Unions: Good or Bad?

The Motley Fool ^

[upcountryhorseman]

Unions have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with
working with a company to increase profits. Invariably,
union members consider capitalism their worst enemy.

[ex-snook]

"If a company wants to avoid unionization, what is its best strategy? "

I think companies have figured this out hence, union membership is declining. Union growth comes if workers feel squashed. The government has provided workers a lot of what the unions once did. Companies have come a long way since the company owned mining towns and the advent of the Molly Maguires to protect the miner's families.

The Reagan Democrats are not wanted by today's Wall Street Republicans.Right now the old union types like police, firemen and trapped miners are just photo-ops. I imagine the union California firefighters better get ready for invites.

[CSM]

"What I am against is the socialist principles that many unions still represent. The biggest of these: making everyone equal."

Add to that, the "classification" syndrom and you have a great example of socialism to study here in the US.

[CSM]

"Bullcrap. Like corporations, unions are merely artificial entities representing the financial interests of their membership. Overall, they exist in (more or less) balanced opposition to each other."

Yep, that's why the UAW labor companies productivity is extremely underporforming it's competition. That is why it takes a unionized automotive plant from 7.5 hours to 8.5 hours to build one vehicle, while the non-unionized transplants take about 4.5 hours on average. Productivity is a major measurement that the UAW wants pulled from their performance criteria.

The UAW is costing the big 3 huge and will continue to do so until they allow flexibility of job classifications. I am all for treating employees fairly and safely, however that street needs to go both ways!

[CSM]

Ding, Ding, we have a winner!

[proud_member_of_ VRWC]

Add to that, the "classification" syndrome and you have a great example of socialism to study here in the US.

Very good point. It's the evil and greedy CEO vs. the oppressed laborer. You want to see an oppressed laborer? Look at a field worker for one of Castro's tobacco or sugar fields. Now that's oppression.

[Willie Green]

The concept of a union goes against the biblical precepts displayed in this parable.

You'll find the following encyclicals more thoroughly documented than the few verses that you've chose to interpret out of context.

Pope Leo XIII: Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of Workers)
Pope Pius XI: Quadragesimo Anno (On Reconstruction of the Social Order)
Pope John Paul II: Laborem Exercens:(On Human Work)

[hgro]

Unions, concept good - actuality bad. Unions almost without exception end up being run or controlled by corrupt individuals.

[Maria S]

"Unions are for people who don't want to work."

Not always; the union member I know (MAJOR builder of airplanes)is always happy to work on a holiday(triple overtime or something like that). Of course, at the slightest sniffle or hangnail, he calls in sick.

[bert]

the union member I know......

Ha Ha Ha, you are right.

[jpl]

Unions were once good (in the 1930's and 40's). Unions now BAD!!!

I agree with this assessment. Unions were a force for good up until they adopted the politics of the lead pipe, the brick, and the baseball bat.

[DannyTN]

The question of whether unions are good or bad really hinges on whether you believe labor economics theories work, work effectively, and produce desirable results.

If Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" is to be believed, the formation of unions began during the great dust bowl days when the supply of labor in California so greatly exceeded demand that the wage was driven to below what a person could live on. (And they were happy to get it). But in addition to a supply/demand inequality there was also employer collusion which agravated the situation.

The question is does labor economics always produce fair wages? And what are fair wages?

Unionized labor can indeed make an industry uncompetive relative to other markets (ex Foreign countries) that do not have unions. However our markets are uncompetitive to "slave labor" markets of China, despite the decline in unions. So I think we need to figure out some way of protecting our markets as opposed to always trying to compete in a world where "free trade" and technology and telecommunications can transport any advance world wide in a matter of minutes.

[LibertarianInExile]

Well said. The notion of the BIBLE coming into it, or any other religion besides worshipping at the altar of the manager, is complete horse manure. And you have made your point perfectly--unions aren't ANY worse than other affiliations of those with like interests, such as joint-stock corporations or auto club members or the NRA.

I don't like the UAW, the Teamsters, or the NEA either. But I have been outside the U.S. long enough to know that the unions that are fighting management in many other countries need to desperately in order to improve worker wages, hours, and safety so they actually earn a living and are not slaves.

It's the fault of government regulators that look the other way here and abroad that push people into the arms of unions. Investors and managers should be paid for their risk, but when managers make money win or lose (see many, many examples this year of managers making money via golden parachutes while their companies go into the tank), rank-and-file workers will ALWAYS be resentful, and a union may be their only recourse. If more employers treated their employees as they'd prefer to be treated (like Southwest), there would be incredible results for all parties. I'm not saying the Golden Rule should apply to all business transactions, but when it isn't, the result is eventually going to be a loss of productivity. And that's what all businesses are supposed to be about, producing value.

I don't hate unions NEARLY as much as I hate the government ignoring its duty to enforce its own laws in a quest to satisfy corporate donors and labor leaders instead of its constituents' wishes. When laws are routinely flouted and government inspectors paid off daily to ignore those violations, how can we NOT expect workers to run to the arms of unions that say 'we can help you fight the nasty boss man?' counterproductive as it might be for them in the long run?

[Dan from Michigan]

Union management - A bunch of thugs.
Union members - some bad, most good people.

At one time, the unions were needed. Today though, as shown with the latest UAW contacts, they aren't needed anymore. The one issue they need to fight, they aren't. That's OUTSOURCING.

[Windsong]

In Stephen King's novel "Desperation", there is a character which frequently exclaims "God is cruel", after pointing out example after example of tragidies (i.e. painful things) that just cannot be explained in any rational state of mind. I use to laugh at that sentiment, but after seeing the state of our world, I am now inclined to agree.

God IS cruel.

Perfect, Just and Omnipotent maybe..but still Cruel.

[Windsong]

tragidies = tragedies

[Ciexyz]

You guys aren't going to like my comment, but here goes: I'm a union member of a federal agency and I'm retiring tomorrow (Oct. 31st) because my union negotiated an early retirement for members in contract negotiations. Otherwise there might have been layoffs. So I have to say that I support unions to get the best deal for employees, and allege that they protect employees from management excesses. Management of course would prefer to terminate people when the rolls need cut. If your workplace doesn't have a strong union, your goose is cooked. Yup, I said you wouldn't like my post!

[freedumb2003]

I envision a huge round of layoffs after the strike is settled.

I don't see this strike settling (also the MTA mechanics strike). I think this is the final line for unions -- I don't know what happens if the Supermarkets NEVER return to the bargaining table. After about a year I have to assume the 100% scab workforce will pretty much BE the workforce.

Both the supermarkets and MTA picked the worse possible place to strike: In california there are many alternatives for grocery shipping -- there are 4 within 3 blocks of where I live -- Jons, 99 Ranch, Costco, Trader Joes, etc. As far as the MTA goes, everyone drives except the very, very poor -- and despite the shouting, they are both small in number and have no political voice.

I am watching these strikes with interest and no small anount of glee.

[proud_member_of_ VRWC]

So I think we need to figure out some way of protecting our markets as opposed to always trying to compete in a world where "free trade" and technology and telecommunications can transport any advance world wide in a matter of minutes.

IMHO, the first step toward protecting our markets would be to eliminate the pitfalls inherent to union influence. What I am referring to are the costs of work stoppages and overhead absorption due to incompetent and/or unmotivated workers. These factors play a key role in the viability of a business, particularly manufacturing firms.

God gave man instinct. One facet of instinct is the will to survive and to better one's situation. I believe that organized labor suppresses this instinct by attempting to make everyone equal. As I said in an earlier post to this thread, attitude as well as aptitude should determine altitude. When you take away the need for these, the machine will most definitely break down.

[LibertarianInExile]

Come on, you're using productivity in an unfair comparision. Union-staffed factories in the U.S. are mostly running on older lines, not the new ones built to accommodate hi-tech assembly procedure. Higher productivity isn't necessarily as physically possible in those plants. And don't forget that internationally, Korea and Japan have damn strong unions and generally have incredible assembly times in comparison to the U.S.
contracts is not wrong; that they have hurt the country's manufacturing base and limited freedom of contract is.

I'm not out to defend the UAW or fat-cat union contracts. I just don't think it's wrong for people to work together--if owners can legally collude in the marketplace with government assistance, and they do (IATA being a prime example), why workers shouldn't have the same ability to do so is unfathomable. Are the people who here stand against unions actually suggesting we ban them, and the right of free association? How? I'm not saying workers can't fire them at will, or I am a member! Just that unions can serve a purpose and aren't any more inherently evil than other associative groups.