Unions: good for workers or bad for business?

[Savonarola]

Seems like a semantic difference.

And that's what Languish is all about.

I think the idea of outlawing closed shops was to prevent Unions from blackballing people and therefore preventing them from working.

I think the idea was to weaken the power of Unions.

That was the ultimate point of Taft-Hartley; but not necessarily the anti-closed shop provision.  The power to the Union had simply grown to great at that point; Truman vetoed Taft-Hartley, but he used it many times during his presidency.  He even went further and threatened to draft railroad workers while they were on strike.

[alfred russel]

The fundamental idea of labor organizing to avoid abuse by management is good. The way it's presently manifest in this country isn't. Or, to borrow from the Simpsons:

You can't treat the working man this way.  One day, we'll form a union
   and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve!  Then we'll go
   too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!

That is a great quote.

60-70 years ago unions were great for raising wages and improving workplace conditions. But now in a lot of industries competition is such that unions can't improve wages and keep their employers competitive with non union companies and overseas labor. And with OSHA, the effective ending of at will employment through anti-discrimination legislation, and the current legal environment being more receptive to intervening in the employer/employee relationship, it seems a lot of the improvements originally sought by employees are now universally guaranteed.

A great example is the UAW. It claims--and I think with some merit--that its wages aren't out of line with those of non-union US automakers. So I can only assume that its value added to members is in the thousands of pages of regulations negotiated into the contract. While those may seem good for workers, if I was to get a job with an automaker I'd rather go to one that is not Ford, GM, or Chrysler and let OSHA look out for me rather than a union.

[Razgovory]

I will admitt,  I have family members who are Union members and it's treated them well (one's a Senator), so I am a bit biased.

[DontSayBanana]

A great example is the UAW. It claims--and I think with some merit--that its wages aren't out of line with those of non-union US automakers. So I can only assume that its value added to members is in the thousands of pages of regulations negotiated into the contract. While those may seem good for workers, if I was to get a job with an automaker I'd rather go to one that is not Ford, GM, or Chrysler and let OSHA look out for me rather than a union.

Yes. Here's a breakdown provided by Ford payroll: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/12/13/299179.html

The difference is staggering in the legacy costs. ($16/man-hour UAW, versus $3/man-hour transplant). Also, I could understand a one-to-two dollar difference per man-hour between union and non-union, but three's pushing it.

[alfred russel]

Yes. Here's a breakdown provided by Ford payroll: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/12/13/299179.html

The difference is staggering in the legacy costs. ($16/man-hour UAW, versus $3/man-hour transplant). Also, I could understand a one-to-two dollar difference per man-hour between union and non-union, but three's pushing it.

I've never understood the legacy cost angle of this as an excuse for the auto makers. The principle of post retirement benefits is that they are funded when the worker is actually working and invested so that when the worker retires the funds are there to pay him or her. If the legacy costs are a huge burden right now, that means that some combination of the plans were massively underfunded or the funds were put in bad investments.

The majority of the blame for that is obviously with management. But the UAW deserves some flak too--the Pension Guaranty Corporation does not stand behind pension benefit payments over a relatively low amount a year. There are probably a number of UAW retirees that stand to lose a lot of benefits if an automaker goes bankrupt. The UAW could have been on top of this.

[DGuller]

I've never understood the legacy cost angle of this as an excuse for the auto makers. The principle of post retirement benefits is that they are funded when the worker is actually working and invested so that when the worker retires the funds are there to pay him or her. If the legacy costs are a huge burden right now, that means that some combination of the plans were massively underfunded or the funds were put in bad investments.

The majority of the blame for that is obviously with management. But the UAW deserves some flak too--the Pension Guaranty Corporation does not stand behind pension benefit payments over a relatively low amount a year. There are probably a number of UAW retirees that stand to lose a lot of benefits if an automaker goes bankrupt. The UAW could have been on top of this.

I was about to say the same thing about the legacy costs.  The way legacy costs are framed makes it looks like the US automakers are just victims of their maturity.  In reality they've in effect been holding back on paying their employees full compensation, and now need to scrounge up the money to catch up.  Calling those costs "legacy costs" is extremely disingenuous.  The more apt term would be "deadbeat costs".

[DontSayBanana]

I've never understood the legacy cost angle of this as an excuse for the auto makers. The principle of post retirement benefits is that they are funded when the worker is actually working and invested so that when the worker retires the funds are there to pay him or her. If the legacy costs are a huge burden right now, that means that some combination of the plans were massively underfunded or the funds were put in bad investments.

The majority of the blame for that is obviously with management. But the UAW deserves some flak too--the Pension Guaranty Corporation does not stand behind pension benefit payments over a relatively low amount a year. There are probably a number of UAW retirees that stand to lose a lot of benefits if an automaker goes bankrupt. The UAW could have been on top of this.

Apparently, the difference is NOT all in pension/retirement. When comparing employees with VEBA (a health reimbursement plan available to Ford employees), they found the Legacy costs WERE THE SAME ($3/man-hour, both union and non), so the pension argument was a red herring.

Even totally discounting legacy costs altogether, union work comes in at $55/man-hour as opposed to transplant labor at $49/man-hour. The UAW work costs almost 20% more, without factoring in the union's healthcare costs.

[alfred russel]

Apparently, the difference is NOT all in pension/retirement. When comparing employees with VEBA (a health reimbursement plan available to Ford employees), they found the Legacy costs WERE THE SAME ($3/man-hour, both union and non), so the pension argument was a red herring.

VEBA is a part of retirement costs.

[Mr.Penguin]

I am a union member...

Fuck, would have siad something insightfull about unions and their role in the labourmarket, but to hangover and still to semi-drunk to think clearly this early sunday morning, so later, much later...

[Martinus]

Anyway the thread title presents a false alternative. It's like asking "alcohol: good for fun or bad for health?"

[Strix]

Look at Strix as a fine example - he is making nearly $80,000 doing nearly unskilled or low skilled work that requires nothing more than a bachelors degree, and the big beef he has with the governor is that the governor doesn't want to give him yet another yearly raise at a time when the state is looking at tens of billions of dollars in budget shortfall.

And a great many law enforcement people whose job doesn't even require a college degree are making more.

As far as the skilled part. This weekend why don't you go knocking door to door on Avenue D at about 11:00 pm by yourself. Let me know how that turns out. 

Parole is a very hard job. It requires you to be a law enforcement officer, a social worker, and a lawyer plus various other things. It requires long odd hours and extreme flexibility in your life. It's also very dangerous. EVERYONE you are dealing with is a convicted felon (and most have multiple felonies).

I am fairly compensated for what I do. The stress and hours associated with the job make it almost impossible to work several jobs at once which is why the state pays us enough to focus on our primary job (we actually have to get is cleared through the regional supervisor for outside employment).

I am a champion of some aspects of Unions. I have worked in a state where you could be fired at will and in the law enforcement field that creates a tremendous amount of pressure and stress that is not needed. Also, as a public safety organization, we cannot go on strike, so union representation is important.

I doubt you could do my job Berkut. Yes, I am sure you could learn it. I don't believe you could hack being out on the streets. Not many people can. That is why we are paid what we are paid.

[Strix]

Why the bitterness Berkut? Did you not get hired by the State at some point? Or is it hard for you to comprehend that skilled labor isn't only based on how well you can read a technical manual?

[garbon]

That is why we are paid what we are paid.

I think you've already clearly demonstrated that that isn't the reason why.

[jimmy olsen]

Options are to black and white, not voting.

[garbon]

Options are too black and white, not voting.

That was sort of the point.