[MrsSkywalker]

I was reading an article on MSN about the current American Airlines situation.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/901793.asp?vts=041720031830

And it begs the question:

Are unions still necessary? Or should we break them up?

I am in a state that's predominantly non-union, so I'd like to hear alternative view points.

[CosmoKramer]

Originally Posted by MrsSkywalker

I was reading an article on MSN about the current American Airlines situation.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/901793.asp?vts=041720031830

And it begs the question:

Are unions still necessary? Or should we break them up?

I am in a state that's predominantly non-union, so I'd like to hear alternative view points.

Do you cherish and (perhaps more importantly) understand your constitution?

[covermye]

She didn't ask if the should be banned or whether they're unconstitutional... She just asked whether others thought they still served the purpose they were originally intended to serve.

My short answer: No, for all the obvious, boring reasons you've probably seen a thousand times. I won't go through them all again here...

[CosmoKramer]

Originally Posted by covermye

She didn't ask if the should be banned or whether they're unconstitutional... She just asked whether others thought they still served the purpose they were originally intended to serve.

My short answer: No, for all the obvious, boring reasons you've probably seen a thousand times. I won't go through them all again here...

She apparently considers whether they should be "broken up" or not a valid point of discussion. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you in your constitution have a little something concerning freedom of assembly?

[MrsSkywalker]

Do you cherish and (perhaps more importantly) understand your constitution?

I cherish it and understand it very well, thank you. But I don't see what that has to do with this question.

Unions were originally designed to ensure that labor workers had safe working environments, received fair pay, and weren't made to work 15 hour shifts.

Now, I'm not sure how much you really know about our way of government, so here's a free education. Each state has it's own constitution. A state constitution covers all of the issues that pertain to the individual state, without contradicting the federal constitution. For instance, Alaska's state constitution has special laws concerning the native Inuets, Eskimos, and other native peoples. Those laws only pertain to Alaska, so are not in the federal constitution.

That point cleared up, each state constitution has strict guidelines concerning employment, treatment of employees, employee benefit requirements, safety guidelines, hours/week restrictions, etc. Any deviation from these laws can easily be reported...in fact, at every place I have worked, the phone number for reporting offenses was included in my hiring package, as well as being available upon request. It's also printed clearly in the front section of the phone book. Every deviation from the law concerning employees is swiftly investigated by a state bureau designed solely for this purpose, and most states are now posting the complaints/investigations/verdicts against a business on the internet.

I wasn't questioning the legality. I was questioning the necessity.

[pax]

This has been debated before quite a bit. Less than 16% of american workers are unionized. The loss of unionization in the workplace over the last while has basically followed the trend in the loss of individual income against price inflation...

If unions were more present It could be debated whether they sometime stood in the way of progress in some way. But at the level they are today they are far too weak a force to have any serious effect nowadays. I do expect a modest rebirth of unions tho in the coming while.

I always smile when McCain or others concerned for example with campaign finance reform mention the 'special interest' as Unions and corporations or many time as Unions and 'special interest' (quietly hiding that special interests almost always means corporations) when in fact corporations account for 90+ % of the money and influence peddling in Washington. Short of asking for details about the one making the statement youd never know Unions to be so weak. This kind of deceptive talk is all around us.

Right now unions are just another whippin boy for those still seeking to blame any little remain of 'socialist' or progressive influence in society for its massive ills... when the cause clearly lies eslewhere...

Think Ill reach for some cover now as I expect a massive assault by a few well known posters here

[Colourless]

I pretty much agree with pax. Unions very much do serve a purpose for all thier faults.

[DemoCoder]

No, pax, you've got it backwards. The "loss", as I explained in an earlier message, (and it is debatable if there has been a real loss), is among uneducated, low skilled workers, because their jobs are typically in the manufacturing sector, and there has been a loss in the US manufacturing sector that would have happened irrespective of unionization.

Unless you think it is in the interests of this country to have labor unions impose high trade barriers to imports, there's nothing they could do to sustain their income. For someone manufacturing no-skill products, they would simply move their operations overseas the moment the cost of sustaining the unionized employees outweighs the cost of moving. The loss of income in the manufacturing sector, is because of globalization and the natural shift from manufacturing to services. If you think we would be better off not having those manufacturing jobs exported, why not run a calculation and see if you could afford an ATI or NVidia card if it was manufactured by US laborers instead of flextronics or selectron.



College educated (and advance degreed) workers have gained no matter what inflation rate you assume.

Most Americans now work in the service sector, where it is harder to measure and increase productivity. How do you measure the productivity of a Walmart cashier? How many people they can "check out" a day? And how likely is it that this number can continue to increase?

It's more likely that to gain further efficiency, that Walmart cashier will be replaced with electronics, or online shopping, in which case, someone with computer skills will get a job, and a chunk of those Walmart cashiers are going to hit the unemployment line.

I despise attempts to unionize my industry (computer). I can't tell you how much I abhor it. Unions work well when employees are interchangeable, when you have a mass production assembly line. Neurosurgeons, engineers, and other high skilled employees aren't. One expert computer programmable is as good as 10 mediocre ones. The union system of basing pay on seniority instead of merit, and of collective bargaining pulls down the ability of the truly talented to differentiate themselves. My income is in the top 5% of US salaries, and it is unlikely unions would raise it, if anything, they would lower it, and the salaries of most other highly paid engineers.

You need only look at government engineers whose pay scales are fixed to see where this leads.


Pax, if you think unions still don't cause problems, I invite you to see how unions destroyed United Airlines, US Airways, and American Airlines. In market downturns, many companies with large burnrates have to downsize. Airlines cannot sustain more than a few quarters of losses. Unions refused to take pay cuts. Result: financial insolvency.

Unions bid up salaries during the 90s big time for the major airlines when they had major amounts of business travel. After the recession, and 9/11, they refused to accept pay cuts and layoffs.

Unions are history because blue collar manufacturing is history. Many services themselves are moving towards more automation. Unions aren't going to prevent the loss of jobs in these industries, and people with masters degrees want to sell themselves to the highest bidder, not be grouped up with other mediocre people.

[Babel-17]

I'm in a union. Pay isn't based on seniority. "Truly talented" individuals are free to seek out perks or anything else (vehicles, cash, guarantees of work, etc.). We do all share a base pay though, yes. It's hard to generalize unions. Ditto that for "management".

Since Reagan gutted OSHA government protection has been a joke in so far as workplace safety. I'm burdened by the memory of avoidable deaths and the destruction of flesh amongst my co-workers/friends.

Let's not forget our history. Let's remember that it was unions who were indespensable in bringing about legislative reform for children in the workplace, establishing the 40 hour workweek, worker safety, holidays, the minimum wage, overtime pay, prevailing wages etc. Non-union members saw their conditions improve due to these efforts.

After WWII much of this sensibility was transferred to Europe and Japan. (mostly in the case of Japan admittedly, europe had its own activists ........ many of whom were jailed or killed by the fascists)

The darker side of unions is pretty well known. I concede that and would welcome reforms. But let's not forget the historical context even there.










http://archive.8m.net/lincoln.htm

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Abraham Lincoln

[Joe DeFuria]

My "quick and dirty" opinion is that unions are still justifiable for certain industries, but not all. Teachers certainly shouldn't be unionized, for example. (Are they highly unskilled labor at great risk of exploitation, which might justify a union, or are they 'uniquely skilled individuals' which they claim to be and as such deserve more respect and higher pay...)

Originally Posted by Babel-17

I'm in a union. Pay isn't based on seniority. "Truly talented" individuals are free to seek out perks or anything else (vehicles, cash, guarantees of work, etc.). We do all share a base pay though, yes. It's hard to generalize unions. Ditto that for "management".

The last union I was related too, any meaningful "perks" were only given to those who became part of union leadership...nothing job or performance related. The fact that base salary (wages) are based on seniority is the crux of the problem....no matter what "perks" my be there.

Another problem I've seen is the typical Union mentality of "Us vs. Them". When I was at the refinery in Baton Rouge, I'd typically be given flyers from Union Leadership that, very literarlly, referred to "management" as "THE MAN." (And everything that goes along with it.)

Quite a contrast from a previous internship I had with a La Roche pharmaceuticals research and manufacturing facility I had a few summers earlier than that...where there was great pride in management and labor in the fact that they were not a union shop.

There was such a better working relationship between management and labor at that facility.

Since Reagan gutted OSHA government protection has been a joke in so far as workplace safety.

I'd like to se some statistics on work safety, please.

I'm burdened by the memory of avoidable deaths and the destruction of flesh amongst my co-workers/friends.

And is your union willing to accept lower wages or benefits for your workers, in trade for the cost of whatever safety improvement measures you think are needed?

Let's not forget our history.

History is not in question.

[MrsSkywalker]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you in your constitution have a little something concerning freedom of assembly?

In certain areas of employ here in the US, if they are unuion and you work for them, then you MUST join the union (pay dues, strike when they say strikes, etc.). You may say, "Well, pick a different job." In NH, the only real statewide followed union is the Teacher's Union. Every public school teacher must join the teacher's union. If you want to be a teacher here, you just have to do it. That's not freedom of assembly, that's forced assembly, and certain unions are allowed to get away with it.

[nutball]

Depends on the union. That's my opinion. We went through a decade on government v. union in the 80's (Maggie Thatch), and their power was severly curtailed. Some unions have "reformed" and now do a reasonably good job of representing their workers interests, and doing to without resorting to 40's Soviet Socialist-style politics. Other unions on the other hand are still somewhat stuck in the past.

[covermye]

Since Reagan gutted OSHA government protection has been a joke in so far as workplace safety.

LOL. As a small business owner now and former auto industry engineer who got started the right way (in a manufacturing plant), I've gotta tell you that OSHA laws are not only more stringent and encompassing than they've ever been, they're also GROWING by the year, in some cases bordering on "feel good" rules that do nothing but restrict productivity, not increase safety. A worker in my plant can scream "OSHA VIOLATION" and I'd have a half dozen OSHA inspectors crawling around this (relatively) large piece of production facility looking for improperly worded shutdown procedures (basically how to turn the switch off) posted on breaker panels, or an outlet in the attic with the polarity backwards.

We cut a lot of various shaped plastic pieces here and for that reason require rather large bandsaws (with a throat opening [exposed blade]capable of ~24" high). My favorite complaint from OSHA is that the bandsaw blades aren't guarded. How the heck are you supposed to guard a bandsaw blade? They haven't told me that yet... just that they need guards on them.

But I digress. My background in the auto industry makes me believe that unions, while probably necessary in some instances still, have completely overstepped their intended purposes in many areas, especially the auto industry. It sounds simple, but I can say with confidence that the single biggest obstacle to improving efficiency in the auto manufacturing business is the union. Plain and simple the most unproductive part of the whole operation.

Now it's my turn to sit back while I probably get blasted by a different group of well-known individuals on this board...

[Sxotty]

Originally Posted by MrsSkywalker

Unions were originally designed to ensure that labor workers had safe working environments, received fair pay, and weren't made to work 15 hour shifts.
I wasn't questioning the legality. I was questioning the necessity.

I think they are necessary, and I point to the fact that unions were designed to ensure labor workers... as you wrote.

That is why they existed and w/o it workers will slowly lose ground they have gained. The problem of abuse by unions is largely inflated by people who dislike unions i.e. owners of coorporations. It is true some unions abuse their power and do stupid things, but it is equally true that some owners abuse their power and do stupid things.

If you wanted to regulate wages and say that the owner can only make 10 times the median wage of the employees, then you could get rid of unions. Or at least look into it.

American airlines CEO's were getting rich. Micron's CEO is setting a much better example, he is not drawing a salary b/c he has screwed it up. One cannot blame unions for management decisions to give them too much money. I understand were you are coming from, but I think that unions have benefited Us, and I think that they will continue to do so.

[covermye]

That is why they existed and w/o it workers will slowly lose ground they have gained. The problem of abuse by unions is largely inflated by people who dislike unions i.e. owners of coorporations.

I respect your opinion, but remind you that it's an OPINION. Unions fighting for more and more to do less and less is a very real issue in many, many cases. It's not largely inflated. The basic idea of protecting the laborers, I agree with. Pay according to seniority, grievances filed by an electrician because he saw a plumber or "machine repairman" wipe dust off a photoeye because it was dirty (and we all know only electricians can perform this sort of high-precision maintenance), I don't agree with. This mentality (I'm out for myself and my job, screw the company, screw other workers... I'll file grievances till the cows come home) exists and even RUNS RAMPANT in the auto manufacturing industry. A simple illustration above, but the CURRENT structure of the unions in manufacturing industry breeds laziness and inefficiency.

[pax]

Of course demo you talked back then of household income while I talked individual income. Ive checked these over the years theres no doubt to them . Individual income over the past few decades is down when they went up faster than inflation in post war 45-73 time frame. I know you talk taxation in the context with benefits but the figures Ive seen from statscan and others also keep tabs on that. In fact with much higher unionization in the 70's than now people had better benefits in many cases than they do now in the cheap ass service sector. A large part of the loss was the shift from manufacturing to low skilled service sector.

Does that mean I oppose technological improvements that are killing manufacturing jobs? Heck no but society should help to adjust those massive changes... Its clear the professional or intellectual classes cant aborb the technologically displaced the way industry absorbed the peasantry in the 19th century. This isnt a change of work. Its a change from work to less work. Right now its from better to lesser paid work because of such tech changes... The dislocations are mild now but will get worse over time as technology rapidly advances.

Most of the income losses occured in the 70's and early 80's followed largely by stagnation years with occasioanl small drop or small gains. Thje figures Ive seen are not select from certain industries but generalized ones. The figures get a lot nastier when you exclude business class people whose large income gains really distort the picture the picture of working class america which is 97% of the population.

The fact productivity all this while has never stopped gaining makes the inability of unwillingness of corporate or otherwise elite america to restore the losses of previous years even more insulting.

[MrsSkywalker]

If you wanted to regulate wages and say that the owner can only make 10 times the median wage of the employees, then you could get rid of unions. Or at least look into it.

If someone wants to spend the time and effort to build a company, why shouldn't they make way more than the employees?? Do I think it's morally reprehensable to pay your workers minimum wage while you yourself is getting, say, $5,000,000/year? Yes I do. However, I don't think there should be a law about it. Making a law limiting how much someone can earn is just too close to communism for my tastes.

[DemoCoder]

Pax, you can keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it correct. You can go the the BLS or EPI and get the raw data and the raw data, adjusted using the flawed inflation figures I mentioned earlier shows no loss of INDIVIDUAL (not household, and I have stated this over and over, and you continue to ignore it) income today. And if you look back historically through the 80s and 90s, the only group that had any loss (which they regained) was low-income workers, but even their "loss" is erased by the last half-decade. If you take into account the fact that the PCE which is used to adjust for 1973 dollars is overestimated by atleast 1%, it makes you assertions even weaker.

Read the data yourself: http://www.epinet.org/datazone/02/deciles_2_6r.pdf

And incase you think EPI is biased. EPI is actually cited by unions like UAW http://www.uaw.org/publications/jobs...000/jpe02.html

And EPI disputes the adjustment of the CPI I am claiming (1% overestimate) so EPI figures on wages since 1973 are conservative, not optimistic figures

[Babel-17]

Regarding Reagan and OSHA: Sorry, no stats on hand. Afaik there was a sharp rise in things like dismemberment after his reforms took place.
Let me then just speak from personal experience of my 20 years in the Road and Heavy Construction Union. I personally had a job super speak to me that they were notified OSHA was coming in a few days. Sure enough a couple of days later two kids in their early twenties popped out of a car, shook hands, and a few minutes later left. Great inspection.

I worked side by side with a guy that was later buried alive and killed. All I can say is that it was easily avoidable. Just at the small company I work at we've had one guy electrocuted (semi-loss of use of one arm) another guy in the hospital for months from having a car hit the platform he was on ........ the list is long.

I've been hit in the head with a payloader bucket (glancing blow, some neck damage), hit from behind by an asphalt roller (ouch!), had cars graze me (scary) and taken numerous tumbles on unsafe surfaces. I've personally had management strongly "suggest" we work in deep holes with no sheathing.

In my 20 years I've seen OSHA just that one time.

They come when someone dies.




"This is the life you've chosen" lol, like Al Pacino said in Godfather III. I'm not complaining, just stating the way it is in unions where I live. We were losing one or two guys a year (killed) for a while. Knock on wood no one got killed last year. That's out of about 1200 steadily working members.

I forgot to mention I've never filed a compensation claim, almost no one does. We're a pretty tough bunch imo and suck it up. Hehe, although we're pretty well used up by age 55 or so. Last I heard our life expectancy was 67. So the pension is good.


I guess my point is that without a labor union fair compensation wouldn't be available and even more of the work available would be going to these fly by night outfits that rely on undocumented immigrants to "steal" jobs. I'd have to leave NY to be able to afford housing.






But I love what I do. I get to actually take part in the enormously satisfying job of creating roads and bridges as well as smaller projects that are just as satisfying like doing parking lots and the occasional driveway. It's a rough racket and it's open to all. Lol, few stay after their first 100 degree day standing in and shoveling 320 degree asphalt.

[Saem]

Making a law limiting how much someone can earn is just too close to communism for my tastes.

Tastes have nothing to do with it. THis has to do with what's benificial for the greater good (the long term) and what's benificial for the individual (eveyone who makes up society), then figuring out what is more important in the particular case.

One could quite simply say, heh, we limit minimums why not put maximums. That makes sense to some degree as well, if businesses become to self serving they and the inidividuals who own/run them harm society rather than help it. Businesses are allowed because they can do a lot of good, but they can also be abusive. I personally don't think that's benificial for the greater good or the individuals. But policing this is basically impossible.

This is where I think you have to play reactionist and have progressive tax systems (I think of them as insurance policies just in case businesses/people abuse their economic power) and social programs to help those that end up screwed.

The way things are going, the case is or will be...

There won't be enough jobs of any kind and people will get screwed. This move to super efficiency isn't all roses. So something has to be worked out and quick. I'd rather not see some crazy revolt against technology and those in any way associated with it. Which seems more and more likely day by day.

[Babel-17]

Joe DeFuria, hello. You asked: "And is your union willing to accept lower wages or benefits for your workers, in trade for the cost of whatever safety improvement measures you think are needed?" in reply to my statement "I'm burdened by the memory of avoidable deaths and the destruction of flesh amongst my co-workers/friends."

Ok, there's a good point in there, safety often has a price tag. But with a level playing field, where ALL companies have to play by the rules, there is afaics no added cost. Also, I'm not asking for additional safety measures, I'm looking to see even just partial enforcement of those existing ones.

I'm no fanatic, I abhor senseless and counterproductive meaningless regs ........ I understand that life is inherently risky and that ultimately the effort to turn the real world into some Sesame Street, child safe, park is both futile and prohibitively costly. Sadly it's as if this issue is a bit like the swing of the pendulum and going from one extreme to the other.




I too have seen the "Us vs. Them" mentality from a few members of other union trades*, I agree it's disconcerting. But I've also seen management types (mostly job supers that get bonuses) that are never satisfied and share a similar mentality. Worker productivity has increased in my trade and the owners wealth has really grown. I don't begrudge them, the ones I know live eat and breathe the business, they're obsessed and work long hours.

*I'm in a laborers union. Hehe, it's specifically stated in our contract that there are no limits to how much we can produce or the types of work we'll do. The only exception to that is on a job with multiple trades working. e.g. we can't do the electricians work.

I'm not offended in the least by your observations of excesses by some unions and/or their members. I've stated what I've stated so as to make available a perhaps lesser known side to unions and their workers. Just as management types like Ken Leigh and companies like Enron get most of the publicity and put their brethren in a bad light so do some unions and their more greedy members.

I honestly don't know what the general state of the unions are on average. I wouldn't mind at all seeing some impartial regulation.

[pax]

Demo, Ive read them and youve posted those before and we still didnt agree. We can argue those figures till were blue in the face but the median WAGE income has dropped. I simply also know from asking people who've been nurses teachers and plenty ofther professions whove lived thru the last 30-40 years. The figures are distorted by investment income which isnt benefiting about 98% of the population before retirement.

I still often see commentators as recently as a few weeks ago on Lou Dobbs moneyline when he approached the issue of the recent huge increase in indebtedness of the average consumer in the 1990's and they STILL try on the conservative side to make claims to household income. Of course I suppose in the next 30 years we'll still see average household income maintain relative stability to price inflation except of course by then we'll be at 3-4 incomes per household on average I bet...

Need only to look at figures like 40-1 employer to average employee income in the 70's to last I saw 470-1 a year ago to know things arent kosher.

Another great distorter of income is pensions... They are a lot more generous than they used to be but who the hell raises a family in their 60's?

Wage income in the adult years where one has to raise a family is crucial. That was always the more objective way to look at the issue...

[MrsSkywalker]

Another great distorter of income is pensions... They are a lot more generous than they used to be but who the hell raises a family in their 60's?

Wage income in the adult years where one has to raise a family is crucial. That was always the more objective way to look at the issue...

Agree and disagree. As one who is in the process of raising a family, it would sure be nice to have the pension money and the 401K in the paycheck now! However, with the sad sorry state of Social Security, I know that if it isn't saved now, when we are enjoying our grandchildren it will be in a state run old folks' home because we can't afford anything else. It is wages...it's money you earn. You just get it later when interest has made it a fatter check. It extends your "wage earning" years.

[DemoCoder]

Pax, did you even look at the data in that PDF? It shows the wage of every single percentile from 5% to 95%, it is clear from that the median has not gone down. The median is the 50th percentile, that in which 50% of the people earn less, and 50% of the people earn more. In 1973, this was $12.06, in 2001 it's $12.87, in inflationed corrected conservative dollars.

By DEFINITION, these wage figures OMIT INVESTMENT INCOME.

Even people in the LOWEST percentile 5%, which means only 5% of the people earn less than this wage, gained since 1973. (this bracket is typically the minimum wage bracket)


Anecodotal perceptions are irrelevent. This data comes from the BLS and IRS which has the actual figures.

You have this worldview that is based on a flawed assumption and you are unable to let it go. The figures are staring you in the face. INDIVIDUAL WAGES (NOT HOUSEHOLD and OMITTING OTHER INCOME SOURCES) FROM BLS/IRS DATA, CORRECTED FOR 2001 DOLLARS SHOW OVERALL GAIN SINCE 1973. If the United Autoworkers Union can admit this, why can't you?

Debt is irrelevent. The question is whether income has gone up. It has, period. The fact that people are more indebted has zilch to do with their income increases and more to do with their propensity to consume and access to credit, which has been drastically eased.

As recently as the 80s, people were paying 12% interest on mortgage, and god knows what on credit cards. In the last 15 years, interest rates have gone as low as 3.75% on a 3/1 adjustable rate mortgage. It's insane, and this free credit, 0% APR, no payments for 6 months deals everywhere are enticing people into debt, even if they don't need it.

[pax]

I did look at it and it contradicts stuff Ive already read,,, But its a diff formula and Im studying it... I remember one such link last time we went in depth into this and it had one glaring factor that distorted actual wage vs price inflation changes over the last few decades... Although we should really look on the 70's as where the real damage was done...

The great ease of access to credit is another indicator of a failing economy. I find financials desperation to take ever greater risks odd. We regulary see institutions now lend up to 60% of net income to cover mortgage payments. It used to be much more conservative only a few years ago at 32%. The need to consume isnt the issue in my mind. Its what the economy would be without that consumption. Obviously most western consumption is excessive compared to essential consumption. Although increasingly people do go without essentials. The sheer rise in food banks in the smallest of towns shows that as well.