[guzzipat]

Reading the contributions here, I am willing to bet that the majority of the posters have never been Union members and have never done manual work.

The idea that Unions somehow trick their members into irresponsible actions and the gullable fools follow blindly, is insulting rubbish. Unionised workers aren't the idiots some of you think they are.

I was a working union steward for 26 years in a large untility, I had to get re-elected every year, how long do you think I would have lasted if I set out to destroy their jobs? Would I have got re-elected 25 times if I didn't truly represent their views?


Union=bad is a simplistic slogan for simpletons. Or more acurately a simplistic reaction from reactionaries.

[Dave]

Which union do you belong to, guzzipat?

[guzzipat]

It went through a series of name changes. It was originally the Electricians Trade Union (ETU), then amalgamated with the engineers Union and recently the Transport and General Workers Union.
It is now known as "Unite" and I believe is the biggest UK union.

In our workplace we were given very wide scope to run our own industrial relations, it was never dictated. We had 95% union membership.

I retired in 2007.

[Dave]

Did you ever pursue a policy of strict job classifications? That is the number one problem with American unions (number two problem being Mafia influence ).

[chimx]

[quote=Dave]As many of you know, worker-management relations from the 1880s to the 1920s in America were extremely hostile and featured major violence, riots, murders, and even small scale wars (especially in West Virginia coal country). An us vs. them mentality developed which permanently colored labor's perceptions of management.[/quote]

It was an us vs. them mentality, and rightly so. If you were familiar with American labor history though, you would know that this changed following World War II when the United States saw an economic boom. During the 1950s and 1960s there was a "gentleman's agreement" between unions and management due to the idea that there was enough wealth to be shared by all.

This of course would not last and by the 1970s and 1980s, management started outsourcing more and more jobs overseas where labor laws were less progressive and employees would be able to be more easily exploited. At the same time, while unions were stuck in an anachronistic view of labor relations, employers started to slowly whittle away at the collectively bargained labor contracts. This took many years and has been a very slow process. Raises stopped meeting changes in the cost of living. Pensions were replaced by 401ks. Health benefits were replaced.

It is no wonder that union membership in the United States is in decline. Striking has become more difficult with the mass exportation of American industry coupled with this anachronistic view of having a "partnership" with management. Capitalists want to make money off of our labor, and they will go to great lengths to do this. Our entire economy has moved from an industrial economy to one dominated by the service sector where nothing is actually produced because of this.

[Dave]

It was an us vs. them mentality, and rightly so.

Rightly so my ass. Workers and capitalists, while they squabble about distribution, ultimately have the same interests: the expansion of production. Capitalists need labor to work, labor needs capitalists to assume risk and bring capital factors into production. The relationship is symbiotic. It is unfortunate that it is often so hostile.

If you were familiar with American labor history though, you would know that this changed following World War II when the United States saw an economic boom. During the 1950s and 1960s there was a "gentleman's agreement" between unions and management due to the idea that there was enough wealth to be shared by all.

It wasn't a gentlemen's agreement at all. It was formalized in the Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley Act. Labor got the right to unionize and subsequently higher wages, job security, and benefits. Capitalists got freedom from labor strife and thus fewer man-days lost to strikes.

This of course would not last and by the 1970s and 1980s, management started outsourcing more and more jobs overseas where labor laws were less progressive and employees would be able to be more easily exploited. At the same time, while unions were stuck in an anachronistic view of labor relations, employers started to slowly whittle away at the collectively bargained labor contracts. This took many years and has been a very slow process. Raises stopped meeting changes in the cost of living. Pensions were replaced by 401ks. Health benefits were replaced.

For a variety of reasons manufacturers in the United States became uncompetitive. Businesses took the rational choice. If we want good conditions for labor again, we need to get competitive again--which will raise the demand for labor.

[guzzipat]

Dave Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:17 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you ever pursue a policy of strict job classifications? That is the number one problem with American unions (number two problem being Mafia influence ).

No
We had a pay structure linked to "families" of jobs, but people could move around as they wished. There were limitations on what workers could do, but it was based on qualifications and safety. Electicity is very dangerous and there was no conflict with the company that unqualified people shouldn't be working on the mains. I was a safety rep as well as a Union Steward, the Company were excellent on safety issues.

There were "job desriptions" but they were always open to negotiation. If the company wanted a change in working practices, we were always willing to talk.
Sometimes, not often, we gave a flat no, most of the time the discusions revolved around how much the Company would save and what share of that we got. If they wanted extra, they paid more for it, it was a balancing act. I always said I didn't care if a manager was soft or a bastard, all that mattered was they stuck to their end of a deal.

To give an example of how it worked; I represented the guys who emptied the cash out of the old slot meters. They brought out a new meter that worked on a prepaid key. That would mean no work for the guys who emptied the cash.
I negotiated a deal where they were all retrained to fit the meters and included special access to a training programme for qualification as electricians. It also included enhanced redundancy terms for any who wanted it.
Everybody won with that deal, the Company got progress and savings, the workers got training and better pay. The final part of the agreement was that there would be a "no disconections for arrears" deal, the customers would have one of the new meters fitted to repay the money, so customers benefitted too.

There is as far as I am aware, no organised criminal influence in UK Unions. The employers were more suttle than hiring gunmen, which is the root cause of the mafia influence in the USA, according to the history I have read.

[dewitt]

It makes no sense to say it is okay for managment to organize, for stock holders to organize, and not ok for labor to organize. These are all legitimate economic players. To go anywhere else you have to be an ethical relativist.

If unions cause a particular enterprise to go down, then you have an educational experience that will serve to diminish such events in the future.

If unions cause an enterprise to collapse, through poor leadership and followership, they would have done nothing worse than management has done with more frequency and more severity in history. And when an enterprise goes down, it's resources do not dissapear. They are absorbed by more viable enterprises. It's not like it was a great trajedy.
Is there any other way to close the loop and put upward pressure on competence in management?

[canadiancapitalist]

dewitt : no one opposes free association. Although I do support yellow dog contracts - as I believe in the right of contract.

"If unions cause a particular enterprise to go down, then you have an educational experience that will serve to diminish such events in the future."

Yes - but the educational lesson is "unions really suck".

"If unions cause an enterprise to collapse, through poor leadership and followership, they would have done nothing worse than management has done with more frequency and more severity in history."

You don't even care about the workers do you?

[dewitt]

Your reply is seems to be inspired/motivated by unarticulated assumptions that you have inexplicably jumped to and I can only guess as to what they are.

What we have today is privatized wealth, and socialized debt. This is not natural, this is engineered. The government should NOT be in the business of picking winners and losers. If investors lose their money while seeking tax shelters by buying into mutual funds run by con artists, then they should be allowed to lose. This educates them and those who observe.

I'll tell you who I don't care about. It's people who think they know what is best for certain others.

[canadiancapitalist]

"What we have today is privatized wealth, and socialized debt."

A clever sound byte, but what does it mean? What we have today is socialized everything. The means of production are virtually under complete state control. Most of the criteria in the communist manifesto have been reached, at least in part. I am talking about North America here, about Canada and the United States - to say nothing of that communist shit hole that is Europe.

I agree with you absolutely dewitt. The government should NOT be in the business of picking winners and losers - and it is very bad when they are. I completely oppose the bail out. I believe failure is the most important part of capitalism. Of course, I do not share your opinion that those who seek to prevent theft (that is, those who seek tax shelters) should incur bad karma, but that is an unimportant point for this discussion in my opinion.

I also agree completely that people who think they know what is best for others are unbearable. This is why coercive taxation is so unjust! Of course we don't want it, that's why you have to point a gun at our heads to make it work. People would rather spend their money however they would rather spend it (thus utility is decreased via coercive taxation), and they should be allowed to. Everyone should be allowed to use their wealth and their property however they please - and it is only people who think they know what is best for others that argue otherwise.

[guzzipat]

to say nothing of that communist shit hole that is Europe.

Exactly what European countries are "communist", there are none in the EU. Unless of course you have a whole new definition of communism.

The statement is wrong in fact, childish and insulting.

[Stegerwald]

The reality is though, all talk is cheap.

This is a priceless remark!

Writers strike did harm to the industry, and also made no benefits to the class of 'writers' in the long run because higher wages just means less opportunities for would-be writers in the future.

This may be true, but unions aim to prevent strikes. Unfortunately the institute of trade unions stimulates perverse behaviour. They compete in their demands for the highest wage, and thus the radical unions attract most members. The unions are not particulary interested in the durability of their branch.

Unionization can be a healthy boost to the economy. Employees that belong to a union generally have a higher job security

Unions protect the (supposed) interests of their members. They fix the wage by means of collective bargaining, so that competition does not focus on the wage costs. The firms are forced to compete by means of technological innovation, which increases the productivity. For effective collective bargaining the unions must centralize their management. Initially, there is a second argument for centralism, namely the need to get recognition as a bargaining partner. This requires the accumulation of huge strike funds, and the execution of a few enormous strikes. In general these are lost, but they fill the employers with awe.

All factors involved, the company is at risk of bankrupcy due to high costs and lack of profit margins. The slowing economy leads to savings and thus less influx of aggregate demand in the economy. blah blah blah. everybody can spin these issues.

Well, not everybody, I dare say. It is controversial whether unions can really extort higher wages. For here the markets impose natural limits. However, this is only true in the long run. In the short term strong unions can indeed undermine the profitability.

Talk is cheap. Give examples where unions obviously benefited the economy and the company.

OK, actually unions have two missions. The first one is preventing the competition on wage costs. This task is called control. The second mission is the emancipation and integration of the workers into society. For this purpose the unions offer formation and education to their members. The emphasis is on social policies within the firm. It empowers the workers to become equal partners in consultations with their management. Especially in the past the integration was an important goal. For instance, all unions distributed magazines, and many exploited holiday resorts. Actually unions hoped for the development towards an economic order, that would make management and workers (unions) equal partners. Note that the control and integration function can contradict each other. One has to find an optimal balance.

Unions are in fact bad for the economy, being a major component of consumer price inflation.

Unions determine the wage level by means of a power struggle. Cost management is not their primary concern. In this regard they mirror the workers themselves. Nowadays the unemployment is used to restrain the power of unions. Obviously this is not ideal, since it also bridles the national product. Perhaps the rise of pension funds (and thus collective ownership) will improve the acceptance of responsibility.

Are you also opposed to government protection of unions?

No. In fact weak unions force the government to extend their labour legislation. Imhb collective bargaining is more flexible than legislation.

Reading the contributions here, I am willing to bet that the majority of the posters have never been Union members and have never done manual work.

The idea that Unions somehow trick their members into irresponsible actions and the gullable fools follow blindly, is insulting rubbish. Unionised workers aren't the idiots some of you think they are.

Idiots, idiots ... they are human. In the beginning I was struck by the greed that has a hold on the members. Obvously manual workers are not fascinated or intrigued by the book-keeping of their firm, and neither are most white-collar workers.