Why am I forced to join the union?

[Speedo]

As a Teamster, I feel the need to comment on this.

Now, I will say that I disagree with requiring union membership for a union job. About 98% of UPS is union, and it's not that hard to convince people that it is beneficial to them to support the union.

In your case, you knew what you were doing, and you signed the paper. No one forced you into anything. Personally, I'd have to tell you to stop whining. There are probably at least 1000 non union jobs to each union job- you are the one that chose the union.

 

[Adebisi]

Yes i think employers or rather buyers of labour would cut wages as much as they can, which is why corporations really love thirld-world dictatorships without annoying unions - there are not many NIKE - factories in Scandinavia, are there?

Of course they would! The question is, how much could wages be cut? And why is labour so much cheaper in the third world? Surely you dont think any union could raise the wages for workers at a Nike factory by 500%?

The simple answer is that people in Vietnam are willing to work for far less than people in Norway. They'd starve otherwise. A Norweigan could simply get another job.

In the real world, which I have studied as a historian and also lived in , it is all a question of power. Before unions and might I add in branches which is union-hostile(likefast-food) even today, wages have a tendency to be rather modest. The point is that every single employee, or worker as I prefer to call it in my unpolished underclass-language, represent very little power to match the owner of the corporation/factory. The only way one can get influence is exactly to team up with the others in the same position, so that sheer numbers can match economical power.Already Adam Smith pointed out this.

They have the power to say "no thanks", which is what creates the "supply".
The equilibrium between supply and demand is not something you will notice trough living in "the real world". You have to study economics (not history).

"Teaming up" might be a perfectly rational way for workers to achieve their goals but it does not give them the right to deny others the right to work trough legislation. It will achieve nothing but job loss.

What causes most unemployment of unions or the absence of unions is a moot point.

Why is it a moot point? Clearly you like unions? If they raise wages and cause job loss in the process, what has been gained?

And for that part about lowering wages. I still maintain that well functioning welfare states has less people with slave wages than more market-fundamentalistic ones.

I did not expect you to be able to justify the slave wages of workers in the public sector since you obviously like high wages, but your argument is very poor. In fact it is no argument at all. The public sector causes low wages - minímum wage laws and transfers of income raises wages for those at the lower end.

Also keep in mind that many services in a welfare state will be provided by the public so that the costs does not have to come out of your own pocket.

At the expense of taxpayers (you and me) and women in the public sector...

 

[Rhymes]

Originally Posted by luceafarul
Yes i think employers or rather buyers of labour would cut wages as much as they can, which is why corporations really love thirld-world dictatorships without annoying unions - there are not many NIKE - factories in Scandinavia, are there?

It is interesting, though, to observe that many of the top 50 business in the US also have among the best worker conditions and yet dont have a union. The best example of that is Pfizer inc. They won awards on worker conditions, and believe me, most of the conditions they give to their employees are really generous and not necessary. And they didn't need a union to realise that a employees are a force in the business world and that they should be treated like they deserve.

 

[Mise]

@Rhymes: clearly that model can't be applied to every company. At the start of the Ind. Rev. in the UK, there were a number of factories and mines who's owners sought to take good care of their workers. They didn't do so well and were overwhelmed by the exploitative capitalists. Co-operatives are still alive in the UK, but unions will always be necessary. I find it a sad reflection on humanity that laws against worker exploitation are necessary in this day and age.

 

[luiz]

To make my position clearer, I would have nothing against Unions if they were done in a purely voluntary fashion.

Unfortunately, however, where I live some economic sectors are unionised by the government, Ie the government actually makes it impossible to work unless you become an union-member. Of course this will result in a Mafia, and the workers will pay the price.
Naturally this is not the case in all paces(fortunately).

Also, as Adebisi said, you can't really escape from supply and demand. Sure, powerful Unions may distort SxD, but in the long run it will necessarily reach equilibrium and the workers are going to pay. It's quite simple: the employers will close the business if it become less profitable then other investments.

 

[Hakim]

Many seems to think that only unions can assure basic rights for workers. Why can't law be used instead? By making law of these basic rights, are they not more protected than when unions are responsible?

 

[Speedo]

Many seems to think that only unions can assure basic rights for workers. Why can't law be used instead? By making law of these basic rights, are they not more protected than when unions are responsible?

Corporations have money (vast amounts of money, usually), money pays for lobbyists, and lobbyists win the ears of the lawmakers- aka politicians.

 

[superisis]

I'm not really sure I get the S/D argument of yours Adebisi. "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of production" said Adam Smith. Since we work, we get to consume. If people in general don't believe that the work they do is worth what they get to consume... they shouldn't work. Let me explain:

if in a non-unionized market there are 50 people employed and 50 units produced. Yet the working conditions are awful and the workers don't want to work in that sense. So they unionize and demand certain extras (insurance, higher pay, etc). Thus the company cannot entertain mor than 30 workers to pull a profit, so it fires the rest, resulting in a drop in production to 30 units. Well that's merely adjusting to the fact that society didn't think those extra 20 units were worth the work put into them.

Or: the benefit that the citizen-as-consumers got from the extra 20 units produced was not worth the pain that the citizens-as-workers had to endure to produce said units.

THe point of production is not to give people work, but to produce the goods/services we want to consume, and if we don't think that the cost of producing such a good is worth the trouble, then people should not be hired to do such a job. Simple as bananas.

 

[Rhymes]

Yeah but a good counter-argument to all of Adam's Simth theories is: standards of living. Modern economy is a thug of war beteen efficiency and equity....
Anyway thats OT!

 

[Hakim]

Corporations have money (vast amounts of money, usually), money pays for lobbyists, and lobbyists win the ears of the lawmakers- aka politicians.

I think you underestimate the voters.

 

[superisis]

Yeah but a good counter-argument to all of Adam's Simth theories is: standards of living. Modern economy is a thug of war beteen efficiency and equity....
Anyway thats OT!

Exactly, standards of living... which are made up partly by what we get to consume, and what we have to do to be able to consume.

 

[Ethics]

As a Teamster, I feel the need to comment on this.

Now, I will say that I disagree with requiring union membership for a union job. About 98% of UPS is union, and it's not that hard to convince people that it is beneficial to them to support the union.

Ironically, on friday we were having a discussion in my US Cold War history class on the "uniqueness" of UPS. Something along the lines that if you ever worked their and quit, and then came back, you'd never move up in the organization. It really is a bizarre system based on loyalty and promotion from the inside. I don't think your experiences (forgive me if I assume wrong that you're with UPS) coincide with the beast that is the Krogers Union.

In your case, you knew what you were doing, and you signed the paper. No one forced you into anything. Personally, I'd have to tell you to stop whining. There are probably at least 1000 non union jobs to each union job- you are the one that chose the union.

Well, we're not sure if he had a "choice" in this instance. Illinois may be a union shop state. I know when I had to go through the spiel of the Union in Texas, the union representative basically came in and said "sign these papers," and after personally reading and realizing what she was doing, I X'ed out the forms (which she later forged).

I'm not going to sit here and tell this guy that he has some choice and to stop whining. I've been in the position where the only job I could attain at short notice was a job with the union, and the only thing they did in my case was hurt me by sapping away income I sorely needed (college student+hefty loans), and preventing me from moving upwards because of their lazy promotion rules based *solely* on seniority. In all my years of employment, the places with an union have always payed significantly less, and inhibited me and the mangers I've worked for.

Not to say that Kroger is an angel of a corporation, and certainly I've had jobs that I was abused by management in (although I was payed significantly more in those industries) but the Kroger Union is a sespool as bad as any corporate management they "crusade" against.

 

[Ethics]

And? The company gave it, they can take it away.

The saying works for God, why not companies?

Eh, I'd stand back for a minute and consider what you're saying.

I think Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" (while embelished) is a good reason why that statement isnt the case anymore. Its something worth reading for anyone beginning to enter the workforce, despite it being dated.

You've gotta take a carrot and stick approach with industry. When they're doing good, reward them, but when they arent you've got to regulate.

 

[Richard Cribb]

First of all. I will answer this, but in the future I will only do so if you read my posts with the intention of understanding my line of reasoning. This seems not to be the case this time. If not, don't expect me to reply another time.
Also to clearify: being an anarchist I defend, but do not idealize the welfare state. My goal is a classless and stateless society. I also know more basics of economy than you give me credit for. I am married to a person with a master degree in economy. I belong to a political party that is lead by one of Norway's foremost economists. I have picked up a few things during my political work and some reading. However even if economy is a great discipline, just like my own field history it is not value-free.
Apart from that I refer to the excellent post by Superisis.

Of course they would! The question is, how much could wages be cut?

Wages would be cut as much as possible.

And why is labour so much cheaper in the third world?

You should rather ask yourself about that.

Surely you dont think any union could raise the wages for workers at a Nike factory by 500%?

No.But I would lead to improved conditions and in the long run provide a basis for a development towards a fairer and more democratic society.

The simple answer is that people in Vietnam are willing to work for far less than people in Norway. They'd starve otherwise. A Norweigan could simply get another job.

Yes, but why is it so? A question of power? But then suppose labour was strong and organized everywhere...

They have the power to say "no thanks", which is what creates the "supply".

Ah, you mean like this:

The simple answer is that people in Vietnam are willing to work for far less than people in Norway. They'd starve otherwise. .

Gee, powerful dude!

The equilibrium between supply and demand is not something you will notice trough living in "the real world". You have to study economics (not history).

The struggle between labour and capital is something you will notice in real life and ought to notice when studying economy. If not, please pick up that history book. I can give you some tips, even some right-wing historians if that is what you want.

"Teaming up" might be a perfectly rational way for workers to achieve their goals but it does not give them the right to deny others the right to work trough legislation. It will achieve nothing but job loss.

During the last about 150 years it achieved quite a lot.

Why is it a moot point? Clearly you like unions? If they raise wages and cause job loss in the process, what has been gained?.

The first sentence was just Socratic irony (I've studied philosophy as well). Yes I like unions a lot. Your last assumption is not neccessary a valid one. However please note that full employment is only a worthy goal if wages and labour conditions are decent. In the early part of 1945, there was full employment in Germany...

I did not expect you to be able to justify the slave wages of workers in the public sector since you obviously like high wages, but your argument is very poor. In fact it is no argument at all. The public sector causes low wages - minímum wage laws and transfers of income raises wages for those at the lower end .

Sometimes it is important to understand what you read. This is what I wrote:

I still maintain that well functioning welfare states has less people with slave wages than more market-fundamentalistic ones.

I did in fact no state anywhere that lousy wages are in the public sector.Actually employment in public sector in a welfare state is quite good for many reasons, but since this is not the topic of the thread I feel no need to elaborate it.And minimum wages are much better than no minimum wages. But the point is: the lower end is much closer to the higher end than in Capitalia. Furthermore the lower end is starting at the point of decency.

At the expense of taxpayers (you and me) and women in the public sector...

Here I feel the need to quote an intelligent young man:

your argument is very poor. In fact it is no argument at all.your argument is very poor..

You know just as well as me that in a well functioning welfare state there is a system of progressive taxes, which shifts the expenses to a higher degree to the wealthier part of the population. I'll give you for the rhetorical effort, though.

It is interesting, though, to observe that many of the top 50 business in the US also have among the best worker conditions and yet dont have a union. The best example of that is Pfizer inc. They won awards on worker conditions, and believe me, most of the conditions they give to their employees are really generous and not necessary. And they didn't need a union to realise that a employees are a force in the business world and that they should be treated like they deserve.

My friend, I read a lot of your posts and I think you are smarter than that. Don't you see that such a model leaves the workers pretty much at the mercy of their masters. What then if for some reason the company decides not to be Santa anymore?
I am sorry, but I am not amused.

I find it a sad reflection on humanity that laws against worker exploitation are necessary in this day and age.

So do I, but the reason is quite simple. As long as an exploitative system persists, one must struggle.I regard capitalism as one of the best, most progressive systems of organizing society so far in history, but it still sucks. In my opinion, it is simply outdated.

Edited for spelling corrections.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I used to think that unions were responsible for things like OSHA and the minimum wage. Then I learned about Ralph Nader.

Unions are double-blind flim-flam outfits that screw labor over by pocketing dues and providing little, and screw companies by forcing them to retain lazy workers and not reward the effort of better employees by giving them preferential treatment over their slacker colleagues.

Me? I LIKE meritocracy. Why? Because I learn to do my job well, and then do so. I am one of the few non-management employees at the university that is not in the union. I can tell you from personal experience that our union exists only to protect lousy lazy ingrates from rightful termination.

We had one of those enter our department from a unionized sector of the campus, and he tried to organize us to get himself back on the gravy train. I ignored his efforts until it looked like he might succeed, and then spent every effort thwarting his stupidity. I found out after he left that he was telling all sorts of lies about me to the other people in our department, most notably that I supported his efforts. He used fear and deception to try to bully the rest of us into aiding his effort. That speaks volumes to me about what his intentions were.

UNION NO!

Ralph Nader founded OSHA, NOT UNIONS.

 

[Speedo]

Ironically, on friday we were having a discussion in my US Cold War history class on the "uniqueness" of UPS. Something along the lines that if you ever worked their and quit, and then came back, you'd never move up in the organization. It really is a bizarre system based on loyalty and promotion from the inside.

Whoever told you that was misinformed. If you leave and come back, you maintain your seniority and etc, as if you had never left. Now, management is only promoted from within the company, which is a good concept IMO, but we won't go into their choices of who to promote...

Well, we're not sure if he had a "choice" in this instance. Illinois may be a union shop state.

As I said, the choice is in the selection of the job. He's the one who signed the papers, after all. Fine, maybe he was extremely desperate for a job, but if it's so awful where he is, why isn't he out looking for something else....?

In all my years of employment, the places with an union have always payed significantly less, and inhibited me and the mangers I've worked for.

Well, my experience is that this job pays significantly more (per hour, at least) than comperable jobs my peers have, not to mention the full benefits that come with it (medical, dental, vision). But then, Teamsters-UPS probably has quite a bit more power within the company than many unions, after all, I think the last time they went on strike in the US (mid 90's? for about a week, IIRC) cost the company something like $20 million. Sure, the union has its problems and is far from perfect, but that pay and those benefits are there because of it. It's also a nice buffer between your pretty little butt and management, and seeing how management treats their own, I'm glad for it.

I'm generally the last one to leave at work, as I go back and change clothes and clean up before going to class. A couple of months ago I had the unique experience of going past the office and hearing our district manager literally screaming at our center manager, full-time (shift) supervisor and part-time sups. From others that I've talked to, I can assure that that's not an entirely unocommon experience. Yeah, I can just imagine how great it would be if they didn't have a union to worry about.

 

[Stapel]

I think you know less about socialism than the cat about mustard. And those "modern" unions were popular in the 30s and very appreciated by among others rather doubtful political movements.
Decency forbids me to write what I call those unions.

I actually do know a thing or two about traditional union actions. They're not typically constructive. And even today's social democrats admit they weren't.

And you don't know nothing about the the Dutch poldermodel, which started at the treaty of Wassenaar, in 1982 iirc, when Wim Kok (who was later our PM from 1994 - 2002) was the leader of federation of Dutch labour union.

Comparing the relatively constructive co-operation between the modern Dutch labour unions and the employers, with Robert Ley's Deutsche Arbeitersfront, shows your ignorance and your bad taste.

 

[Stapel]

Actually you find less people with low wages and much less unemployment in real social-democracies than more market-fundamentalistic ones.

Not even the most ignorant left-wing economist will agree with you. Why does the US have only half of the unemployment of Western Europe?

You won't here me claim that is per se good.
But it's a fact that more economic freedom will generate more jobs. Real social-semocracy has a price. It's ok if people are willing to pay that price (I'm not btw), but it starts getting fishy if you really believe it is the answer to unemployment.

 

[Rhymes]

As I said, this would never happen because of the corporations' massive influence in the government.

I dont see where your going? Corporations would LOVE to see unions loose some power??????

 

[Richard Cribb]

I actually do know a thing or two about traditional union actions. They're not typically constructive. And even today's social democrats admit they weren't.

And you don't know nothing about the the Dutch poldermodel, which started at the treaty of Wassenaar, in 1982 iirc, when Wim Kok (who was later our PM from 1994 - 2002) was the leader of federation of Dutch labour union.

Comparing the relatively constructive co-operation between the modern Dutch labour unions and the employers, with Robert Ley's Deutsche Arbeitersfront, shows your ignorance and your bad taste.

Well I am not a socialdemocrat and I can't see so many genuine socialdemocrats left,at least not among the partyleaders around Europe.I don't give a brass farthing for what "social-democrats" like that think about such topics. Just like I don't need to take very seriously what somebody like you means with constructive, judging from the intellectual standard of this post and several others .
I also didn't know that you were me...In fact I take quite a huge interest in labour issues and I am familiar with this model, but I fail to see either the originality nor the greatness of it.
And I strongly resent your insults and patronizing attitude,especially since you demonstrate that you are unable to read plain English.
Can you show me exactly where I mentioned Robert Ley, Deutsche Arbeitersfront or nazism. Or is it simply a case of that it takes one to know one?
Or are you really so ignorant that you don't know that conservative parties and organizations, who admittedly flirted with the extreme right but remained "respectable", were partisans of class consensus during the 30s? How much do you for instance know about the Norwegian Fedrelandslaget were Fridtjof Nansen, Glør Thorvall Mejdell and Christian Michelsen were among the most prominent members? From my point of view as working-class and historian those groups rather are doubtful.
I can only give you the advice to learn some history as well. I think I should not have to teach supposed adults that two plus two makes four.
And you can save yourself the effort to comment any of my posts if you can't raise yourself above immature ranting. It is beyond my dignity to answer that sort of things.
Edited for clarity and spellchecks.