Unions: good for workers or bad for business?

[The Brain]

You are deceived.

Possibly.  But they don't seem as shitty as US unions, at least.

Few things ever are.

[Sheilbh]

This isn't to say that unions don't have their uses, but pretty much the only unions left in the US are closed-shop unions, and those are the most pernicious kind of unions.

Ah.  Banned in the UK, I believe.

[Zanza]

Yes, and in the US unions are attempts to monopolize the supply of labor.  That which is universally condemned in businesses seems perfectly acceptable to some when undertaken by a union.

To counter this, the employers in Germany also kind of unionize and make employers federations. So the metal-workers union negotiates with the metal employers federation (for the auto industry for example). That way you only have two big negotiation blocks representing employees and employers for entire industries. So they have roughly the same bargaining power I guess. Their agreements allow some leeway to allow for differences between companies. On top of that, there are company-specific agreements between union (or rather worker representatives which do not necessarily have to be unionized) and the management.

This isn't to say that unions don't have their uses, but pretty much the only unions left in the US are closed-shop unions, and those are the most pernicious kind of unions.

That kind of union sounds like it sucks.

[Neil]

Unions are linked to organised crime?

I am going to assume that is a sarcasm.

Not at all.  It's totally alien to the British experience of trade unions

Yeah that's why Maggie had to break them.

I think Thatcher's actions had much more to do with their treason than their thuggishness.

[dps]

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.  

This is true.  Ironically, if the workplace becomes unionized, none of this changes.  The supervisors who were jerks will still be there (and still be jerks), the workers still aren't going to get the credit they think they deserve, and while there will be a grievance procedure set up, normally it will have specified matters that it will handle--which will be the concerns of the union leaders, not the individual workers.  Any changes will be in the compensation the workers receive.

[crazy canuck]

This is true.  Ironically, if the workplace becomes unionized, none of this changes.  The supervisors who were jerks will still be there (and still be jerks), the workers still aren't going to get the credit they think they deserve, and while there will be a grievance procedure set up, normally it will have specified matters that it will handle--which will be the concerns of the union leaders, not the individual workers.  Any changes will be in the compensation the workers receive.

Agreed, the reasons for unionizing dont actually get addressed by forming a union.  Which often comes as a shock to those that brought in the union, especially when they realize that all the rights they once had have also been given away to the discretion of the union - although apparently not in Germany.

[Zanza]

Somehow this thread disappeared from the forum. It also tells me that there haven't been new posts for the last 120 days. 

*bump*

[The Brain]

Somehow this thread disappeared from the forum. It also tells me that there haven't been new posts for the last 120 days. 

*bump*

So it was alla a dream!

Languish is becoming more and more like a daytime soap opera.

[viper37]

Viper, I was saying that he must be sarcastically wondering whether organized crime is involved in Unions.

duh!  sorry 

[Razgovory]

Somehow this thread disappeared from the forum. It also tells me that there haven't been new posts for the last 120 days. 

*bump*

I thought some anti-union types deleted it somehow.

[Razgovory]

Ever heard of monopolies?

Yes, and in the US unions are attempts to monopolize the supply of labor.  That which is universally condemned in businesses seems perfectly acceptable to some when undertaken by a union.

This isn't to say that unions don't have their uses, but pretty much the only unions left in the US are closed-shop unions, and those are the most pernicious kind of unions.

I was under the impression that Closed shops had been illegal for 50 years.

[ulmont]

I was under the impression that Closed shops had been illegal for 50 years.

It depends on your state.  Any so-called "right to work" state bans the closed shop.  At that point, a union is substantially crippled.

[Razgovory]

I was under the impression that Closed shops had been illegal for 50 years.

It depends on your state.  Any so-called "right to work" state bans the closed shop.  At that point, a union is substantially crippled.

What about the federal law that banned them.  Taft-Hartley I think.

[garbon]

According to wiki there are no closed shops but there are union shops, where after a certain amount of time you are required to join the union, opt out by paying the equivalent of union dues, or lose your job.

[Savonarola]

It depends on your state.  Any so-called "right to work" state bans the closed shop.  At that point, a union is substantially crippled.

Raz is right; closed shops have been illegal in the US since the Truman administration. 

There's usually confusion about the difference between a closed shop and a union shop.  A closed shop is one where membership in a union is a pre-condition to employment.  Union shops, where one must join the union before a set period of time after gaining employment or be fired, are still permitted except in states with right to work laws.