"Ron Paul Would Allow ‘Open Season’ on Union Organizers"

[Cutlass]

The lack of consumption is only problematic for the economy when the economy relies too much on wage labor.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. In a market economy, all production require consumption. Without consumption, there are no jobs. And so a downward spiral.

 

[luiz]

If they have far more power, then how come the wages aren't rising faster? They can't really have very much. And there's no reason to believe they're a drag on the economy, unless you only want the failed program of exporting your way to prosperity. At some point in time production needs consumption. And it is the lack of consumption that is the primary drain on the world's economy these days.

Actually wages are rising faster, but that's more of a result of an economy growing faster leading to labor shortage.

Unions are not much of an issue when there are labor shortages; in fact in some places we had to give pay raises above the one negotiated with the union, to avoid losing employees.

They are a complete drag when the economy is stagnating or contracting, though. When they have too much power they may force agreements that lead companies to firing more people than they otherwise would, and not hiring for longer than they otherwise would. Too powerful unions are one of the reason Brazil's unemployement tends to be high, and why it takes so long for it to fall even after the recessions end.

 

[Traitorfish]

The lack of consumption is only problematic for the economy when the economy relies too much on wage labor.

What do you mean by "relies too much on wage labour", exactly? What's the alternative?

 

[Arwon]

Again, if you think the official position of Australian Liberal Party reflects the extent of the anti-union sentiment of a good many Australians in the industry, you're quite out of touch.

Well no, we have the editorial pages of the Rupert Murdoch media empire for that.

 

[asbestos]

Germany, with its strong auto unions, is producing twice as many cars as the US.

Forbes article:

In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.

How can that be? The question is explored in a new article from Remapping Debate, a public policy e-journal. Its author, Kevin C. Brown, writes that “the salient difference is that, in Germany, the automakers operate within an environment that precludes a race to the bottom; in the U.S., they operate within an environment that encourages such a race.”

There are “two overlapping sets of institutions” in Germany that guarantee high wages and good working conditions for autoworkers. The first is IG Metall, the country’s equivalent of the United Automobile Workers. Virtually all Germany’s car workers are members, and though they have the right to strike, they “hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,” according to Horst Mund, an IG Metall executive. The second institution is the German constitution, which allows for “works councils” in every factory, where management and employees work together on matters like shop floor conditions and work life. Mund says this guarantees cooperation, “where you don’t always wear your management pin or your union pin.”

Mund points out that this goes against all mainstream wisdom of the neo-liberals. We have strong unions, we have strong social security systems, we have high wages. So, if I believed what the neo-liberals are arguing, we would have to be bankrupt, but apparently this is not the case. Despite high wages . . . despite our possibility to influence companies, the economy is working well in Germany.

As Michael Maibach, president and chief executive of the European American Business Council, puts it, union-management relations in the U.S. are “adversarial,” whereas in Germany they’re “collaborative.”

Does such a happy relationship survive when German automakers set up shop in the U.S.? No. As a historian observes in the article, “BMW is a German company and it has a very German hierarchy and management system in Germany,” yet “when they are operating in Spartanburg [in South Carolina] they have become very, very easily adaptable to Spartanburg business culture.” At Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant, the nonunionized new employees get $14.50 an hour, which rises to $19.50 after three years.

The article’s author, Kevin C. Brown, asked Claude Barfield, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, why the German car companies behave so differently in the U.S. He answered, “Because they can get away with it so far.”

The article for remapping debate more fully discusses the differences in German (unionized) vs. American (non-unionized) plants that belong to German automakers. Keeping in mind that German automakers adopt the local culture when located in right to work (anti-union) states, the story presents an interesting view on the psychology of management:

When asked why German firms operate so differently with respect to labor in different countries, Claude Barfield, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute where he studies international trade and globalization, told Remapping Debate that they do so, in part, “because they can get away with it so far.”

Though a Volkswagen-Chattanooga spokesperson told Remapping Debate that “it is up to our production team members to decide” whether to join a union, Barfield points out that all of the German-based auto manufacturers in the U.S. located in right-to-work states are “not unhappy with the situation they have now,” citing the fact that they “have more authority, they have more power” than they would in a unionized context.

 

[Arwon]

though they have the right to strike, they “hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,”

This is not a trivial point.

 

[Quackers]

Indeed, I've always heard industrial relations are much more harmonoious in Germany then in other parts of the world. When disputes arise there are more reasonable, cordial relations between the management and the workers which leads to a better outcome for all the stakeholders involved.
Also I think a member of the relevent trade Union sits on the companies board which is unheard of elsewhere.

 

[innonimatu]

What do you mean by "relies too much on wage labour", exactly? What's the alternative?

Why, easy! Everyone in the country becomes a web 2.0 entrepreneur selling the figments of his/her imagination to other people in other countries.

Because people in other countries will be forever fine with paying for what they can get for free anyway. Especially once they do all the actual material stuff, ultimately all the weapons too. Nothing can go wrong with the new economy!

 

[Cutlass]

Indeed, I've always heard industrial relations are much more harmonoious in Germany then in other parts of the world. When disputes arise there are more reasonable, cordial relations between the management and the workers which leads to a better outcome for all the stakeholders involved.
Also I think a member of the relevent trade Union sits on the companies board which is unheard of elsewhere.

What makes the difference is whether management and labor think that they are essentially on the same side, or if they are enemies to the death. Both happen. As well as a lot of in between the extremes. The more they see it as a cooperative venture, the more labor can earn, and the the better off the company is. The more they see each other as enemies, the more management works to screw labor, and everyone is worse off in the long run. Labor in Britain was so ugly because of the centuries of class conflict that predated industrialization, and carried over into it. Management vied labor as uppity peasants who should know their place. Labor viewed management as worthless aristos living like lords by stealing the fruit of their work. The post war Japanese on the other hand figured they were all in the same boat, and it was sink or swim together.

 

[BasketCase]

I can't help but think that you're missing the point rather entirely. The question isn't about the unions

It actually was. "Should employers be able to fire workers for supporting unions".

I've never been part of a union, and have never needed one--in fact, as I already demonstrated, unions have done me more harm than good in my lifetime.

Further (this is something I only remembered just now): when I lost my second job, my (ex) employer never did give a reason why I was laid off. If they don't tell you why they canned you, you can't tell any judge "they fired me for supporting a union". Fact is, a law making it illegal to fire somebody for supporting a union is worthless. Employers worldwide figured out how to beat that law a long time ago.

 

[Old Hippy]

I've never been part of a union, and have never needed one--in fact, as I already demonstrated, unions have done me more harm than good in my lifetime.

Further (this is something I only remembered just now): when I lost my second job, my (ex) employer never did give a reason why I was laid off. If they don't tell you why they canned you, .

dose this not just show how negotiting your own contract, leaves you at a disavantage to those using professional experts in employement contracts, when negotating their contract.... seems like another vote for Unions to me.....

 

[Traitorfish]

It actually was. "Should employers be able to fire workers for supporting unions".

Exactly, it's about the level of legal protections granted to unionised employees, and perhaps to unions more generally, not to whether you personally consider them benign or malignant. Nobody cares about your silly personal vendetta against unions.

I've never been part of a union, and have never needed one--in fact, as I already demonstrated, unions have done me more harm than good in my lifetime.

What is this indicative of, beyond your own experiences?

Further (this is something I only remembered just now): when I lost my second job, my (ex) employer never did give a reason why I was laid off. If they don't tell you why they canned you, you can't tell any judge "they fired me for supporting a union". Fact is, a law making it illegal to fire somebody for supporting a union is worthless. Employers worldwide figured out how to beat that law a long time ago.

Not so. In much of the world, the dismal process is more substantial than "On yer bike", and there exist state-supported industrial tribunals through which employees may pursue cases of what they believe to be wrongful dismissal- which they are frequently successful in doing. You are, and let's say I'm not altogether surprised by this, assuming the US to be a universal model of industrial relations.

 

[Tahuti]

What do you mean by "relies too much on wage labour", exactly? What's the alternative?

Self-suffiency? Go into the wild, hunting animals, growing foodstuff so you can live without ever having to buy food and other necessities.

I do not really believe in it though, but I mentioned it because I was curious what reactions the idea would incite.

 

[Traitorfish]

Wage-labour and self-sufficiency aren't really dichotomous. It's possible to have an economy of specialised petty-proprietors, as was the case in most of Western Europe in the early modern period.

 

[Tahuti]

That's true, but the point was that self-suffiency would mean you're less dependent on someone else's consumption, since wage-labor is driven by economic input whereas self-suffiency means you only consume what you produce or produce what you consume.

 

[peter grimes]

It actually was. "Should employers be able to fire workers for supporting unions".

I've never been part of a union, and have never needed one--in fact, as I already demonstrated, unions have done me more harm than good in my lifetime.

Further (this is something I only remembered just now): when I lost my second job, my (ex) employer never did give a reason why I was laid off. If they don't tell you why they canned you, you can't tell any judge "they fired me for supporting a union". Fact is, a law making it illegal to fire somebody for supporting a union is worthless. Employers worldwide figured out how to beat that law a long time ago.

From what I got out of your post is that a union went on strike, and the ripple effects are what caused your employer to fire you. So it wasn't really the case that the union did you harm, but that your employer did you harm.

And as for the guy who fired you without a reason, that's one of the primary things that unions do for their members - no firings without Just Cause. This means that the employer has to have valid reason for laying someone off, and it has to be documented. This protects the employees from the whims of management. If you were in a union, you don't have to worry that you might be fired for raising a concern about a workplace safety issue or something.

If anything you're gripes only support the expansion of union representation and protection.

 

[aelf]

People want the freedom to be oppressed.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's true, but the point was that self-suffiency would mean you're less dependent on someone else's consumption, since wage-labor is driven by economic input whereas self-suffiency means you only consume what you produce or produce what you consume.

Isn't that more fundamentally a reflection of the fact that production is a for-use basis, rather than of self-sufficiency? These societies are able to more effectively scale production to consumption because each is immediate, located within the household/tribe/whatever, rather than because there is only a limited division of labour.