Are unions really necessary anymore?

[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.

 

[DemoCoder]

Well, most lenders won't let your debt ratio go above 36%. Lower interest rates simply allow you to purchase a more expensive house.

7 years ago a friend of mind purchased a house for $300,000. His monthly payments approached $3000. Today, I can buy a $700,000 house with the same monthly mortgage. Same indebtness, much more expensive house. Moreover, the amount of equity you gain at such a lower interest rate is much higher.


Look, Pax, your essential point is somewhat valid if you confine your timespan to the mid-80s/early-90s, but incomes have recovered. The benefits lagged the investment boom and productivity gains by a few years.

People's incomes were inflated away by stagflation in the 70s and early 80s, so much so that Nixon, a republican, tried to impose *wage and price controls*. Today's combination of low inflation and low interest rates is a nirvana in comparison, allowing income gains to have more real value, and to allow people to get access to capital alot easier.


But the problem with looking at the market is that on any given interval, you can find a trend that supports your thesis, just like stock indices. The only real way to measure these things is long term (over say, 70-100 years) The economy is changing so drastically these days because of globalization and technology that I feel that any prediction you can make by extrapolating today's trends is likely to be based on wrong assumptions. And policy changes based on these assumptions are just criminal.

 

[pax]

I should say 50% wage loss is what Canada experienced. It could be somewhat lower in the states as your productivity growth always was slightly higher than ours but I still see signs of an unhealthy eocnomy in the states... The 90's occasionaly had years where wage increase were slighlty higher. They were higher last year by a small bit but the huge losses experienced in the past havent been fully recovered. I hope those % rates keep going lower and stay there but then we have the Japan syndrome to worry about when they get too low and the market still hesitates to recover...

If we have a decent free market it will tho. Price deflation is the buzzword all around now. Cant happen soon enough if you ask me... Of course itd be better if it was a more moderate rectification of higher wage increases over the next ten years than price increases... The psychology of deflation has unforeseen consequences on the overall market ... Something we havent seen since the 30's...

I cant claim to know what will happen but only generally if we have no change in policy can we say we risk having serious probs. I dont see it can be healthy to retain old policies in such aa drastically changin world... Not that worried tho... I just think that it wont be subtle changes... Serious social dislocations are nothing new. Im just not sure we can always deal with them without gov intervention of some sort...

 

[Sxotty]

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.

Yeah I agree with some of that, I mean workers sitting in the dark waiting for an electrician to come change a lightbulb is ridiculous. (not what you said, but it happens too).

Here is my "opinion" when the US was set up the framers figured factions would fight eachother and negate the influence of eachother. Unions have gone from being very good, to corrupt, to less corrupt and less good, but they still fight the power of those that would trample on workers rights to gain a pay raise. All I am saying is that the opposition created by unions is good for keeping the elite (who often don't work their buts off btw) in check.

Anyway I think you see what I am saying

If we get rid of unions we will have to trust to government to further regulate stuff and well I don't know that I trust the government all that much either, but I do trust selfish motivations of owners and unions to cancel out at least to some extent.

 

[Sxotty]

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.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/17/news/companies/amr_thursday/

Flight attendants approve concessions; report says top management won bonuses, pension guarantees.

Hmm so the workers take a salary cut and the managers get a pay raise, gee whiz I can see why unions are outdated .

The paper reports that AMR funded a supplemental pension trust for its top 45 executives that protects a portion of their retirement income in the event of a bankruptcy filing. It also gave its top six executives "cash retention" bonuses equal to twice their base salaries to insure that they stay with the carrier through January 2005. A seventh executive will get 1.5 times his base pay as a retention bonus. The bonuses are to be paid in January 2004 and 2005.

Look at what Ms. Carly Fiona is doing to HP, I mean many of these people are completely incompetent and dumb, but they get uber amounts of money to make motivational speeches and stupid decisions.

 

[Silent_One]

Babel-17 wrote:

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.

And now let me speak of my 28 years of personal experience of Heavy Highway and Road Construction. I have been a laborer, labor foreman, mass excavation foreman, surveyor, electrical laborer and electrical foreman on projects ranging form $100,000 to $80 million in 4 different states plus Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, all for a union company. In addition I have been an estimator, project engineer, and superintendent. I have also been involved in contract negotiations with the trade unions (laborers, carpenters, teamsters, and operating engineers).

Regarding OSHA - there are 2 different OSHA departemnts, one is the State Departments and one is the Federal. Advance notification of OSHA inspections is usually the State. Federal OSHA officials rarely show up on a project unless there's a complaint or an accident. State officials can be requested to visit a project for an overview safety inspection of the project (State OSHA does not have the authority to impose fines). During these visits they will usually point out things that need attention. However, they will not permit gross violations to take place. On Babel-17's project it seems to reason that if they were invited to inspect the project the most obvious violations were perviously addressed before the visit.

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.

If OSHA "comes when someone dies" and in 20 years you've "seen OSHA just one time" where were they when ,as you say, you "were losing one or two guys a year (killed) for a while". Was it the same project or are you speaking for the union as a whole?

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.

On Federal and State funded project the wages are goverened by the Bacon Davis Act, and wage minimums are established in the Contract. Workers Compensation Insurance is a requirement. The only advantages a non union company has over a union company is not to have to put up with union rules and regulations (and additional costs). Sometimes thats enough to win the bid.

 

[Riptides]

My father has been a project engineer for various pipe and steamfitter outfits over the years and he has seen many jobs shut down by OSHA inspectors. I asked him about this topic of OSHA and he has said never in his 25+ years of doing his work was any of his companies ever alerted to an OSHA representative showing up. Most jobs shut down were for gross error on the workers part.

I also have worked for various union outfits over the past 10 years. From Steamfitting all the way to power plant turbine reconditioning. Again as others have said, the usefulness of the union depends on the union and the type of inustry it covers. My experiences solely lie in the steam construction and refitting industry. But the unions i have been associated with sends all its workers to trade school for a minimum of 5 years. During this time if the worker misses more than 5 days of work or school *not counting vacation, or valid health concerns* he can consider his place in the union, and his job, to be gone. Also the pay scale of those workers who finish the trade school in their respective industry are nearly double of those who are non-union doing the same type of work.

Which leads to my statment, for many people, who work these jobs with these unions, i would believe wouldn't have had such a chance to lead a decent life if it wasn't for the unions. They schooled them and gave them very good jobs with very high pay. Most of these people wouldn't have amounted to much in my opinion if it wasn't for the unions.

ALSO, back to the OSHA topic, most companies i have worked for have had a designated OSHA guy in the company that nips safety problems in the bud. Many times we would have monthly equipment checks and safety meeting within the company going over OSHA guidelines and articles, also before any job we would always go over safety guidelines pertaining to the job as well.
For Babel-17, sorry guy but it sounds to me like the problems you experienced were your companies fault not OSHA. OSHA is only there to inspect things, its up to your company and its employees to create safe working conditions, not OSHA. Many times OSHA showing up on a jobsite is because someone on the job/in the company alerted them to unsafe working conditions.

 

[Silent_One]

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.

Just to clear up some points:
IF the project Babel-17 is working on recieves federal and/ or State funding then the wages are governed by the Bacon Davis Act and NO wages will be allowed below the predetermined level set by the government prior to the bid. So the answer to Joe's question "...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?" is that wages are set and not allowed to be less. Private work is a different matter.
The problem with OSHA is that requirement and rules are allways changing and new laws are allways being written. The rules change all the time. There are allways added costs. The question is if the rules are resonable. We are all for a safe working environment. The problems I have with Unions are not related to OSHA and safety.

 

[pax]

Hmm this may seem anectdotal as well but last week the local paper mill (division of nexfor) announced the permanent pay off of 380 of 1200 employees without any loss of production. It kind of amazes me they can do that without any major refit of the plant but I guess the last major overhaul 15 years ago made it possible for them to shed those employees at one point.

Thing I wanted to say about that is that the plant is unionized with the electrical and paperworkers uion and known to be one of the toughest around. The starting pay in the plant is 50g a year to push a broom (average pay for union members 65g). Its the kind of job you used to have that meant you could offer the wife the choice of staying at home.

I know this probably has partly to do with the fact theres a slowdown right now and paper's no exception anymore than airlines but these jobs are perm gone. Not to say the airlines workers shouldnt have had to fight the bosses for their excesses (In that case I think if the execs lead by example they'll get unions onside in no time). The kind of thing youd think shareholders would be able to stop but many say shareholders have lost the control of even basic functioning of companies a long time ago.

Its a pretty radical cut for the town of about 30 thousand... If this was the case everywhere between a slowdown and continuing technological advancement Id wonder where politics would be in 2004. Would make Bush senior's loss in 92 look pale in comparison ...

Also if one of the toughest unions on the continent gets its hand slapped this hard I wonder what weaker unions are doing... The union said there would be no protest... (probly got threatened with shutdown and move to alabama or something hhe)...

As a past CUPE local president I can tell you unions are not only not the boogeymen they are made out to be they are downright unable to adjust the most basic benefits or pay to inflation during contract negociations. My own pay has lost about 20% in the last 12 years Ive worked there. And thats both anecdotal and statistical in my case...

 

[Silent_One]

pax wrote:

As a past CUPE local president I can tell you unions are not only not the boogeymen they are made out to be they are downright unable to adjust the most basic benefits or pay to inflation during contract negociations. My own pay has lost about 20% in the last 12 years Ive worked there. And thats both anecdotal and statistical in my case...

...and I can tell you that during negociations here in New England that the unions have done very well for their members (at least in the heavy construction trade).

 

[MrsSkywalker]

...and I can tell you that during negociations here in New England that the unions have done very well for their members (at least in the heavy construction trade).

Huh. Could have fooled me! NH workers elected to cede from most of the unions (even heavy construction) for many reasons, but mostly because of pay. The annual raises were getting smaller, while union dues were getting larger. Another problem was the huge stink the unions would put up if they didn't win the bid for a town/government job. In my area of NH, most of the towns are pretty small (my town has 2,000 people...I had thought it was more, but the annual town report proved that the hubby was right in this instance). As a town, we have to take the most reasonable bid, and quite often that means we cannot afford a unioned company.

But hey, we have no state income tax or sales tax either, so maybe we just don't like paying "the man"

 

[Silent_One]

Huh. Could have fooled me! NH workers elected to cede from most of the unions (even heavy construction) for many reasons, but mostly because of pay. The annual raises were getting smaller, while union dues were getting larger.

Again, which trade? Heavy Highway that are federaly funded? Also, unions are not too strong in NH, as you indicate. In Conn. and NY the unions are much stronger. As for anual raises the teamsters, for example, recieved a 5% raise per year for each year of their 3 year contract, and thats not including increases in their pensions, health, and welfare benefits.( The carpenters recieved about 9%).

 

[DemoCoder]

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.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/17/news/companies/amr_thursday/

Flight attendants approve concessions; report says top management won bonuses, pension guarantees.

Hmm so the workers take a salary cut and the managers get a pay raise, gee whiz I can see why unions are outdated .

Well, the labor costs saved will be over a $1billion. Do you think a few bonuses to some executives and shoring up some retirement funds is going to offset that? You could give each of those 45 executives $1 million in cash and it wouldn't help the company anywhere near as much as cutting $1billion in labor costs. Moreover, that pension trust only kicks in if there is a bankruptcy. Unions always pick on executive compensation, but executive compensation doesn't make up the bulk of the payroll expenses.


You neglected to mention that the union first voted down the deal, which lead to a prediction of AA bankruptcy, nor you you mention the fact that United Airlines entered bankruptcy because the unions wouldn't forge a deal.

Finally, can we take a look at the rise in pilot and flight attendant salaries since the 1980s? In the calendar year 2000 alone, senior commercial airline pilots had a raise of anywhere between 5% and 18%. For example, Delta Airlines raised pilot salaries from $209,000 to $248,000. Flight Attendants had comparably large increases over the 90s as well. The median 50% now earn between $29,000 and $59,000. Top 10% of flight attendants earn $80,000+. That's a lot money for a job which is basically an aerial food servant. This all factors into the huge cost of operating a plane. Neglecting the capital cost of the plane, fuel, and debt servicing, if you add up the flight attendants and pilots, mechanics, supervisors, baggage handlers, et al, the labor costs approach several million PER PLANE. If you conservatively estimate 200 seats, always full, with $200 per seat, flighting 2 flights a day, 365 days a year, the plane's only gonna rake in about $30mil a year in revenue.

But those planes are no longer filled to capacity, and the airlines can't charge a premium anymore. The people handing out peanuts and half-filled glasses of soda need to accept reality.

I don't mind paying pilots extra, mechanics, or baggage security checkers extra, because those people have my life in their hands. But there is a limit at which point safety is too expensive to fly.

 

[Sxotty]

Look man, I am not saying that they are perfect, and I am not saying that a peanut handerouter deserves fat cash. My brothers wife was a stewardess BTW. My wife used to work in a grocery store and they had a union and w/o it there would be no health insurance for a mere cashier and that is the way it goes. I know unions do retarded things but they are valuable.

On the other point the Execs deserve no bonuses whatsoever, it does not matter if it is only a small portion.

I mean do you really blame the baggage handlers that AA and United are going out of business? The execs are the ones who are supposed to be smart and keep companies from going bankrupt not the baggage handlers. If you think that the baggage handlers are responsible for this maybe they each deserve $1 million bonus .

 

[DemoCoder]

Well, United Airlines is majority owned by the employees. Union members sit on the board of directors of the company. So for all intents and purposes, the Union can be held responsible both indirectly from pushing through major pay hikes, and directly for managing the airline itself poorly. I mean, the union members on the board don't have to vote for high paid executives.

 

[pax]

So you mean this is actually a fight between 2 or more unions and not unions and management (as management is actually named by the unions)? I dont know maybe the employees ownership is not necessarily voting shares? Why would they allow perks to the upper execs only to fight it later on (unless this is only a prob for the one union and the others actually wanted thr perks fo the uppers execs...)?

Youd think a good journalist would get to the bottom of this one...