Languish.org

I suspect this will change no minds on languish but nonetheless here it is: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/afl/LabourNews/march11-03.html

Unfortunately, The World Bank is not interested in increasing shareholder value, Jacob.  That's all that matters.  Job creators, and whatnot.

If wearing a turd as a hat was good for the economy I still wouldn't do it.

which poster will emoquit because of this thread

Quote from: The Brain on June 21, 2012, 11:51:03 AM
which poster will emoquit because of this thread

We should hold a vote :)

I'd be more interested in reading the actual World Bank report, rather than an AFL article discussing it.

For the less sound-bite version, here's the press release from '03.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,print:Y~isCURL:Y~contentMDK:20091655~menuPK:34463~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html

Nothing controversial here. I predict: No ragequits.

I predict that Seedy didn't read either of the links.

Unions suck.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2012, 05:16:29 PM
I predict that Seedy didn't read either of the links.

I predict that Jacob will suspect this will change no minds on Languish.  So there.  Nyah, nyah, nyah.

So, if the World Bank says something, it must be true?  The mind just boggles.  :huh: I think I'm done with this place.

Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2012, 06:05:02 PM
So, if the World Bank says something, it must be true?  The mind just boggles.  :huh: I think I'm done with this place.

You didn't read the links either, did you?  Yakie's headline is Timmytastic in its misrepresentationality.

Quote from: derspiess on June 21, 2012, 05:44:22 PMUnions suck.

Alright.

A serious question for you, derSpiess:

Who should represent the interests of workers?

Corporations, large and small, have a lot of power in relation to the individual worker. They have more money, in most cases they need any given worker much less than the worker needs them, and they have the organization and capital to influence both the public discourse and lobby the political system in directions favourable to them.

In theory, and often in practice, unions represent the interest of workers both in dealings with organized business interests and the political system; granted they do so imperfectly.

So lets say we get rid of unions. Either people stop joining them altogether or legislation render them utterly useless. How are the interests of workers represented?

- Are the interests of workers simply irrelevant?
- Are individual votes of workers and their ability to quit a job they're unhappy with enough to counter the spending and lobbying of organized business interests, so worker's interests will be represented just fine?
- Or is there some other, better way for interests to be represented?

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?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2012, 06:06:28 PM

Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2012, 06:05:02 PM
So, if the World Bank says something, it must be true?  The mind just boggles.  :huh: I think I'm done with this place.

You didn't read the links either, did you?  Yakie's headline is Timmytastic in its misrepresentationality.

To be fair, I just lifted the Headline from my source.

Of course... that is pretty Timmytastic  :blush:

But wait... I thought Timmy was your homeboy and you have his back in his Timmytastitude, so how is being Timmytastic bad in your eyes?

Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2012, 06:09:36 PM
But wait... I thought Timmy was your homeboy and you have his back in his Timmytastitude, so how is being Timmytastic bad in your eyes?

Timmy hasn't been my homeboy since he called me worse than Satan for cheering on Jerry Sanduski while he buttfucked a little kid.

I've defended Timmy's spamming of news stories, but not his meatheaded characterizations.

Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2012, 06:07:19 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 21, 2012, 05:44:22 PMUnions suck.

Alright.

It's simple, Jacob:  the private sector has spent over 30 years eliminating the concepts of benefits and pensions, driving individuals to the fucked-up healthcare industry and to rely on Wall Street casinos for their retirements years ago, so why should teachers and cops and EVOL GUVMINT employees still have them?  ITS JUST NOT FAIR MAN THATS COMMUNISTIC

Hey now, pensions do fabulous things for economies! :angry:

Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2012, 06:42:56 PM
Hey now, pensions do fabulous things for economies! :angry:

:huh:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2012, 06:14:26 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2012, 06:07:19 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 21, 2012, 05:44:22 PMUnions suck.

Alright.

It's simple, Jacob:  the private sector has spent over 30 years eliminating the concepts of benefits and pensions, driving individuals to the fucked-up healthcare industry and to rely on Wall Street casinos for their retirements years ago, so why should teachers and cops and EVOL GUVMINT employees still have them?  ITS JUST NOT FAIR MAN THATS COMMUNISTIC

They need to find the money to keep the system going from somewhere.  You can't keep the stock market bubble from crashing without pouring in more and more money that would be better spent or saved elsewhere, and if that bubble crashes then all of the sudden investment bankers, lawyers and corporate raiders would find themselves facing lean times.

Unions have their shitty qualities, but they're one of the few major groups with clout to represent working and middle classes, particularly in these days of increasing class cleavage and piratical executives.  Not to mention unions also provide job protection for certain kinds of employees in those sectors (e.g. teaching, police work) prone to Timmaysque moral panics and subsequent capricious firings.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 21, 2012, 06:49:58 PM
Unions have their shitty qualities, but they're one of the few major groups with clout to represent working and middle classes, particularly in these days of increasing class cleavage and piratical executives.  Not to mention unions also provide job protection for certain kinds of employees in those sectors (e.g. teaching, police work) prone to Timmaysque moral panics and subsequent capricious firings.

Unions don't represent any classes; they represent their members.

Don't know where you're getting the claim about capricious firings from.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2012, 06:52:32 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 21, 2012, 06:49:58 PM
Unions have their shitty qualities, but they're one of the few major groups with clout to represent working and middle classes, particularly in these days of increasing class cleavage and piratical executives.  Not to mention unions also provide job protection for certain kinds of employees in those sectors (e.g. teaching, police work) prone to Timmaysque moral panics and subsequent capricious firings.

Unions don't represent any classes; they represent their members.

Sure, in much the same way that big business lobby groups don't represent any classes either.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 21, 2012, 07:03:35 PM
Sure, in much the same way that big business lobby groups don't represent any classes either.

In a completely different way.  There are lobbying groups such as the Chamber of Commerce that lobby on issues that affect all members like tax rates, SEC filings, etc.  When's the last time a union lobbied to increase my pay?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2012, 07:07:03 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 21, 2012, 07:03:35 PM
Sure, in much the same way that big business lobby groups don't represent any classes either.

In a completely different way.  There are lobbying groups such as the Chamber of Commerce that lobby on issues that affect all members like tax rates, SEC filings, etc.  When's the last time a union lobbied to increase my pay?

Are there any unions active in your field?

Because I can tell you that in several fields labour standards and wages are a big deal for unions, and they want to increase them (and working conditions) for non-members as well.

If you were, for example, a non-unionized fruit picker in the US or a worker in a garment factory in Vietnam, the relevant unions are in fact lobbying to increase your pay and improve your working conditions.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2012, 06:12:41 PMTimmy hasn't been my homeboy since he called me worse than Satan for cheering on Jerry Sanduski while he buttfucked a little kid.

Right. That's was uniquely idiotic in a long string of Timmy idiocy. How could I have forgotten.

QuoteI've defended Timmy's spamming of news stories, but not his meatheaded characterizations.

Okay, fair enough.

Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2012, 07:29:25 PM
Are there any unions active in your field?

Because I can tell you that in several fields labour standards and wages are a big deal for unions, and they want to increase them (and working conditions) for non-members as well.

If you were, for example, a non-unionized fruit picker in the US or a worker in a garment factory in Vietnam, the relevant unions are in fact lobbying to increase your pay and improve your working conditions.

I'm well aware that the unions have been trying since forever to get "workplace standards" incorporated into the WTO, in an effort to increase the price of their competition.  I'm a little surprised that Vietnamese garment workers have been singled out, as I wasn't aware that any kind of domestic garment industry still existed, let alone a unionized one.  I thought that language was aimed more at foreign auto workers, which do compete directly with unionized workers.  Similarly, efforts to unionize farm workers go back to Caesar Chavez.  Obviously unions have an interest in unionizing more workers: more dues.  What's less obvious is the interest in lobbying for an increase in pay without regard to their union membership, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

For Seedy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9d-HoyA4BE

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2012, 07:07:03 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 21, 2012, 07:03:35 PM
Sure, in much the same way that big business lobby groups don't represent any classes either.

In a completely different way.  There are lobbying groups such as the Chamber of Commerce that lobby on issues that affect all members like tax rates, SEC filings, etc.  When's the last time a union lobbied to increase my pay?

While possibly not your pay, I am aware of unions that have lobbied in recent memory to raise minimum wages which are not applicable to any of their actual members.

Solidarity foreeeeeever!  Solidarity foreeeeever!  Solidarity foreeeeever!  The Union makes us strong!

Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2012, 08:41:02 PM
Solidarity foreeeeeever!  Solidarity foreeeeever!  Solidarity foreeeeever!  The Union makes us strong!

In the world of having to choose between business, government, and unions, I'd take the unions at least 9 times out of 10.

Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2012, 07:29:25 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2012, 07:07:03 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 21, 2012, 07:03:35 PM
Sure, in much the same way that big business lobby groups don't represent any classes either.

In a completely different way.  There are lobbying groups such as the Chamber of Commerce that lobby on issues that affect all members like tax rates, SEC filings, etc.  When's the last time a union lobbied to increase my pay?

Are there any unions active in your field?

Because I can tell you that in several fields labour standards and wages are a big deal for unions, and they want to increase them (and working conditions) for non-members as well.

If you were, for example, a non-unionized fruit picker in the US or a worker in a garment factory in Vietnam, the relevant unions are in fact lobbying to increase your pay and improve your working conditions.

That's hardly surprising.  Making their competition less competetive is good for them.

Quote from: ulmont on June 21, 2012, 08:27:24 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2012, 07:07:03 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 21, 2012, 07:03:35 PM
Sure, in much the same way that big business lobby groups don't represent any classes either.

In a completely different way.  There are lobbying groups such as the Chamber of Commerce that lobby on issues that affect all members like tax rates, SEC filings, etc.  When's the last time a union lobbied to increase my pay?

While possibly not your pay, I am aware of unions that have lobbied in recent memory to raise minimum wages which are not applicable to any of their actual members.

While I'm probably one of the more anti-union posters here, I certainly acknowledge that unions have, in fact, lobbied for increases in the minimum wage.

Of course, IMO increasing the minimum wage is just a form of political posturing that doesn't really do anything to help workers at the bottom of the totem pole, and may well be counter-productive, so that's hardly a point in favor of unions anyway.

Quote from: dps on June 21, 2012, 09:06:25 PM
Of course, IMO increasing the minimum wage is just a form of political posturing that doesn't really do anything to help workers at the bottom of the totem pole, and may well be counter-productive, so that's hardly a point in favor of unions anyway.

*shrug*  Stats on the minimum wage as applied to employment are slightly less reliable than the stats on gun control.  The one thing you can say is that someone who was making minimum before the wage got hiked, if they have a job the next day, is making more money.

Quote from: ulmont on June 21, 2012, 08:42:38 PM
In the world of having to choose between business, government, and unions, I'd take the unions at least 9 times out of 10.

In the world of overpaying public employees and not overpaying them, I'd take not overpaying them 10 times out of 10.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2012, 08:26:28 AM

Quote from: ulmont on June 21, 2012, 08:42:38 PM
In the world of having to choose between business, government, and unions, I'd take the unions at least 9 times out of 10.

In the world of overpaying public employees and not overpaying them, I'd take not overpaying them 10 times out of 10.

They are not overpaid. Private entreprise employees are simply drasticly underpaid.

The minimum wage was introduced in the UK a few years back and had no detectable effect on unemployment. It is currently £6.08 an hour, which isn't great, especially in London, but it has benefited a lot of low-paid workers who were essentially being exploited.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2012, 08:26:28 AM

Quote from: ulmont on June 21, 2012, 08:42:38 PM
In the world of having to choose between business, government, and unions, I'd take the unions at least 9 times out of 10.

In the world of overpaying public employees and not overpaying them, I'd take not overpaying them 10 times out of 10.

I'll start caring about public employees been overpaid when CEOs stop being overpaid.

Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2012, 06:07:19 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 21, 2012, 05:44:22 PMUnions suck.

Alright.

A serious question for you, derSpiess:

Who should represent the interests of workers?

Corporations, large and small, have a lot of power in relation to the individual worker. They have more money, in most cases they need any given worker much less than the worker needs them, and they have the organization and capital to influence both the public discourse and lobby the political system in directions favourable to them.

In theory, and often in practice, unions represent the interest of workers both in dealings with organized business interests and the political system; granted they do so imperfectly.

So lets say we get rid of unions. Either people stop joining them altogether or legislation render them utterly useless. How are the interests of workers represented?

- Are the interests of workers simply irrelevant?
- Are individual votes of workers and their ability to quit a job they're unhappy with enough to counter the spending and lobbying of organized business interests, so worker's interests will be represented just fine?
- Or is there some other, better way for interests to be represented?

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?

As an employee I prefer to address my interests myself.

But believe it or not, I am not *that* anti-union, at least not in the sense that I want private sector unions outlawed or otherwise forcibly done away with.  Although I think they're less relevant today, private sector unions do still have a reason to exist.  They're bad when they grow too powerful, but on balance I'd rather have them around.

Public sector unions can take a flying leap, however.

I'm underpaid, oversexed and over here.

Quote from: ulmont on June 22, 2012, 12:20:22 PM
I'll start caring about public employees been overpaid when CEOs stop being overpaid.

I'll start caring about the price of gasoline when the price of lobster goes down.

Quote from: derspiess on June 22, 2012, 01:12:35 PMAs an employee I prefer to address my interests myself.

Fair enough.

Do you feel you're on an even footing with employers?

Do you think that all employees are as well equipped to address their interests in the face of organized business interests?

QuoteBut believe it or not, I am not *that* anti-union, at least not in the sense that I want private sector unions outlawed or otherwise forcibly done away with.  Although I think they're less relevant today, private sector unions do still have a reason to exist.  They're bad when they grow too powerful, but on balance I'd rather have them around.

Cool.

QuotePublic sector unions can take a flying leap, however.

What makes them different?

Quote from: Jacob on June 22, 2012, 05:06:55 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 22, 2012, 01:12:35 PM
Public sector unions can take a flying leap, however.

What makes them different?

They aren't him.

Quote from: Jacob on June 22, 2012, 05:06:55 PM
What makes them different?

They do have a different set of interests than a normal union. They have more leverage over the counterparties they are negotiating with for one thing.

A person in public service has responsibilities regular employees do not, such as a trust to the citizens first. They play a different role in society than a normal worker because they are doing the things that cannot be done by private actors. So there is validity to the point that their unions should have different rules I think. Firefighters can't strike while the city burns--that's betraying the public trust.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 22, 2012, 05:41:32 PM
Firefighters can't strike while the city burns--that's betraying the public trust.

Sure they can.

Over here the State sets minimum quotas during public strikes, depending on how critical services provided are.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 22, 2012, 06:29:54 PM
Over here the State sets minimum quotas during public strikes, depending on how critical services provided are.

Isn't one third of your workforce on strike at any given time?

Quote from: sbr on June 22, 2012, 07:03:22 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on June 22, 2012, 06:29:54 PM
Over here the State sets minimum quotas during public strikes, depending on how critical services provided are.

Isn't one third of your workforce on strike at any given time?

The proper term is "unemployed".

Quote from: derspiess on June 22, 2012, 01:12:35 PM
But believe it or not, I am not *that* anti-union, at least not in the sense that I want private sector unions outlawed or otherwise forcibly done away with.  Although I think they're less relevant today, private sector unions do still have a reason to exist.  They're bad when they grow too powerful, but on balance I'd rather have them around.

I disagree.  I think a large part of why the benefits available too and real earnings earnings of workers have not grown a great deal is the weakness of private sector unions.  It's been reinforced by the rise of the service sector which is, I think, more difficult to unionise - but in my view lots of those jobs, unlike manufacturing, can't be off-shored so legislative protection may be needed.

Also I think the problem in the UK is that our industrial relations culture has always been one of confrontation.  I think if there was the sort of cooperation between social partners that you see in, say, Germany then I think everyone would really miss the unions.  Interestingly Ed Miliband is now talking up Rhineland capitalism and the government apparently are very interested too.  The situation of the culture and history of industrial relations may be different in the US, of course,

Individuals joining together to sell their services as a corporate entity?  Good.

But individuals joining together to sell their services as a corporate entity?  Bad.

1. Serve the public trust.
2. Protect the innocent.
3. Uphold the law.
4. [Classified]

I don't see bitching about the paycheck or going on strike in there. Funny.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2012, 05:45:06 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 22, 2012, 05:41:32 PM
Firefighters can't strike while the city burns--that's betraying the public trust.

Sure they can.

They certainly can, but they'd look stupid on a Neronian level for picketing as New York City burns.....

The union negotiated a 4.3% pay rise for me and millions of others in my industry this year and I am not even a member.

Quote from: sbr on June 22, 2012, 07:03:22 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on June 22, 2012, 06:29:54 PM
Over here the State sets minimum quotas during public strikes, depending on how critical services provided are.

Isn't one third of your workforce on strike at any given time?

There have been 2 general strikes and a public sector strike in the last few years as a result of labor reform and wage cuts. All three have failed miserably.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 01:30:16 AM
I disagree.  I think a large part of why the benefits available too and real earnings earnings of workers have not grown a great deal is the weakness of private sector unions.

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.

Quote from: Ideologue on June 23, 2012, 01:35:41 AM
Individuals joining together to sell their services as a corporate entity?  Good.

But individuals joining together to sell their services as a corporate entity?  Bad.

There's no problem with individuals joining together to sell their services.  Works very well for bands for example.

The problem arises when employers cannot decline the terms offered and choose to contract with someone else.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 09:32:36 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 01:30:16 AM
I disagree.  I think a large part of why the benefits available too and real earnings earnings of workers have not grown a great deal is the weakness of private sector unions.

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.

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

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2012, 09:44:56 AM
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.

English coal miners

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 09:48:18 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2012, 09:44:56 AM
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.

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

And don't even mention the fucked up airlines industry.  Getting sued for firing stewardesses for getting married is not the reason United Airlines is still a shitty company;  that's a symptom, not the disease.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2012, 09:55:08 AM
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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 09:48:18 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2012, 09:44:56 AM
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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteCorporate 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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 10:07:14 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2012, 09:55:08 AM
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.

QuoteNot 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.

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?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 10:34:04 AM
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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 10:38:35 AM
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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 10:34:04 AM
Bolshevik discipline has addled your brain.

:lol:

QuoteSeedy: 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.

QuoteThey 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?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 10:43:52 AM
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 :P

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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 10:54:55 AM
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 :P

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

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 10:57:58 AMI'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? :blink:

QuoteI'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.

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

I did :mellow:

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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2012, 10:24:41 AM
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.

QuoteAnd 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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 11:05:48 AM
The 'union mentality'?

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

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

QuoteWell 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.

QuoteI did :mellow:

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.

Quote from: dps on June 23, 2012, 11:13:33 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2012, 10:24:41 AM
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.

QuoteAnd 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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2012, 11:15:55 AM

Quote from: dps on June 23, 2012, 11:13:33 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2012, 10:24:41 AM
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.

QuoteAnd 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.

Quote from: dps on June 23, 2012, 11:20:27 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2012, 11:15:55 AM
I courteously disagree with your points because I don't like them.

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

Works for the anti-union fascists around here.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 11:14:32 AM
You didn't mention union failure the first time around.

I think the failure of the unions in the UK is a given.  They're not a force anymore.

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

I can see a lefty making exactly the same point about management.  With as many examples from history.

QuoteI think I covered the main points.

Maybe, Hobsbawm and Ferguson cover the main points too :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 11:32:11 AM
I can see a lefty making exactly the same point about management.  With as many examples from history.

Take a crack comrade.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 11:40:24 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 11:32:11 AM
I can see a lefty making exactly the same point about management.  With as many examples from history.

Take a crack comrade.

Tolpuddle martyrs.  Various attempts to destroy the unions in Clydeside.  Arguably the miners' strike itself.

WTF are you talking about?  I described a very specific intellectual failing characteristic of unions.  I thought you were going to do the same for management.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 12:09:41 PM
WTF are you talking about?  I described a very specific intellectual failing characteristic of unions.  I thought you were going to do the same for management.

I read your 'specific intellectual failing' as basically they only understand strength and I think it's similar with employers.  That there's a zero-sum game between them and workers.  They're interest is best advanced by being uncompromising, a show of force and will etc.

I thought you wanted examples.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 12:21:02 PM
I read your 'specific intellectual failing' as basically they only understand strength and I think it's similar with employers.  That there's a zero-sum game between them and workers.  They're interest is best advanced by being uncompromising, a show of force and will etc.

I thought you wanted examples.

No.  If it were a zero sum game I as a third party would be more or less indifferent.  It's the failure to recognize that compensation is ultimately a function of final demand for the output you produce.

edit: For example most US pro sports leagues are zero sum games.  I don't particularly care what % of revenues goes to ownership and what % goes to the players as long as they don't kill the league.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 12:25:13 PM
No.  If it were a zero sum game I as a third party would be more or less indifferent.  It's the failure to recognize that compensation is ultimately a function of final demand for the output you produce.

edit: For example most US pro sports leagues are zero sum games.  I don't particularly care what % of revenues goes to ownership and what % goes to the players as long as they don't kill the league.

I'm not sure what this means.

That was my elaboration on the intellectual failing of the bosses.  That they view industrial relations as a zero sum game and that any compromise is problematic.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 12:33:21 PM
That was my elaboration on the intellectual failing of the bosses.  That they view industrial relations as a zero sum game and that any compromise is problematic.

So when management is faced with a tight labor market and workers being bid away by other firms they refuse to raise wages in order to win the zero sum game?  For example during the dot.com boom companies refused to pay their programmers more because of the zero sum game?  That's silly.  You're taking examples of rational responses to market realities--attempts to hold down wages in response to declining demand for British coal--and ascribing retarded motives to it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 09:35:18 AM
The problem arises when employers cannot decline the terms offered and choose to contract with someone else.

That's my beef with the unions.  To actually work, they need to impose their will on others.  They have to intimidate the employer, and they need to intimidate potential scabs.  In more civilized countries, the government does that job for them via legislation, but the effect is the same.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 12:49:59 PMSo when management is faced with a tight labor market and workers being bid away by other firms they refuse to raise wages in order to win the zero sum game?  For example during the dot.com boom companies refused to pay their programmers more because of the zero sum game?  That's silly. 

There's a huge difference between raising wages and working with unions.  Unions need employers, for many employers who have a zero sum mindset the goal is to be able to do without unions.

QuoteYou're taking examples of rational responses to market realities--attempts to hold down wages in response to declining demand for British coal--and ascribing retarded motives to it.

That was part of it, to an extent.  A far greater motive was the desire to smash the unions by humiliating the most militant of them and the union that had destroyed the last Conservative government (with widespread public support). 

It wasn't a rational response to market realities - though they did exist and the government did want the National Coal Board to rationalise coal mining - but a deliberately provoked strike.  The motive was above all political and, after that, economic.  From the second Maggie was re-elected in 83 until the strike the only contracts my dad was working on in the merchant navy was shipping coal to large stockpiles in the South.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 01:10:28 PM
Unions need employers, for many employers who have a zero sum mindset the goal is to be able to do without unions.

Employers need employees to dig in the dirt and operate machinery.  They don't need unions.  There's nothing at all irational about trying to break a union.

QuoteThat was part of it, to an extent.  A far greater motive was the desire to smash the unions by humiliating the most militant of them and the union that had destroyed the last Conservative government (with widespread public support). 

It wasn't a rational response to market realities - though they did exist and the government did want the National Coal Board to rationalise coal mining - but a deliberately provoked strike.  The motive was above all political and, after that, economic.  From the second Maggie was re-elected in 83 until the strike the only contracts my dad was working on in the merchant navy was shipping coal to large stockpiles in the South.

Do you mean to say that the company could have made more money if they had given in to the union's demands?  I suppose this case is a little complicated by the state ownership.

As an aside, how exactly did Maggie provoke the strike?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 01:35:14 PM

Employers need employees to dig in the dirt and operate machinery.  They don't need unions.  There's nothing at all irational about trying to break a union.

Yip is off the Christmas card list. :mad:

Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2012, 01:54:48 AM
1. Serve the public trust.
2. Protect the innocent.
3. Uphold the law.
4. [Classified]

I don't see bitching about the paycheck or going on strike in there. Funny.

Which is why police departments will eventually get replaced by Robocops.

Quote from: katmai on June 23, 2012, 01:36:56 PM
Yip is off the Christmas card list. :mad:

Perfect example.  katmai works in a protected industry and grows rich off my $12 movie tickets.  In exchange for which I get a Christmas card.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 09:48:18 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2012, 09:44:56 AM
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.

Airlines?  The troubles with the airline industry are a lot more complex than unions, although labour costs are a problem for them.  The price of fuel has doubled, and redoubled, and redoubled again since the jet-setting days of the 70s.  The no-frills, low-cost airlines have applied a downward pressure on ticket prices, even though fuel, security, aircraft, maintenance and labour costs have all gone up.  The big, full-service airlines are having their margins eaten up.  That's why air travel is so affordable.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 01:35:14 PMEmployers need employees to dig in the dirt and operate machinery.  They don't need unions.  There's nothing at all irational about trying to break a union.

I never said it was irrational, it's an intellectual failing that's led to as many problems by employers as the 'union mentality' has on that side.  It is I think a large part of what leads to a culture of hostility and confrontation in industrial relations.

There's enough truth in it that it leads to the zero-sum attitude by employers and an unwillingness to compromise or negotiate because often they'd rather do that than have to work with a union now and in the future.  The view that their interest is best advanced by atomising the workforce and smashing the unions rather than trying to work out a shared interest of increasing productivity - a la Rhineland capitalism.

QuoteDo you mean to say that the company could have made more money if they had given in to the union's demands?  I suppose this case is a little complicated by the state ownership.

Well the union didn't have any demands in the normal sense.  They were more or less out to smash the government.  It was always and entirely political.  The NCB shut down a few hundred mines and fire 20 000 miners, as a prelude to privatisation. 

It was a state-owned country with a CEO appointed by the PM who was known for a pretty brutal approach to reducing costs.  With a couple of exceptions the majority of the mines in more Tory supporting areas weren't to face as many closures in the first round (until the union was broken in their heartland), she'd hugely prepped the police for this and, as I say, had been stockpiling coal for over a year.

The goal was never to try and find a way of making the NCB more money, or for the NUM's part to negotiate a deal.  It was a battle to the death.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 01:54:20 PM
I never said it was irrational, it's an intellectual failing that's led to as many problems by employers as the 'union mentality' has on that side.  It is I think a large part of what leads to a culture of hostility and confrontation in industrial relations.

There's enough truth in it that it leads to the zero-sum attitude by employers and an unwillingness to compromise or negotiate because often they'd rather do that than have to work with a union now and in the future.  The view that their interest is best advanced by atomising the workforce and smashing the unions rather than trying to work out a shared interest of increasing productivity - a la Rhineland capitalism.

All you need now is a real world example of a union that demonstrated a willingness to adopt cooperative Rhineland style capitalism and was met by a spiteful management bent on smashing the union rather than increasing profits.

QuoteWell the union didn't have any demands in the normal sense.  They were more or less out to smash the government.  It was always and entirely political.  The NCB shut down a few hundred mines and fire 20 000 miners, as a prelude to privatisation. 

It was a state-owned country with a CEO appointed by the PM who was known for a pretty brutal approach to reducing costs.  With a couple of exceptions the majority of the mines in more Tory supporting areas weren't to face as many closures in the first round (until the union was broken in their heartland), she'd hugely prepped the police for this and, as I say, had been stockpiling coal for over a year.

The goal was never to try and find a way of making the NCB more money, or for the NUM's part to negotiate a deal.  It was a battle to the death.

So where's the "provoking a strike" part?  Privitization?  Which, incidentally, sounds very much like making the NCB more money, or more accurately, reducing its losses.

Quote from: Neil on June 23, 2012, 01:54:09 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 09:48:18 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2012, 09:44:56 AM
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.

Airlines?  The troubles with the airline industry are a lot more complex than unions, although labour costs are a problem for them.  The price of fuel has doubled, and redoubled, and redoubled again since the jet-setting days of the 70s.  The no-frills, low-cost airlines have applied a downward pressure on ticket prices, even though fuel, security, aircraft, maintenance and labour costs have all gone up.  The big, full-service airlines are having their margins eaten up.  That's why air travel is so affordable.

Not to mention masochistic passengers who gobble up those low-fair, cattle-car seats at the expense of comfort...and then complain ad naseum about said lack of comfort.  And leave the rest of us, sensible people being stuck with no leg room.   :mad:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 01:45:41 PM

Quote from: katmai on June 23, 2012, 01:36:56 PM
Yip is off the Christmas card list. :mad:

Perfect example.  katmai works in a protected industry and grows rich off my $12 movie tickets.  In exchange for which I get a Christmas card.

say what now?  :huh:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 02:02:29 PMAll you need now is a real world example of a union that demonstrated a willingness to adopt cooperative Rhineland style capitalism and was met by a spiteful management bent on smashing the union rather than increasing profits.

Why does that matter when discussing 'company mentality'?

Edit:  Though as I say Clydeside, Tolpuddle and the Miners strike were all more about smashing the union than the economics.  Clydeside even led to a work-in by the union.

QuoteSo where's the "provoking a strike" part?  Privitization? 

She went out of her way, personally, to hire a man who was best known for cutting half the workforce of a company and he was instructed by her to be strong.  At the time even Tory backbenchers described the appointment as provocative.  He was to reorganise the company before privatisation and was promised a lot of support.

QuoteWhich, incidentally, sounds very much like making the NCB more money, or more accurately, reducing its losses.

So?

This is going nowhere Shelf.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 02:35:00 PM
This is going nowhere Shelf.

I agree.  I'll try and simplify.

Your point about union mentality is at best a partial view of American industrial relations, at worst just nonsense supported by cherry-picked and incomplete moments in history.
A lefty could just as easily make that point about a 'management mentality' that focused more on smashing unions than working with them, even through uneconomic individual pay deals, with just as much cherry-picking of incidents.
It would also be nonsense.

Despite that there are examples of unions believing that what matters is their strength not the actual economic situation or whatever else, and of management mainly being motivated by a desire to shut the unions down.  The miners strike is probably an example of both, the economics of coal mining wasn't even third fiddle in that dispute.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 02:50:36 PM
I agree.  I'll try and simplify.

Your point about union mentality is at best a partial view of American industrial relations, at worst just nonsense supported by cherry-picked and incomplete moments in history.
A lefty could just as easily make that point about a 'management mentality' that focused more on smashing unions than working with them, even through uneconomic individual pay deals, with just as much cherry-picking of incidents.
It would also be nonsense.

Despite that there are examples of unions believing that what matters is their strength not the actual economic situation or whatever else, and of management mainly being motivated by a desire to shut the unions down.  The miners strike is probably an example of both, the economics of coal mining wasn't even third fiddle in that dispute.

I agree that Germany and the Scandis seem to have figured it out.

I don't think I'm cherry picking examples.  In case after case after case unions fought for more money after changes in market conditions had weakened their employers' pricing power.

You have postulated an equivalence on the management side, but have failed to provide a single example of companies cutting off the union nose to spite the profit face.  You've similarly postulated management unwillingness to cooperate with reasonable union requests but have failed to provide a concrete example.

I'm not postulating any equivalence.  I've said a lefty could and you're both wrong. 

My view is that culture matters more than 'union mentality'.  Unions and companies are basically positive things for everyone but they're sort of neutral and I think their conduct is more shaped by history and culture than their position as union and employer or any 'mentality'.  In the UK I think that more often than not both sides have been destructive and confrontational.  But we've lost out by the unions having been so wildly routed.

In terms of management unwillingness with reasonable union requests I think the bus driver strike yesterday was one.  All other transport workers will get a £500 bonus for the Olympics.  The bus companies negotiated a far lower deal with bus drivers, who now want the same that all other TFL workers are getting.  The Mayor's negotiated a deal that would cover the costs for the bus companies, but they're refusing to get back to negotiations (that's the media reports I've read at least, Boris is, naturally, blaming 'militant' union leaders and the companies). 

There's numerous examples in the airline industry, especially with BA.  It's arguably motivated by future profit (though so's the union demands) but I think there are many examples of companies wanting to send a message or, perhaps because they've had serious industrial action issues in the past, wanting to do whatever it takes to smash the unions.

My understanding is that companies are more reluctant to use ACAS (binding arbitrators) than unions.

Edit:  Incidentally I think you're also missing that when market conditions have changed is probably when a union's negotiating position is strongest.  Obviously they can go too far and inadvertantly kill the goose, but it's when management's normally weakest.

Also if the market conditions aren't industry specific then it's the time when the unions have to act to prove their worth to their members by preserving or advancing their position.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 03:48:16 PM
You have postulated an equivalence on the management side, but have failed to provide a single example of companies cutting off the union nose to spite the profit face. 

Oh that happens here a lot, for example when it comes to time flexibility. As a simple example, I'm on a 30 hour week because my employer wouldn't allow me to work for 8h straight instead of having a 2 and half hour lunch "break".

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 04:04:40 PM
I'm not postulating any equivalence.  I've said a lefty could and you're both wrong.

OK, I misunderstood your point earlier.

The problem here for you is that it's a simple empirical question.  Did the UAW continue to demand increases in compensation when the Big Three were getting clobbered by the Japs?

QuoteMy view is that culture matters more than 'union mentality'.  Unions and companies are basically positive things for everyone but they're sort of neutral and I think their conduct is more shaped by history and culture than their position as union and employer or any 'mentality'.  In the UK I think that more often than not both sides have been destructive and confrontational.  But we've lost out by the unions having been so wildly routed.

The problem here is that a destructive and confrontational union ends up killing the golden goose.  A confrontational employer doesn't do that.

QuoteIn terms of management unwillingness with reasonable union requests I think the bus driver strike yesterday was one.  All other transport workers will get a £500 bonus for the Olympics.  The bus companies negotiated a far lower deal with bus drivers, who now want the same that all other TFL workers are getting.  The Mayor's negotiated a deal with the bus companies to cover the costs, but they're refusing to get back to negotiations (that's the media reports I've read at least, Boris is, naturally, blaming 'militant' union leaders and the companies). 

There's numerous examples in the airline industry, especially with BA.  It's arguably motivated by future profit (though so's the union demands) but I think there are many examples of companies wanting to send a message or, perhaps because they've had serious industrial action issues in the past, wanting to do whatever it takes to smash the unions.

My understanding is that companies are more reluctant to use ACAS (binding arbitrators) than unions.

And bus drivers requesting 500 pounds more is cooperative how exactly?

QuoteEdit:  Incidentally I think you're also missing that when market conditions have changed is probably when a union's negotiating position is strongest.  Obviously they can go too far and inadvertantly kill the goose, but it's when management's normally weakest.

Also if the market conditions aren't industry specific then it's the time when the unions have to act to prove their worth to their members by preserving or advancing their position.

Here you're advancing my thesis for me.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 04:30:30 PMThe problem here for you is that it's a simple empirical question.  Did the UAW continue to demand increases in compensation when the Big Three were getting clobbered by the Japs?

Well I don't know and I don't think it matters.  I'm entirely ignorant about this all except what I've read on the recent bailout.  I've said before that my impression is that American unions are far more corrupt than European ones.

QuoteThe problem here is that a destructive and confrontational union ends up killing the golden goose.  A confrontational employer doesn't do that.

Except that it does, because all workers end up with lower job security, less benefits and slower wage growth - this returns to my point that those are consequences of the decline of private sector unionisation certainly in the UK (and probably elsewhere).

QuoteAnd bus drivers requesting 500 pounds more is cooperative how exactly?

It's not.  It's reasonable.

QuoteHere you're advancing my thesis for me.

How so?  Unions exist to protect and advance their members interests.  When the company's weak is the moment when they're best placed to do so. 

They've got to strike a balance between that and asking for too much.  They should also try to negotiate deals that will improve long-term productivity.  So better benefits, or a wage rise - but also changes to working practices/hiring freezes etc.  Again this is relatively normal in Northern European economies.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 04:40:20 PM
Well I don't know and I don't think it matters.  I'm entirely ignorant about this all except what I've read on the recent bailout.  I've said before that my impression is that American unions are far more corrupt than European ones.

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

QuoteExcept that it does, because all workers end up with lower job security, less benefits and slower wage growth - this returns to my point that those are consequences of the decline of private sector unionisation certainly in the UK (and probably elsewhere).

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.

QuoteHow so?  Unions exist to protect and advance their members interests.  When the company's weak is the moment when they're best placed to do so. 

They've got to strike a balance between that and asking for too much.  They should also try to negotiate deals that will improve long-term productivity.  So better benefits, or a wage rise - but also changes to working practices/hiring freezes etc.  Again this is relatively normal in Northern European economies.

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

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2012, 01:54:20 PM

There's enough truth in it that it leads to the zero-sum attitude by employers and an unwillingness to compromise or negotiate because often they'd rather do that than have to work with a union now and in the future.

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.

Remember that thing in Canada where the US Army sergeant responded to an email or something and then all hell broke loose? That's why.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2012, 05:56:54 PM:blink:  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.

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteNot 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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2012, 02:19:08 AM
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.

Quote from: dps on June 24, 2012, 09:46:39 AM
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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 10:02:07 AM

Quote from: dps on June 24, 2012, 09:46:39 AM
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?

Quote from: dps on June 24, 2012, 10:10:51 AM
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)

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 10:02:07 AM
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.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2012, 03:45:41 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 10:02:07 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2012, 07:23:47 PM
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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2012, 02:19:08 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 07:47:01 PM
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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 07:48:09 PM

Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 07:47:01 PM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2012, 06:07:19 PM
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.

Quote from: Siege on June 24, 2012, 07:58:38 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2012, 06:07:19 PM
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.

Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 07:57:26 PM
If only your political system wasn't hopeless corrupt.

Most of Languish seems to like it that way. :yeah:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 07:37:29 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2012, 07:23:47 PM
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.

I think that is a function of where you live.  What you are describing is not accurate here.  Unions have had very little affect on the leglislative process here.  Indeed in this Province - the kinds of legislation we are talking about are largely within Provincial jurisdiction - non NDP governments have brought in the legislation.

A good illustration of why a topic like "are unions universally good or bad" is flawed.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Enough of the "Canada is better" schtick, already.  Fucking hockeypucks.

YOUR CURLING AND YOUR VERSION OF FOOTBALL SUCKS ASS.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 08:15:36 PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Enough of the "Canada is better" schtick, already.  Fucking hockeypucks.

YOUR CURLING AND YOUR VERSION OF FOOTBALL SUCKS ASS.

Curling does suck, as does hockey, but our political institutions are pretty good.  I think part of the reason for that is because we have a greater diversity of political belief here.  Your two parties are right wing and more right wing. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2012, 08:23:23 PM
as does hockey,

Sour grapes?

Cdm, another thing that makes our experience regarding employment issues different is the way the common law regarding employment contracts developed in our two countries.  Here the legislative obligations of employers are often minimum standards which must be met and the law implies signficantly higher standards as regards notice on termination etc.  I get that sense that in the US the legislated standards are really all employees have to protect them.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2012, 10:52:59 PM
I get that sense that in the US the legislated standards are really all employees have to protect them.

You sense correctly.  They're already doing it in various GOP-run states, so can't wait to see Mittens and the rest of the boys roll 'em back federally to the level of a Steinbeck novel.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2012, 08:12:15 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2012, 07:37:29 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2012, 07:23:47 PM
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.

I think that is a function of where you live.  What you are describing is not accurate here.  Unions have had very little affect on the leglislative process here.  Indeed in this Province - the kinds of legislation we are talking about are largely within Provincial jurisdiction - non NDP governments have brought in the legislation.

A good illustration of why a topic like "are unions universally good or bad" is flawed.

CdM's arguments also ignore that a lot of the legislative actions he's talking about bacame law during Republican administrations--for example, OSHA was signed into law by Nixon.

When you invoke Nixon as an example of Republican policies, you may as well invoke Lincoln.

Quote from: dps on June 25, 2012, 08:41:54 AM
CdM's arguments also ignore that a lot of the legislative actions he's talking about bacame law during Republican administrations--for example, OSHA was signed into law by Nixon.

Wow, bringing up shit from 40 years ago.  Big deal; Nixon unified a dozen and a half disparate agencies into the EPA--and every Republican since Reagan has sought to either roll it back or eliminate it.  So fucking what.

Like DG says, why don't we discuss Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting as an example of today's GOP platform of financial regulation.  :rolleyes:

C'mon, man;  I usually expect more from you than this, dps.  For shame.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2012, 08:23:23 PM
Your two parties are right wing and more right wing. 

Not true.  Crack the thin surface of the Democrat party and you'll find plenty that is genuine left wing. 

Quote from: dps on June 25, 2012, 08:41:54 AM
CdM's arguments also ignore that a lot of the legislative actions he's talking about bacame law during Republican administrations--for example, OSHA was signed into law by Nixon.

The Nixon administration was a very different animal compared to the modern Republicans.  The old, moderate Republicans are mostly gone.

Quote from: derspiess on June 25, 2012, 09:49:35 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2012, 08:23:23 PM
Your two parties are right wing and more right wing. 

Not true.  Crack the thin surface of the Democrat party and you'll find plenty that is genuine left wing.

I guess it depends on which faction you're talking about.

Quote from: derspiess on June 25, 2012, 09:49:35 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2012, 08:23:23 PM
Your two parties are right wing and more right wing. 

Not true.  Crack the thin surface of the Democrat party and you'll find plenty that is genuine left wing.

Assuming that is true that goes to the point that there is no real left wing party in the US - even the left wingers have to masquerade as right wingers.