Posted on 05/04/2012 8:59:44 AM PDT by SmithL
Pushed to the margins of the U.S. economy, labor unions like the one representing Northern California's grocery workers are engaged in an epic struggle to preserve their members' wages and benefits.
For the most part, they're losing.
Union members across America still enjoy higher pay on average than their nonunion counterparts, but the gap is shrinking. Organized labor is under persistent pressure to make concessions. Diminishing membership also has eroded union power.
The United Auto Workers gave ailing Detroit automakers $1 billion in cuts. Pilots at American Airlines learned last month their pay and benefits could get reduced substantially. Even California's powerful public employee unions have given ground in recent years.
And in the biggest labor battle the Sacramento region has seen in years, Northern California's three union supermarket chains – Raley's, Safeway and Save Mart – are pushing for concessions on health care and other issues, arguing they need to cut labor costs to compete against Wal-Mart and other nonunion stores.
The situation neared the boiling point this week with Raley's. The West Sacramento grocer ended negotiations and vowed to submit its "last, best and final contract offer" to the United Food and Commercial Workers. That could lead to a strike.
Raley's backed off somewhat Thursday, saying it wants both sides to meet with a federal mediator. "I want to make sure we take the extra effort to give negotiations one last chance,"
...In reality, both sides are vulnerable, and both have reason to fear a confrontation,
...Raley's is already struggling, and "a strike could be devastating," Jacobs said.
Neither can the union afford "to push Raley's off a cliff" by striking, Jacobs said, since that could ultimately cost workers their jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Here in Maryland most grocery stores are union but they have automated checkout machines to reduce the number they need to pay for.
Like public schools, Unions were a good thing at one time that have outlived their usefulness.
I've seen people say this a lot. Why? Why were they useful then? What makes them not useful now (since they were useful "then")? Being younger, I don't understand what people mean when they say this. I'm not debating your viewpoint or being sarcastic. I really want to know. Thanks.
During the industrial revolution Unions forced employers into making the work enviroment safe and set some standards for pay and work hours. Since then, the goverment has taken over that roll with OSHA and labor laws. The unions now simly threaten to shut down a company unless the keep the outlandish wages and benefits.
So it was good in creating good and safe work conditions, but now it is used for pay and benefits?
Now that there is OSHA/etc, Unions aren’t needed for working conditions b/c they are enforced by the government?
Around here in Pittsburgh, the only unionized stores are Giant Eagle, and those employees get paid less than their competitors at Aldi, Trader Joes, Whole Foods and even Wal-mart.
Thanks for your post and the book suggestion.
Google this: history of unions in the US
The wiki hit is as good a place to start as any.
I once worked for a place that I found abusive. After two weeks, I quit, and got another job elsewhere.
What stopped workplace abuse was not the union -- it was the automobile. When there was just one employer within walking distance, like in the old factory and mining towns, changing employers meant having to move away. Now, most people have hundreds of potential employers within easy commute distance.
Incidentally, regarding the place I quit after two weeks -- the reason WHY I found it abusive was BECAUSE it was unionized.
Thanks.
Good question, during the later part of the 19th and earlier part of the 20th centuries workers in basic industries were not treated as they are today. The federal government had not gotten involved with health and safety nor wage/hour regulations and in some industries like coal mining and steel making working conditions were primitive at best.
Some activities like mining took place in remote areas but still required large labor forces. Because the labor force needed to be in close proximity to the job site, company towns were created with company built rental "housing" and which usually included a company store (a "general" store which sold food as well as a variety of things one might need to set up and maintain a home). The store usually operated as a post office and bank. Since workers pay was low they would buy on credit at the store which carried their debt against future earnings.
As you may well imagine this arrangement led to abuse where workers were working 12 hour shifts with very little left over for food after paying down previous indebtedness. (rather like what's happening today?)
If you consider the conditions, working far removed from other potential employers, dangerous conditions, low pay, and spiraling debt one can understand why workers would be "dissatisfied". In the early 20th century workers dissatisfaction had reached a point where changes were inevitable. Some industries were shutdown by wildcat strikes and walkouts. Mine/mill owners responded by hiring "Pinkerton" detectives by the hundreds and set about to break the strikes and punish the organizers. This activity went on for some time as the two sides fought an undeclared but bloody war. The federal government got involved, siding with the owners against the workers and sent in troops in some cases.
As time wore on public sentiment began to swing towards support of the workers (there but for the grace of God...), the federal government passed legislation allowing the formation of labor unions and set up the national labor relations board as an "impartial" arbiter. Eventually, unions were established (after a bumpy start). Local unions merged in to larger and larger configurations until they were international in scope. Meanwhile industry itself was changing from single proprietorship to corporations with ownership distributed over the population at large and a hired management structure. In many cases the union organization "protecting" workers in an industry were as large or larger then the individual employer they were dealing with. This resulted from the federal government granting unions immunity from the legislation banning monopolies.
As the unions grew in size they became employers in their own right. To maintain themselves they charged dues to the workers they represented. They realized that to gather and continue to hold power vis-à-vis the industrial conglomerates, service industries, &c. they would have to achieve and maintain a strong relationship with the federal government. To do this they hired lobbyists much like the industrial management people who were their counterparts.
More time passed and we find the federal government, captains of industry, and union bosses all sitting around a big table, having a friendly dinner with brandy and cigars to follow. Meanwhile the average unionized worker is still shoveling a good portion of his income into an organization which has outlived its usefulness by at least 100 years. The abysmal conditions which sparked the formation of unions in the first place not longer exist and most probably haven't since the second world war.
The problems that unions vociferously objected to came to the attention of the public at large as well as the federal government (somewhat the same thing). Americans generally do not favor people who lie, steal, or take advantage of the less powerful and as partial owners of industry made their views known. Industrial management people came to realize that satisfied, healthy workers generate more profit then the injured or disgruntled. So corporate cultured changed to include workers in the decision making process and some even featured profit sharing.
Even so public and private unions have driven the cost of labor (wages and benefits) to a the point of non competitiveness in a global market. Their massive "war chests" are focused on lobbying to maintain the status quo which is ironic since almost all of their cash goes to the "progressive" party. Their attitude of "solidarity forever" is philosophically drawn from hard core Marxism and is reflected in the thought that each working member is interchangeable, whereas free market capitalism holds that superior talents deserve superior reward.
Unions have devolved from guardian of the worker's welfare to the fund raising arm of the democrat party.
Regards,
GtG
Oops, I forgot to mention the propaganda function that unions perform both internally (keeping the members convinced that their union is their mother, father, and without whom that would wallow in poverty) and externally (reference: Madison Wisconsin February 2012, when every damn union in the country showed up and camped in the Capitol rotunda for three weeks!). While all that was going on the Capitol police (unionized!) sat on their fat posteriors and held the doors open for the invaders.
G
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.