That was an excellent post, TBar... balanced and fair. It mirrors much of what I've heard from some friends over the years. Using one for an example, he was from a family of union bricklayers. His grandfather and father had been union bricklayers in Kansas City, and he'd moved to Houston during the boom years because it was where the work was. I remember him talking about how tough it was getting for his union to win bids... that, although they did a much higher quality and faster job, the non-union bricklayers frequently got the jobs. The end product wasn't nearly as good, but it was cheaper. Backbreaking work, literally, but he took great pride in what he did. Sometimes you get what you pay for.
TBar, thanks for the input. Interesting, relevant experience, and well-written. Now if only we could get that sort of material from all the T_something posters.
To those who think Unions have outlived their purpose... How would you propose Teachers, Firemen, Police and others who work in an environment where there is often just one large employer negotiate their contracts?? These employees don't have as much flexiblility in changing jobs if they don't like the proposed conditions.
Give me a break. We have laws against both sweat shops and child labor. If unions disappeared we would not have these as the alternative.
I might conceed that certain industries still have room for unions. I don't know enough about every sector to be sure. I agree Tbar's post provided good insight, but would add the caveat that those paying for the work should be the ones to decide the level of craftsmanship they have to pay for, not be forced to do so by a union-only monopoly on labor. Which brings up another interesting part of this discussion: how fair is it for unions to drive those who DON'T want to be part of the union out of the free market for services? As for teachers specifically, I do know that districts are highly competitive with each other these days, so if a teacher was not happy about their pay or benefits in one, it would not be hard to move to another district that better fit their skill level. In the end, however, if we were examining the question in an 'on balance' framework, I would say they have outlived their usefullness. None of those who've expressed pro-union opinions seem to deal with a couple of things: (a) the advantages you are naming stem from unions action FAR in the past, when there were barely any labor laws at all, not from recent action you can credit to unions. Most of us agree that unions served a vital function in raising the conditions for the workers in this country, but that is not really relevant to the discussion of whether or not unions are better to have NOW, and (b) there are other checks on corporation now that did not exist when unions were so vital. Look at Monster.com, as an example. There are whole industries devoted to ensuring you get what you deserve in the free and fair market, and many laws controlling a particular corporations ability to monopolize a market and prevent movement by workers.
Both of my parents are or were teachers (dad is retired) and as far as I know, I don't think either one of them was in a union. And guess what? They survived, just fine.
Riiiight. If we got rid of unions, I'm sure there would be a groundswell support to repeal all child labor laws...
Didn't know that. I was under the impression most public sector teachers in the US and Canada were in Unions. And that private schools had to toe the line in terms of benefits if they wanted to keep their staff. I am very uncomfortable with the big megalopagus international unions, such as the teamsters, which proclaim to represent everyone from Airlines, to Trucking to construction, municipal workers and fast food employees. How can they not be a hugely inflexible bureaucracy? I do feel, however, that especially in certain sectors, employees need a bargaining unit to ensure they are treated equitably. And while labour law and safety standards now protect many of the issues unions originally fought for, I'm not convinced there aren’t additional important issues out there today, or issues that we'll face in the future. The same arguments were raised in the 70's about Unions no longer being necessary, and since that time overtime laws, and discrimination in the workplace laws have all evolved. If I'm not mistaken, overtime laws are currently being debated in the US. Unions may take a lead in the debates over maternity benefits, same sex benefits, etc, etc. I'm not saying they should get their way, just saying the view from someone representing employees should be considered. Also, as Tbar said, companies often compete in the short term. Unions help provide a training ground for people in trades. It would be more difficult for an individual company to do this because they would incur the training costs, and then potentially lose the employee to a company that didn't train, but may be able to pay more for qualified people since they saved money on training... Soo.. I don't like them. Glad I'm not in one. But they do serve a current purpose. I'll agree that they're often too powerful. And often appear unaccountable. But we need them.
I certainly support people joining together to promote the general welfare of the group but I think unions traditionally choose the wrong tactic. Instead of saying you have to give us more to work for your company they need to say " hey we are the ones who do the work that creates the value let's start our own company and put those jerks out of business". Then they form their own corporation, sell stock on the promise of their skills and labor ( keeping 51% for themselves) and then it's produce or starve. I can't really say why there aren't many employee owned corporations in the US. Surley the current unions could muster up the organizational skills to get the ball rolling. (Or do CEO's really deserve those huge compensation packages )
Two things. Manny, Ask your parents, seriously. Most are in AFT or the other (forget the acronym). Most members don't go around waving union flags and wearing 1980's-style slogan buttons. It can be a very quiet thing that members themselves almost forget about. It doesn't have to look like the set of *Germinal* to mean a union is in place! Hayes, You're correct to an extent. What *have* unions accomplished lately. And yes, we have a few good labor laws. What do you think of my watchman comment earlier though? Do you really think labor laws would stay on the books if our fairly corporate-friendly government and business owners were free to do what maximized profits? Already, (for example) more teenagers are working than have been at work in the last 30, 40 years (according to the book *Fast Food Nation*). Is working for minimum wage really the best way to improve a kid's education? One reason McD's and others rely on teenage labor: no need to advance them and no need to deal with unions.
Interesting, Gepe, but starting businesses takes a whole lotta capital. And all jokes of union dues aside, most unions I know of don't have that kind of cash.
Absolutely. I don't think you'll see a rollback of labor laws. If anything, the unions are more likely to cause a backlash against those laws because they are so inefficient in the demands, and so protecting of unproductive workers. They just don't fit in the new century. With more mobility, and information, more workers than ever have more choices about where to work, and under what conditions. In addition, most of the recent developments in labor law are coming from a gender equity basis (maternity leave etc), not from union influence. First, how old is Fast Food Nation? Second, McD's is a classic example of the backlash segments of the population are feeling because of the FEAR of unions. Can you imagine having to pay a hamburger flipper 18 bucks an hour, and being unable to fire one? That makes NO sense. Now keep in mind that I feel manufacturing, as it is, is a dinosaur waiting to happen. Those jobs are simply unskilled (relatively) labor that are better off being outsourced to a third world country. If our economy is to continue to evolve we need to move beyond protecting those jobs and get our labor force into 21st century jobs. I'll give you the example that comes to my mind immediately. In the 80s we bemoaned the loss of manufacturing to Japan. Their workers were cheaper and more efficient. We thought that was a loss. Now Japan's economy has been stagnate forever. Why? Because they tried to steal all the manufacturing, but found out ten years too late that there are yet other countries that can produce those good even cheaper. Now they're stuck with steel and autos and are getting the beat down. That obviously is not the future for the US. We cannot go back to that. Unions are all about holding those jobs, and getting the highest wage for that labor, and it is simply unsustainable in the long run. Now as I've said, I won't say I know enough about EVERY industry to suggest there is NO room for Unions in ANY industry. But if I had to vote across the board, on an 'on balance' basis, I'd say they've outlived their usefulness. And again, no one seems to have an argument about why unions are relevant NOW. Yes, corporations need some check, but my argument is that there are other mechanisms for that now, that are much more efficient, and much less destructive than unions.
Exactly what I am wondering...when is someone going to say why unions are good for TODAY?? If some of you were taking the class I just got out of, I think you would change your tune on unions... bnb and B-Bob, I checked with my parents and the way it was described to me is that yes there is a union that they can go through to negotiate but it was described by my father as "not really being a union" meaning that it was a watered-down version; however, union detractors say it is a union, lol. Granted this is for the state of Tennessee and I learned tonight that TN is a right-to-work state so that probably has something to do with it. Someone smarter than me can probably clear this thing up.
there are institutions in society that have value, and unions are one such institution. By existing, they set a measurement for pay and benefits. Even those who are not union members benefit. If they were gone, they would be greatly missed for that reason. Child labor won't be coming back, but labor laws and minimum wage and overtime pay requirements help everyone who is a laborer, IMO.
You make excellent points about why you believe unions are no longer needed today. I disagree, but respect your thoughts. But, if I remember correctly, the "organized labor" class (?) you're taking is from a guy who told you the *first day* that he dismantles unions for a living. I'm not suggesting he's presenting false information (or even a bias), but to me, that would tint things he presented on the matter.
True, however, tonight he told us that people don't vote for unions, they vote AGAINST management. I think that is what many who voted pro-union are doing here; they are picking (what they feel) is the lesser of two evils in the unions compared to management.
