people out of work. That was seven years ago.
I don’t think the union sweated about the result one bit.
That macro of yours is working perfectly (or is it now a Firefox Addon?)
You got all your points in the second post (right wing, corporations, religions, fact-don’t-matter), could you open-source it?
I’d love to save me some time in my answers.
IMO, unions are next to useless unless they are the Teamsters or the NEA or the one that represents federal employees.
A friend of mine, a truckdriver, and the other drivers at his compnay were recently asked to take a 20 percent pay cut. The union wouldn’t even strike. And from what I can tell, the trucking industry is pretty healthy.
A woman I once loved told me about a union in Terre Haute that wouldn’t do squat to get workers better health benefits.
A couple of other friends have told me about the hassles they have with their unions
A steelworker in Illinois once bragged how his union kept blacks from being hired at his plant.
Sorry, I have to make two posts, but due to company policy I could be on this computer only 10 minutes before it logged me off.
Years ago, when I worked as a reporter, I wanted to switch jobs from a non-union paper to a union paper, largely because I hated the non-union paper. I would have been happy to go for the same amount of money, and, believe me, the salary wasn’t that large. The union paper wanted me badly enough to make me several offers, but could never match what I was already getting.
In principle, I approve of uniions, and I realize there is a school of thought that says anecdotes aren’t data. However, if a union isn’t going to do anything to improve the lot of its members, fuck it.
I can tell you from personal experience that adjunct faculty at college and universities wouldn’t get squat from most administrations if the faculty union didn’t engage in collective bargaining on their behalf. It’s the only way we were able to get some benefits, use of the college health center, an occasional raise, some recognition (rehire rights/right of first refusal) for years of service and good evaluations, etc.
Some of these unions are good, some are bad, and some are so-so. No surprise there.
Recognize the unions for what they are - representation of the workers. Do not be surprised when they protect the worst employees (pedophile teachers, abusive cops, drunken bus drivers). That is their job - to protect their members.
Unions are NOT a source of good teaching, good policing, or efficiencies in operations. That is not why they exist, and we should not be surprised when they do not deliver.
They are needed, they are necessary, but they should not be seen as anything more than ONLY a representation of workers to get the maximum amount of total compensation for the employees.
I do know several teachers who hate their union for the money put into politics that is counter to the teacher’s belief system (e.g. the Republican union member who watches their money go the Democrats).
There is no requirement for federal employees to join a union.
Federal unions rely on union dues, they are not funded by the government.
Federal employees may not strike, they are not even allowed to advocate for the right to strike (stick that in your first amendment pipe and smoke it).
So when I hear conservatives who advocate for shfting away from federal government and towards state and local government (a la 10th amendment) and then make all these complaints about governemtn that turn out to be complaints about the state and local levels of goevernment, i start to think theya re confused.
I’m a Teamster. I was a fabulous worker for my current company for my first eighteen months of employment. This opinion comes from my supervisor’s semi-annual reviews wherein he said at one point, “I’ve never given anyone such good reviews, MonkeyMensch.”
I’m now nearing my three year anniversary. I’ve given up working hard because I realize that there is no way for me to earn merits with the union, only demerits. Those good reviews are just carrots from management. They don’t affect anything tangible to me as a worker. Raises, benefits and other perks are strictly on a seniority basis. Call me a slow learner but I now do what is specifically asked of me and no more.
With respect to the OP: I think dissatisfaction with unions is easily generated by a general malaise with mediocre benefits of union membership. My previous two jobs were with non-union employers and had virtually identical benefit packages. The difference is those two companies were willing to increase my pay as I showed my worth. In my present job the union can’t increase my pay no matter my performance.
Sure - I believe in checks and balances. Sometimes an employer can have an edge in a certain area. Workers will find that if they negotiate individually, many will lose out in the negotiating process. By banding together, workers can provide a united front, and make negotiations much more efficient.
Employees are a resource. Sometimes you have to negotiate with the landlord for rent, sometimes you have to negotiate with the employees for labor. Problems occur when the laws give one side too much leverage, but the basic concept of allowing workers to band together to strengthen their negotiating stance is sound capitalism.
One great thing about our Republic is that each state is welcome to adjust its rules regarding unions. You can then compare the GDP for a right-to-work state with a strong union state, and see what the difference is. An employer is then welcome to change its hiring strategy and where it places its operations to fit.
But why is that not a problem with the Teamsters, rather than unions as a whole. I get antipathy towards a specific union for a specific reason. What I don’t understand why people make generalizations about unions. I also don’t understand why the story of evil management is not as compelling a narrative in the minds of the populace as that of evil unions, despite the former engaging in far more destructive behavior.
My brother is a reporter and though he doesn’t currently work at a union paper, everything he’s seen regarding the Newspaper Guild indicates that (these days anyway) it’s one big joke.