World Bank: Unions Good for the Economy

[Sheilbh]

  I'm proven wrong, you don't know, and you're entirely ignorant?  WTF Shelf.

You're wrong about a union mentality, or at best projecting a particular reading of American unions (which if anything this demonstrates).  I don't know about the car industry in the US and I don't think that one point is terribly relevant.  An argument doesn't fail because of your 'empirical point' about the UAW.

You misunderstand my point.  If a union drives a company into the ground they're killing the golden goose that lays the egg of their employment.  If a company breaks a union they're not killing the golden goose of their profits.

Okay.  That's fair, though I'd say that there's more likely to be a combination of factors (such as hostile industrial relations) that drives a company into the ground.  It'll rare be monocausally the union drove too many hard bargains.

And not so normal in the US and UK.  QED.

Actually it did happen a lot in the recession, at least initially, and I think probably reduced the rate of unemployment we saw here.  Though we've now converged again.  The two differences that I think may matter a lot is the size of the American market and that most companies had been nationalised over here.  I think those two factors rather changed the calculation of the golden goose for unions here and management's always been far more hostile.

Not justifying this, but the rules often say that any contact between any representative of the company and the union immediately activates the union and gives it legal rights it didn't have before--because that is de-facto recognition of the union's status as negotiator for the company's workers.

Absolutely.  Though over here I think we only got that rule in 1999 and there's lots of legal requirements before it's activated.  Before that the law was nowhere near so generous.

When a company's doing well is when they're in the best negotiating position with the union because they can try to cut the ground from beneath them with large pay-rises or bonuses outside the negotiated structure.

[dps]

When a company's doing well is when they're in the best negotiating position with the union because they can try to cut the ground from beneath them with large pay-rises or bonuses outside the negotiated structure.

Um.  I'd say that a company that's doing well but isn't unionized is in a decent position to resist unionization because it can afford to do things that keep its employees happy, but it's also much more likely to be targeted by union organizers than a company in trouble.  If the company is already unionized, it's actually in a better position to ask for concessions from the union in negotiations if it's in trouble.

[CountDeMoney]

Um.  I'd say that a company that's doing well but isn't unionized is in a decent position to resist unionization because it can afford to do things that keep its employees happy, but it's also much more likely to be targeted by union organizers than a company in trouble.  If the company is already unionized, it's actually in a better position to ask for concessions from the union in negotiations if it's in trouble.

Our local utilities company is not, nor has it ever been, unionized;  it is one of the very few utilities east of the Mississippi that isn't union, and it is the nation's oldest incorporated utility, dating back to 1816.
Every few years, the IBEW tries to get a vote in, and the employees consistently shoot them down, the last time with a 4-1 margin against. 

Why?  Because the company treats its employees right, and yet still manages to be profitable.

There's a lesson in there somewhere.

[dps]

Um.  I'd say that a company that's doing well but isn't unionized is in a decent position to resist unionization because it can afford to do things that keep its employees happy, but it's also much more likely to be targeted by union organizers than a company in trouble.  If the company is already unionized, it's actually in a better position to ask for concessions from the union in negotiations if it's in trouble.

Our local utilities company is not, nor has it ever been, unionized;  it is one of the very few utilities east of the Mississippi that isn't union, and it is the nation's oldest incorporated utility, dating back to 1816.
Every few years, the IBEW tries to get a vote in, and the employees consistently shoot them down, the last time with a 4-1 margin against. 

Why?  Because the company treats its employees right, and yet still manages to be profitable.

There's a lesson in there somewhere.

True, though I suppose as a utility, they're a local monopoly, correct?

[CountDeMoney]

True, though I suppose as a utility, they're a local monopoly, correct?

Not in this day and age of massive energy deregulation*;  you can purchase your power from anybody you like.  Rates are very competitive.




*Which actually makes it all suck but that, as Oprah would say, is for another show. (Please see: California, State of;  Enron, Corruption By)

[MadImmortalMan]

There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Perhaps that's another of the reasons for our unions declining in membership. If there's any reason to see it happen, I'd prefer it be that one.

[CountDeMoney]

There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Perhaps that's another of the reasons for our unions declining in membership. If there's any reason to see it happen, I'd prefer it be that one.

You and I both know that's not the reason these days.

[crazy canuck]

The problem in discussions like this is the preconceptions.  Take Sheilbh's comment That "Unions exist to protect and advance their members interests".  If only that were true.  Too often Unions - particularly in the Canadian context, exist to grow their revenues by growing their numbers.  Increasingly these days by raiding the members of other unions.  The other main interest of unions, again speaking of the Canadian context, is to become politically active.  This is particularly so given the express direct connection between the NDP party and the Union movement.  To the credit of the NDP, there was a movement to move to a more arms length relationshp but that seems to have faltered.  executive summary - unions have a lot of agendas on the go some of which can sometimes be exactly the opposite of protecting and advancing the interests of their members.

A concrete example you ask - sure.  The union movement in Canada has financially supported the anti free trade side of the debate both through its funding of the NDP and direct funding of various groups who oppose such things.  It is odd to see that sort of behaviour when much of the union membership is made up of people who's jobs depend on resource extraction and trade to the rest of the world....

Now take Yi's unions are always evil point of view.  Also, not so.  Union staffed with able people with an understanding that jobs and raises depend on the business running efficiently and profitably can do exist.  Although they do not get much attention because such a thing doesnt really fit with anyone's agenda on either the right or the left.  When the system runs properly grievances can be resolved quickly and inexpensively.

However in my experience the examples which are contrary to Yi's position are outnumbered by the unions that are contrary to Sheilbh's position.

To Jacob's question of who then represents the workers - these days that is largely done through legislation in the form of employments standards, human rights and workers compensation for disability or injury on the job.

[CountDeMoney]

To Jacob's question of who then represents the workers - these days that is largely done through legislation in the form of employments standards, human rights and workers compensation for disability or injury on the job.

And who drives those?  Certainly not the employers, and certainly not the elected officials on their own.  Its the unions, and the political pressure they can bring to bear to affect change. 

Neither government or corporations would ever establish employment standards or enact legislation guaranteeing things like Workers' Compensation, disability or injury insurance (all of which usually entail costs) out of the goodness of their hearts or because "it's the right thing to do".   

That's why Unions drive for membership, they raise money, they organize:  because that's the only way to get things done at the local, state and federal level.  Saying "pretty please" sure as shit isn't going to do it.

Corporations can bury elected officials in piles of cash to get things done, but unions can't?  Fuck that noise.

[CountDeMoney]

You're wrong about a union mentality, or at best projecting a particular reading of American unions (which if anything this demonstrates).  I don't know about the car industry in the US and I don't think that one point is terribly relevant.  An argument doesn't fail because of your 'empirical point' about the UAW.

Meh, you're European, Shiv, so your inability to grasp union-hate is understandable.  Over here, we embrace the time-honored concept of the exploitation of employees to increase profit.  It's all in the Declaration of Independence, what with Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Just so happens those are reserved for ownership and stockholders, that's all.

[Neil]

I don't think that's true.  Canada legislated it's social safety net at a time when the pet political party of the unions was rather weak and useless.

[CountDeMoney]

I don't think that's true.  Canada legislated it's social safety net at a time when the pet political party of the unions was rather weak and useless.

Canada, as you and I are both oft to mention, isn't the United States of Exploitation.

[Neil]

I don't think that's true.  Canada legislated it's social safety net at a time when the pet political party of the unions was rather weak and useless.

Canada, as you and I are both oft to mention, isn't the United States of Exploitation.

If only your political system wasn't hopeless corrupt.

[Siege]

And to be clear, when I say worker's interests I mean things like formulating and enforcing workplace safety and health standards, addressing grievances (sexual harassment, unfair and abusive treatment, plain old fraud victimizing workers etc) and the like?

Since when do unions do all this?
All this is regulated by some goverment organization known as OSHA.
Unions artificially raise the production costs.
That's all they do.

[Neil]

And to be clear, when I say worker's interests I mean things like formulating and enforcing workplace safety and health standards, addressing grievances (sexual harassment, unfair and abusive treatment, plain old fraud victimizing workers etc) and the like?

Since when do unions do all this?
All this is regulated by some goverment organization known as OSHA.
Unions artificially raise the production costs.
That's all they do.

That's just one of their functions.  They do more.  Saying that is like saying that the IDF only rapes Palestinian children.