Unions: good for workers or bad for business?

[Berkut]

Depends.

In theory, I don't really care that unions are anti-market, since I don't see a problem with balancing out the power of a business owner.

What about when the business owner is the state?

[Faeelin]

What about when the business owner is the state?

Good question. Saying I don't mind seems silly, because as a taxpayer I'll be paying more to cover it.

Saying no also seems silly, since in theory corporations could just pass on the costs as well. Hrm.

[Savonarola]

Where I live unions protect the rights of workers in general, even if you aren't a member and don't pay memebership fees.
Granted, if you need some assistance with a very personal problem, only members will receive help.

Then you don't live in Michigan.   

Michigan still has Union Shops; in order to have a bargained position at a union shop you must join the union within a set period of time (30 days usually.)


Wiki Article:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop

[Berkut]

What about when the business owner is the state?

Good question. Saying I don't mind seems silly, because as a taxpayer I'll be paying more to cover it.

Saying no also seems silly, since in theory corporations could just pass on the costs as well. Hrm.

But that is just it - most businesses cannot simply pass the cost on, since they are in a competitive marketplace.

But the state has no competition. SO you get this disaster where union contracts are made when times are good, and they throw money at the unions because the unions are a political power in their own right and pissing them off (as Patterson is learnign) is a political death setence.

Then when there is a downturn, there is no way to react - the contracts are signed, and why would they ever agree to re-negotiate their sweetheart deal they paid good lobbying money for to begin with?

And the real kicker is that when these unions form, more often than not, they are not at all in response to some injustice in the public service labor conditions - they are almost ALWAYS superior to the private sector, but simply because unions are by default good if you are a Dem, and why would anyone oppose such a thing? So they are welcomed with open arms by the politicians who are essentially the public sectors "bosses", even when they are not at all needed.

[KRonn]

What about when the business owner is the state?

Good question. Saying I don't mind seems silly, because as a taxpayer I'll be paying more to cover it.

Saying no also seems silly, since in theory corporations could just pass on the costs as well. Hrm.

But that is just it - most businesses cannot simply pass the cost on, since they are in a competitive marketplace.

But the state has no competition. SO you get this disaster where union contracts are made when times are good, and they throw money at the unions because the unions are a political power in their own right and pissing them off (as Patterson is learnign) is a political death setence.

Then when there is a downturn, there is no way to react - the contracts are signed, and why would they ever agree to re-negotiate their sweetheart deal they paid good lobbying money for to begin with?

And the real kicker is that when these unions form, more often than not, they are not at all in response to some injustice in the public service labor conditions - they are almost ALWAYS superior to the private sector, but simply because unions are by default good if you are a Dem, and why would anyone oppose such a thing? So they are welcomed with open arms by the politicians who are essentially the public sectors "bosses", even when they are not at all needed.

Yeah, agreed pretty much - spot on here, and what I would say and feel as well. State or other taxpayer funded Union workers often get the better pay and benefits that those paying the freight for don't get,and which would be too expensive, in the real business world. And it's not like these agencies are run most efficiently.

Massachusetts legislators are now trying to do some reforms, but it's kind of laughable that we came to such a mess in the first place. I see some of the reforms and wonder, why has it been like that for so many years already? Basically for some of the reasons you mention.

[Berkut]

The sad thing about Patterson taking this beating over it is that it sends a very clear message to New York politicians.

Quit trying to fix things. It isn't allowed. Just smile, wave, and ride the ship on down.

If only we had MORE politicians like Patterson, rather than less.

Who would have ever thought I would be arguing to defend an extremely liberal, Democrat, black governor against a coalition of Raz and Strix championing the cause of socialism and public sector labor unions?

[Caliga]

Well, obviously it's because you and Patterson both hold a seemingly pragmatic view on the subject, and being pragmatic means crossing party lines frequently, since both parties exhibit entrenched retardedness.

[KRonn]

The sad thing about Patterson taking this beating over it is that it sends a very clear message to New York politicians.

Quit trying to fix things. It isn't allowed. Just smile, wave, and ride the ship on down.

If only we had MORE politicians like Patterson, rather than less.

Who would have ever thought I would be arguing to defend an extremely liberal, Democrat, black governor against a coalition of Raz and Strix championing the cause of socialism and public sector labor unions?

Massachusetts Governor Duval Patrick fought a long fight to replace police flag details on construction sites with civilian construction flag details. These are the people who direct traffic at construction sites - Mass was the only state that still used police details, the police union fought the change pretty heavily for years. Police earned good overtime type pay for those details; it was thought that was heavy extra costs on all sorts of road or utility construction jobs. Now it turns out that due to State (certainly Union fought for) prevailing wage laws the flag men/women at the sites get as much or more than the police officers did. The civilian flag wavers get more money than many teachers, for directing traffic.

A few years ago I had a small job done on my sleepy side street. Town workers had to replace the sewer line to my house. Police came by and wanted a detail there; not sure if they got it, but they could have if they insisted. That job was being paid by the town, not out of my pocket. But still, that's tax money being paid out. I guess it doesn't matter though, since Union/State prevailing wage laws pay the civie flag wavers very well anyway.

[Caliga]

   Good old Crapachusetts.

[KRonn]

  Good old Crapachusetts.

Oh man... this kind of stuff goes on everywhere. And then when we read about it we're somehow amazed! It's like Bizzarro world!

Governor Patrick is under a lot of fire lately. He's made a number of bad moves, annoyed a lot of people among his supporters. So I don't want to give the impression that he's been pushing for so much reform just because he tried to change the flag details.

[Cecil]

I´m actually a bit amazed every time I hear about the differences in US unions and ours. Granted I tend to dislike ours as well but damn......

[Neil]

I´m actually a bit amazed every time I hear about the differences in US unions and ours. Granted I tend to dislike ours as well but damn......

Well, things are a bit different.  US unions take their orders from organized crime, while European unions have been set adrift for the last twenty years, since their central authority in Moscow collapsed.

[Zanza]

I am a non union member.  Can I work for General Motors, not join UAW, receive lower wages than union members, and survive?

I work in the German auto industry and I am not a member of IG Metall (the German UAW) and I am certainly not required to join them either (that would violate the freedom of occupation and association). However, the bargaining on work conditions (hours, salary, etc.) they make applies to me too unless I get promoted to a management position.

I have a 35 hour work week.

[viper37]

Seems like we're solidly anti-union in the gay marriage thread; wanted to get a better idea of where we stand on this.

I'm against. My rationale is that, while Strix is claiming that to be against unions is to be against free market, I think it's the other way around: unions subsist by restricting the market, and if their collective bargaining agreements are ever threatened, their recourse is to restrict it further by striking. Unions also encourage disparate pay practices, citing the United Auto Workers' recent grandstanding as an extreme example.

Honestly, I'm stymied as to how unions have managed to keep going; even those unions that offer apprenticeships aren't cost effective for employers or when their training is matched up against comparable outside education.

Summary: I'm against unions because they're mob rule getting in the way of free market.

they have their use.

In a big company, it will be simpler and more cost effective to negotiate one contract rather than 30 000.

However, the management of the big corporations have a tendancy to value short term gains over long ones, and as such, they play the appeasement policy with the unions to avoid a strike rather than holding their own.  But we can't blame the union for the management's incompetence.

In countries/states/provinces where unionization is mandatory and the public workforce includes a large % of the population, the game is however skewed in favour of the union, and that can be nocive.

But as a principle, the simple existence of a union is not a threat to free market in itself.
They are like any kind of business out there, they provide services to their members and negotiate on their behalf with the employer.  Figure it's like when you buy a HP printer in the store, you don't buy it from HP, you don't talk with an HP representative to buy one inkjet printer, you deal with an intermediary who has agreed to represent HP in this matter.


My only problem with the unions is their link to organized crime and the general sympathy, or rather apathy they get from the general population.  If we learn tomorrow that Microsoft has ties to organized crime and is used to blanket money, there would be a gazillion protests and calls for dismantlement.  But when it's the FTQ (and once again, I was right ), it doesn't really bother anyone, not even the politicians.

[crazy canuck]

Here are some observations I have made over the years.   Some might seem a bit trite but I haven't seen them mentioned in the thread so far:

1) Unions that are run well can be a good partner for the business because they can quickly and effectively communicate concerns of workers to management and then those issues can quickly be addressed.  One of the worst things for productivity is an unhappy workforce.

2) Unions that are not run well are an unmitigated disasters for a whole range of reasons that are too long to list here.

3) One of the reasons that businesses do not want unions is because the chances a obtaining a union described in 1 are less then the union described in 2.

4) The one thing most union members dont understand about being in a union is that they give up all their individual rights to sue or take any action in the employment realm.  If the union doesnt support them they are out in the cold.  Unfortunately this happens more then union supporters would like to admit.

5) Public sector unions should not be permitted to strike or negotiate collective agreements.  Collective bargaining only makes sense in the private sector where both sides need to keep in mind the profitability of the company (both in terms of the deal that is struck and in terms of any strike or lock out action during those negotiations).  That does not occur with public sector unions.  Rather then pretend that public sector negotiations are like private sector negotiations there should be a panel appointed to consider the appropriate terms of employment for public sector employees from time to time.  We do that with judges,  politicians and other office holders - why not do that with all public sector employees?  The public sector unions would then be left to do the important work of ensuring that the agreement put into place is adhered to and hopefully functioning as set out in paragraph 1.

6) All the research shows that the people do not unionize because of monetary issues.  They unionize because they think they are being mistreated - ie their supervisor is being a jerk, they are undervalued in the sense that they dont get enough credit for what they are doing and the company has no mechanism set up to allow them to have their concerns addressed. As a result when a company comes under a union certification drive its often their own fault.