World Bank: Unions Good for the Economy

[Admiral Yi]

Corporate leadership inflexibility to adapt, improvise and overcome in the global market and the regulated environment is not a union's problem.

Yeah, I've read that line a number of times too.  Ever asked yourself why it is that companies with unionized workforces are so often the ones that fail to flex and adapt to the global market?

Not sure about these, but some other candidates are: shipping, shipbuilding, and railroads.

[Sheilbh]

There is not one example of a company, corporation or transnational that went "into the ground" because of a union.  Nice try, though.

Airlines.  Autos.  Steel.

Yeah Volkswagen, Audi, Mercedes, BMW were really fucked by the unions.  Not to mention Lufthansa, IAG or Tata Steel Europe/Corus.

I disagree.  I think a large part of why private sector unions are weak is the benefits and real earnings they imposed on their employers drove them into the ground.

Maybe in the US, though I'm doubtful, but at best you're projecting here.

Corporate leadership inflexibility to adapt, improvise and overcome in the global market and the regulated environment is not a union's problem.

True enough.  And in the UK (as I imagine the US) any history of post-war industrial decline is as much because of a failure of leadership and the management class as the unions.  But somehow they get off scot-free.

[CountDeMoney]

Corporate leadership inflexibility to adapt, improvise and overcome in the global market and the regulated environment is not a union's problem.

Yeah, I've read that line a number of times too.  Ever asked yourself why it is that companies with unionized workforces are so often the ones that fail to flex and adapt to the global market?

It's more indicative of staid, unimaginative corporate leadership based on generations of lackadaisical management than union malfeasance.  The UAW didn't develop the concept of "planned obsolescence" or outmoded manufacturing modelling; management did.  Nor did the UAW continue to make the decisions to fail to adjust to the global realities of the oil industry and pump out gas guzzlers in the era of oil nationalization.  And the UAW certainly isn't responsible for the Federal government's failures to address overseas governments protecting their own industries and markets.

Not sure about these, but some other candidates are: shipping, shipbuilding, and railroads.

More examples of industries being outpaced by overseas competition.  Don't blame the welders.
Railroads?  Companies being allowed to buy each other up wholesale in a fit of unregulated gorging to the point that regional and private lines are a relic of the past relegated to HO Scale?  That happened in boardrooms and Capitol Hill, not at the steam shop.

[Admiral Yi]

The success of unionized companies in Germany hardly proves Seedy's claim that *not one* company has been driven into the ground by unions Shelf.  You're usually not susceptible to the false dychotomy.  Bolshevik discipline has addled your brain.

Seedy: exactly my point.  When was the heighday of union radicalism?  The Great Depression.  Demand fell, prices fell, employers reacted by lowering wages.  Workers responded by blowing up mines and shooting strike breakers.  The second heighday of unions was the post-war boom.  Europe and Japan were rubble, the Big Three turned out any old car and the public snapped them up because they had no choice.  There was no demand elasticity because they operated as a cartel.  Then the Japs rebuild and the auto unions think that's somebody else's problem.  They keep on demanding raises, cushier benefits, no firing because of course their compensation has no connection to market forces, it's purely a function of how tough they negotiate.  Well they negotiated GM and Chrysler into the toilet.  How's that for tough?

[Sheilbh]

The success of unionized companies in Germany hardly proves Seedy's claim that *not one* company has been driven into the ground by unions Shelf.  You're usually not susceptible to the false dychotomy.  Bolshevik discipline has addled your brain.

But that was in response to your view that unions drive their employers into the ground.  The success of unionised companies across Northern Europe - including even some in the UK - and historically in Japan would suggest otherwise. 

Your picks of industries - not companies - driven into the ground is a sign, as I say, that you're projecting because the majority of those industries outside of the US are heavily unionised and doing okay.

[Admiral Yi]

But that was in response to your view that unions drive their employers into the ground.  The success of unionised companies across Northern Europe - including even some in the UK - and historically in Japan would suggest otherwise. 

Your picks of industries - not companies - driven into the ground is a sign, as I say, that you're projecting because the majority of those industries outside of the US are heavily unionised and doing okay.

I didn't say every single union employer has been driven into the ground.  Seedy, on the other hand, said not a single one has. I said the decline in union membership can be attributed, at least in part, to driving employers into ground.

You're clever to focus on to the German example (I think Nordistan would work too).  Those places do appear to be examples of the "highly coordinated" labor markets the World Bank was referencing in their report.

[CountDeMoney]

Bolshevik discipline has addled your brain.

Seedy: exactly my point.  When was the heighday of union radicalism?  The Great Depression.  Demand fell, prices fell, employers reacted by lowering wages.  Workers responded by blowing up mines and shooting strike breakers.  The second heighday of unions was the post-war boom.  Europe and Japan were rubble, the Big Three turned out any old car and the public snapped them up because they had no choice.  There was no demand elasticity because they operated as a cartel.  Then the Japs rebuild and the auto unions think that's somebody else's problem. 

Actually, I'd say the heyday of union radicalism was prior to the GD, from the post-ACW to WW1, and well deserved.  Great Depression radicalism didn't just include unions, you know.

And poo-poohing union violence without addressing company and state violence and their proxies, from the Pinkertons to the KKK, against unionists is similar to arguing about Free-stater violence in Kansas without addressing pro-slavery violence;  you know damned well who committed 90% of the atrocities during that time.

But I agree with the fundamental concept of carpet-bombing Detroit's competitors into rubble during WW2 was a good starting point.

They keep on demanding raises, cushier benefits, no firing because of course their compensation has no connection to market forces, it's purely a function of how tough they negotiate.  Well they negotiated GM and Chrysler into the toilet.  How's that for tough?

Proactively maintaining living standards and benefits, and holding employers accountable for such standards, is a morally defensible cause. 

My God man, you went to Georgetown.  Did Rerum Novarum not stick or something?

[Sheilbh]

You're clever to focus on to the German example (I think Nordistan would work too).  Those places do appear to be examples of the "highly coordinated" labor markets the World Bank was referencing in their report.

It's not a question of being clever about it.  I think the unions failed in this country and I think that's had negative effects.  But because of what I've read about Northern Europe I know they can work and I think deliver better for employees and employers.  Whether that's transferable I don't know, but that's why I think unions can be a positive thing.

So it's no cleverer than your moving concern for the auto industry as an example of union perfidy

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not poo-pooing union violence while whatever blah blah blah. 

I'm using it as a perfect example of the union mentality that compensation has no connection to market forces but rather is a function of will, toughness, etc.

You only get paid if someone somewhere is willing to exchange the fruits of their labor for yours.

[Admiral Yi]

It's not a question of being clever about it.  I think the unions failed in this country and I think that's had negative effects.  But because of what I've read about Northern Europe I know they can work and I think deliver better for employees and employers.  Whether that's transferable I don't know, but that's why I think unions can be a positive thing.

So it's no cleverer than your moving concern for the auto industry as an example of union perfidy

Then maybe you should have started with this point instead of the claim that wages have fallen because union membership has fallen.

[Sheilbh]

I'm using it as a perfect example of the union mentality that compensation has no connection to market forces but rather is a function of will, toughness, etc.

The 'union mentality'?

How would this language and thinking work about any other group?

I'm not poo-pooing union violence while whatever blah blah blah. 

Well your potted history of the union movement is so one-sided that it makes Niall Ferguson read like Eric Hobsbawm.

Then maybe you should have started with this point instead of the claim that wages have fallen because union membership has fallen.

I did

I don't think wages have fallen, I said the benefits and real wages have frozen for many workers and I think the chances of a reasonable well-paid and in any way secure job doesn't exist for the working class anymore.  In large part this is because the unions failed and have fallen.  But maybe that wouldn't be the case in the UK if we had German-style Rhineland capitalism, but I don't know if we can.

[dps]

Nor did the UAW continue to make the decisions to fail to adjust to the global realities of the oil industry and pump out gas guzzlers in the era of oil nationalization. 

Eh, can't really blame Detroit for pumping out gas guzzlers--that's what most Americans want, truth be told.  Sure, everytime that gas prices spike upwards, people run to smaller cars, but 2 years later they're back to buying big cars and SUVs.  What hurt Detroit was that the first time that happened back in 1973 was that Detroit simply didn't have enough small cars available, and people turned to Japanese products just because they were available, and found out that unlike products from GM, Ford, and Chrysler, the imports didn't have parts falling off after 6 months/6000 miles (or less).  Gas mileage was the reason that many people gave the Japanese imports a shot, but it was build quality that kept some of 'em from coming back to American brands.  And the Japanese (and others) still ended up having to build bigger cars to keep their market share in the US.

I'd say the complacency that caused US-built cars to have so many problems with quality was the fault of both management and the UAW.

And the UAW certainly isn't responsible for the Federal government's failures to address overseas governments protecting their own industries and markets.

Can't really lay that one on the management of the Big Three auto makers, either.  Obviously not the fault of the UAW, either.  Protectionism is one of the few areas that management and unions tend to agree on.

Personally, I'm in favor of free trade, but it has to be reciprocal.  Otherwise, it's like trying to end a Mexican standoff by putting down your gun and hoping the other guy does the same.  If the other guy follows your example, great, but if he doesn't, you're screwed.

[Admiral Yi]

The 'union mentality'?

How would this language and thinking work about any other group?

The language of "union mentality" would do a poor job of describing any other groups' thinking patterns.

Well your potted history of the union movement is so one-sided that it makes Niall Ferguson read like Eric Hobsbawm.

I think I covered the main points.

I did

I don't think wages have fallen, I said the benefits and real wages have frozen for many workers and I think the chances of a reasonable well-paid and in any way secure job doesn't exist for the working class anymore.  In large part this is because the unions failed and have fallen.  But maybe that wouldn't be the case in the UK if we had German-style Rhineland capitalism, but I don't know if we can.

You didn't mention union failure the first time around.

[CountDeMoney]

Nor did the UAW continue to make the decisions to fail to adjust to the global realities of the oil industry and pump out gas guzzlers in the era of oil nationalization. 

Eh, can't really blame Detroit for pumping out gas guzzlers--that's what most Americans want, truth be told.  Sure, everytime that gas prices spike upwards, people run to smaller cars, but 2 years later they're back to buying big cars and SUVs.  What hurt Detroit was that the first time that happened back in 1973 was that Detroit simply didn't have enough small cars available, and people turned to Japanese products just because they were available, and found out that unlike products from GM, Ford, and Chrysler, the imports didn't have parts falling off after 6 months/6000 miles (or less).  Gas mileage was the reason that many people gave the Japanese imports a shot, but it was build quality that kept some of 'em from coming back to American brands.  And the Japanese (and others) still ended up having to build bigger cars to keep their market share in the US.

I'd say the complacency that caused US-built cars to have so many problems with quality was the fault of both management and the UAW.

And the UAW certainly isn't responsible for the Federal government's failures to address overseas governments protecting their own industries and markets.

Can't really lay that one on the management of the Big Three auto makers, either.  Obviously not the fault of the UAW, either.  Protectionism is one of the few areas that management and unions tend to agree on.

Personally, I'm in favor of free trade, but it has to be reciprocal.  Otherwise, it's like trying to end a Mexican standoff by putting down your gun and hoping the other guy does the same.  If the other guy follows your example, great, but if he doesn't, you're screwed.

I courteously disagree with your points because I don't like them.

[dps]

Nor did the UAW continue to make the decisions to fail to adjust to the global realities of the oil industry and pump out gas guzzlers in the era of oil nationalization. 

Eh, can't really blame Detroit for pumping out gas guzzlers--that's what most Americans want, truth be told.  Sure, everytime that gas prices spike upwards, people run to smaller cars, but 2 years later they're back to buying big cars and SUVs.  What hurt Detroit was that the first time that happened back in 1973 was that Detroit simply didn't have enough small cars available, and people turned to Japanese products just because they were available, and found out that unlike products from GM, Ford, and Chrysler, the imports didn't have parts falling off after 6 months/6000 miles (or less).  Gas mileage was the reason that many people gave the Japanese imports a shot, but it was build quality that kept some of 'em from coming back to American brands.  And the Japanese (and others) still ended up having to build bigger cars to keep their market share in the US.

I'd say the complacency that caused US-built cars to have so many problems with quality was the fault of both management and the UAW.

And the UAW certainly isn't responsible for the Federal government's failures to address overseas governments protecting their own industries and markets.

Can't really lay that one on the management of the Big Three auto makers, either.  Obviously not the fault of the UAW, either.  Protectionism is one of the few areas that management and unions tend to agree on.

Personally, I'm in favor of free trade, but it has to be reciprocal.  Otherwise, it's like trying to end a Mexican standoff by putting down your gun and hoping the other guy does the same.  If the other guy follows your example, great, but if he doesn't, you're screwed.

I courteously disagree with your points because I don't like them.

Facts don't cease to be true when they're ignored.