A question about unions

[LnGrrrR]

I know most conservatives don't like unions, because they can be considered "anti-business" as well as other reasons.

However, usually the first principle of a conservative is individual liberty, correct? What is a union, if not people agreeing to join up, and band together, in order to gain better concessions from their employer?

Of course, those IN the union will try to pressure those that aren't in the union to join. The reasons are twofold: one, those in the Union that have procured promises from their employer usually have done so for all employees, not just union employees, correct? This would introduce a free rider problem. Second, if those not in the union are willing to work for less, it lowers the position of strength for the unions to bargain/argue. It's understandable they want everyone to join the union.

Given this, are conservatives against unions in general? Or just certain laws protecting unions? And if I'm wrong on anything, feel free to correct me.

[101A]

I know most conservatives don't like unions, because they can be considered "anti-business" as well as other reasons.

However, usually the first principle of a conservative is individual liberty, correct? What is a union, if not people agreeing to join up, and band together, in order to gain better concessions from their employer?

Of course, those IN the union will try to pressure those that aren't in the union to join. The reasons are twofold: one, those in the Union that have procured promises from their employer usually have done so for all employees, not just union employees, correct? This would introduce a free rider problem. Second, if those not in the union are willing to work for less, it lowers the position of strength for the unions to bargain/argue. It's understandable they want everyone to join the union.

Given this, are conservatives against unions in general? Or just certain laws protecting unions? And if I'm wrong on anything, feel free to correct me.

Individual liberty?

Bullshit.

In most states (in which there are active Unions), you have no choice BUT to join the Union - if there is a Union, to have the job, you must join, live by ITS CBA, and pay its dues. My wife is in a Union, and it is complete B.S. - hell, the Union even decides who, and who does not, get promoted - NOT her actual employer; her Union. Do right by the Union, stay in line, or YOU are not going from Assistant to Associate Professor.

Unions were necessary, and a good thing; they allowed labor to stand up to the most powerful capalists this world has ever seen; it was, essentially, a market reaction to excesses and abuses; however, now many Unions, if not most, exist of and for the Union; the biggest "victory" my wifes union won in the last batter? Benefits for same sex partners - meanwhile my wife works in an office without air-conditioning (hit 105 degrees INSIDE this summer one day) and with a vent a hood (remember, Biochemistry) that was blowing IN, not out. Did the Union help her? Hell no, in fact told her to keep her mouth shut, and not make waves; those things weren't covered in the CBA! Working conditions no covered? Really? She screamed to the administration, got the stuff fixed; and got a reprimand from the fucking UNION!!!!

Unions, as they exist today, are utter bullshit; they are useless drains on production. They are every bit as bad as conventional wisdom suggests, and are even more ridiculous than logic would have you imagine.

[LnGrrrR]

Individual liberty?

Bullshit.

In most states (in which there are active Unions), you have no choice BUT to join the Union - if there is a Union, to have the job, you must join, live by ITS CBA, and pay its dues. My wife is in a Union, and it is complete B.S. - hell, the Union even decides who, and who does not, get promoted - NOT her actual employer; her Union. Do right by the Union, stay in line, or YOU are not going from Assistant to Associate Professor.

Here's what I don't get: having to join the union to get the job. Is that mandated by law? Or did the company agree to only hire union workers?

[clambake]

Individual liberty?

Bullshit.

In most states (in which there are active Unions), you have no choice BUT to join the Union - if there is a Union, to have the job, you must join, live by ITS CBA, and pay its dues. My wife is in a Union, and it is complete B.S. - hell, the Union even decides who, and who does not, get promoted - NOT her actual employer; her Union. Do right by the Union, stay in line, or YOU are not going from Assistant to Associate Professor.

Unions were necessary, and a good thing; they allowed labor to stand up to the most powerful capalists this world has ever seen; it was, essentially, a market reaction to excesses and abuses; however, now many Unions, if not most, exist of and for the Union; the biggest "victory" my wifes union won in the last batter? Benefits for same sex partners - meanwhile my wife works in an office without air-conditioning (hit 105 degrees INSIDE this summer one day) and with a vent a hood (remember, Biochemistry) that was blowing IN, not out. Did the Union help her? Hell no, in fact told her to keep her mouth shut, and not make waves; those things weren't covered in the CBA! Working conditions no covered? Really? She screamed to the administration, got the stuff fixed; and got a reprimand from the fucking UNION!!!!

Unions, as they exist today, are utter bullshit; they are useless drains on production. They are every bit as bad as conventional wisdom suggests, and are even more ridiculous than logic would have you imagine.

you know.....she should leave.....and i highly doubt that her employer gives a shit about her comfort.......union or no union.

as a matter of fact.....it would likely be worse without her union.

[coyotes_geek]

Here's what I don't get: having to join the union to get the job. Is that mandated by law? Or did the company agree to only hire union workers?

Depends on the state. Some states have laws allowing mandatory union membership, some states have laws prohibiting mandatory union membership.

[jman3000]

Unions are fine at face value... the problem is that they've morphed into an object that is all sorts of fucked up.

You wouldn't imagine how complicated AT&T's unions are. Every time they bought up a company (Bell South, AT&T, Pac Bell, etc etc) they inherited their union contracts. Instead of bargaining for one unified deal, the different union fiefdoms wanted to stay separate. So instead of having one contract that can be negotiated every 3-5 years, AT&T has to negotiate with its 5 different sectors on an almost continuous basis. It's like being threatened with a strike in perpetuity. It's an even bigger headache than it sounds.

Add that to the fact that I've seen union intimidation practices first hand and my opinion of them is less than stellar.

I'm not gonna call them thugs or savages like some idiots would... but I will say that they're very passionate about their position, although sometimes it's to their own detriment.

[Trainwreck2100]

Unions are necessary, the problem is they are as corrupt as the companies are

[rjv]

Unions are necessary, the problem is they are as corrupt as the companies are

that is a pretty damn good summation. short, sweet and accurate.

[boutons_deux]

Unions are an insignificant part of the US economy, are just a management hate-object and punching bag.

That same management thinks that Wall St banksters, (now back in the saddle and strangling, eg, derivatives regulation), and grossly overpaid, job-destroying management are wonderful.

Like Hated Big Government, management thinks unions are always bad, because they restrain management from fucking up the country even more than they do now.

Here's a deal: union abuses will stop when management abuses stop.

[LnGrrrR]

So, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the lifecycle of a union tends to be:

1) Employer is screwing over employees.

2) Employees band together to form a union.

3) Union wins concessions. Employees are happy.

4) As the union gets bigger, certain people gain positions of power within the union, and require annual fees in order to perform research, advertise, and whatever else a union boss does with cash.

5) Unions require everyone to join, as they become worried that those not of the union are willing to relinquish the concessions in order to maintain their job/keep their employer happy/etc etc.

6) Due to work disputes, union contracts continue to get even more specialized and defined, until union worker A can't install a lightbulb because that's union worker B's job, even though union worker B lives a mile away.

7) Union contracts get to be SO much of a hassle that they are a detriment to employers, who have to juggle numerous contract negotiations.

8) ... ?

That's how it looks from my end. I will say that while step 5 or 6 is where it looks to turn sour, there can sometimes be a good reason for 6. For instance, in my job, installations are supposed to be performed by a third party technician. Could I do the job? Yes, it's easy. However, if something were to go wrong, then they can't hold me liable monetarily, since I'd be helping out on a job I wasn't supposed to be working on anyways.

Sometimes I do help, with people who know me here and know I can handle the job without dispatching a tech to do something simple, which will cost the government (and taxpayers) hundreds of dollars. But many times people go by the book, due to these same issues.

As well, on the flipside, I've offered to help on one-time instances and found that a company just assumed that I would help on every occasion, causing friction. So I can see where delineation of contracts is important; I can also see how frustrating it can get.

What solutions would you guys suggest?

[coyotes_geek]

Unions are necessary, the problem is they are as corrupt as the companies are

There's a distinction though in that the companies are the ones who have the responsibility of being attentive to employees, customers and shareholders, as well as figuring out how to be profitable. Unions can be 100% self serving and don't have to think of anyone but themselves.

[coyotes_geek]

Unions are an insignificant part of the US economy

Absurd comment. We've spent about $100 billion bailing out the auto industry specifically to protect union jobs.

[101A]

you know.....she should leave.....and i highly doubt that her employer gives a shit about her comfort.......union or no union.

as a matter of fact.....it would likely be worse without her union.

She will; but in academia (at least science) you DON"T leave before tenure - period; can't get another job (and there are only so many professor positions for her field of Biochemistry open at any time; throw in family issues where we do, and don't want to live, and its....complicated to say the least.

Employer = a State University; they exist all over the country, some are good, some are bad to work for; the existence of a Union creates an adversarial relationship; us against them; management against employee. It sucks; and ultimately isn't good for anyone. I know if my employees had that kind of attitude about working for/with me; it wouldn't be worth it to own a business.

[101A]

Here's what I don't get: having to join the union to get the job. Is that mandated by law?

Yes.

[clambake]

She will; but in academia (at least science) you DON"T leave before tenure - period; can't get another job (and there are only so many professor positions for her field of Biochemistry open at any time; throw in family issues where we do, and don't want to live, and its....complicated to say the least.

Employer = a State University; they exist all over the country, some are good, some are bad to work for; the existence of a Union creates an adversarial relationship; us against them; management against employee. It sucks; and ultimately isn't good for anyone. I know if my employees had that kind of attitude about working for/with me; it wouldn't be worth it to own a business.

still...her conditions sound horrible. isn't it likely that a union was formed due to existing conditions? lets be honest.....workers don't form unions because everything is great.

[101A]

So, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the lifecycle of a union tends to be:

1) Employer is screwing over employees.

2) Employees band together to form a union.

3) Union wins concessions. Employees are happy.

4) As the union gets bigger, certain people gain positions of power within the union, and require annual fees in order to perform research, advertise, and whatever else a union boss does with cash.

5) Unions require everyone to join, as they become worried that those not of the union are willing to relinquish the concessions in order to maintain their job/keep their employer happy/etc etc.

6) Due to work disputes, union contracts continue to get even more specialized and defined, until union worker A can't install a lightbulb because that's union worker B's job, even though union worker B lives a mile away.

7) Union contracts get to be SO much of a hassle that they are a detriment to employers, who have to juggle numerous contract negotiations.

8) ... ?

That's how it looks from my end. I will say that while step 5 or 6 is where it looks to turn sour, there can sometimes be a good reason for 6. For instance, in my job, installations are supposed to be performed by a third party technician. Could I do the job? Yes, it's easy. However, if something were to go wrong, then they can't hold me liable monetarily, since I'd be helping out on a job I wasn't supposed to be working on anyways.

Sometimes I do help, with people who know me here and know I can handle the job without dispatching a tech to do something simple, which will cost the government (and taxpayers) hundreds of dollars. But many times people go by the book, due to these same issues.

As well, on the flipside, I've offered to help on one-time instances and found that a company just assumed that I would help on every occasion, causing friction. So I can see where delineation of contracts is important; I can also see how frustrating it can get.

What solutions would you guys suggest?

I can't let people know that sometimes I help my wife grade papers.

It absolutely cannot be known that I have installed some shelves in her lab (it was gonna take the Union facilities crew 14 months to get to it) -(there are no before pictures; no one can prove those shelves weren't always there).


Also, as for:


1) Employer is screwing over employees.

The EMPLOYEES of my wives union UNIONIZED last year; demanded higher pay, shorter hours, more benefits, etc.....my wife's dues were raised 1% (to 2.5%) to cover their demands.

Were they getting "screwed"? Depends on your perspective; anymore it's about wanting "more"; not necessarily righting "wrongs" - and remember, they've got the employer by the short hairs; when the employees unionize, the employer cannot fire them; once they unionize, he cannot negotiate individually with the employees - it's all in the CBA, then...when he doesn't give in to his demands, they can strike; he cannot hire replacements to prove that they aren't anything special; it simply becomes a waiting game; who can hold out the longest.

The longest strikes up here are usually the teacher's unions; kids go without school in some districts for 4 -5 months; the District (managed by unpaid School Directors, remember - not really any greed involved) tries to hold the line; while teachers demand more and more and more...true bullshit.

[101A]

still...her conditions sound horrible. isn't it likely that a union was formed due to existing conditions? lets be honest.....workers don't form unions because everything is great.


Why did the professors of the Pennsylvania state system n 1987 form a Union?

I have no fucking idea; but I'm betting it wasn't a sweat shop in the Psychology department!

All I KNOW is, my wife is not supposed to bitch about her working conditions, except to the Union, who will take it up AT THE NEXT CBA NEGOTIATION- 3 years from now. She did anyway, and it is fixed; management probably jumped at the chance so that AT those next negotiations they can point out how they went above and fucking beyond!!

I'm sorry, it's not ACTUALLY any profs or administrators AT those meetings at a Hilton resort in the Mountains, is it? Hell no, it's there "representatives" (lawyers), "hammering" out a deal; each side billing at a couple grand an hour plus expenses.

[clambake]

Why did the professors of the Pennsylvania state system n 1987 form a Union?

I have no fucking idea; but I'm betting it wasn't a sweat shop in the Psychology department!

All I KNOW is, my wife is not supposed to bitch about her working conditions, except to the Union, who will take it up AT THE NEXT CBA NEGOTIATION- 3 years from now. She did anyway, and it is fixed; management probably jumped at the chance so that AT those next negotiations they can point out how they went above and fucking beyond!!

I'm sorry, it's not ACTUALLY any profs or administrators AT those meetings at a Hilton resort in the Mountains, is it? Hell no, it's there "representatives" (lawyers), "hammering" out a deal; each side billing at a couple grand an hour plus expenses.
what evidence do you have that suggest conditions would be better without the union. (you said they unionized last year. i doubt that occured due to boredom)

[101A]

what evidence do you have that suggest conditions would be better without the union. (you said they unionized last year. i doubt that occured due to boredom)

No. NO.

The professor's didn't unionize last year; the professors's union's EMPLOYEES unionized last year (Union within a union).

They wanted more pay, and better benefits; that's why they unionized. But if the UNION isn't a good boss, who can be?

[hope4dopes]

The unions have become tools to oppress the workers and prop up tyrants.Case in point....the unholy alliance the unions have with the DNC. The union throws the American worker under the bus to promote their own wealth and power, while the DNC hands out millions to Union leadrship and moronic platitudes to the American worker about being the party that protects labor.

[clambake]

micca's funny today.

oh, and unions are usually a last resort. in todays society, people rarely have the kind of courage to stand and form.

[hope4dopes]

micca's funny today.

oh, and unions are usually a last resort. in todays society, people rarely have the kind of courage to stand and form.
And you, as usual are pointless. please try and find a thought in the above sentence.

[Crookshanks]

The company I work for here in Ft. Worth has a Union, but it's not mandatory. I'm very anti-union, so I didn't join. However, the company is closing the Ft. Worth facility at the end of the year and we are currently transitioning our jobs to the new facility in Denver. You cannot work for the company in Denver unless you join the Union.

I didn't want to move, but I certainly didn't want to when I found out Union membership was not an option. The employees there are represented by the SEIU - and I would be homeless before I would give a dime to support that group of crooks and thugs!

Unions had a purpose and were needed back in the 1930's and 1940's; but now they're nothing more than an extension of the DNC. That's why their membership numbers are dwindling and why they're pushing so hard for the card check law.

[Geezerballer]

So, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the lifecycle of a union tends to be:

1) Employer is screwing over employees.

2) Employees band together to form a union.

3) Union wins concessions. Employees are happy.

4) As the union gets bigger, certain people gain positions of power within the union, and require annual fees in order to perform research, advertise, and whatever else a union boss does with cash.

5) Unions require everyone to join, as they become worried that those not of the union are willing to relinquish the concessions in order to maintain their job/keep their employer happy/etc etc.

6) Due to work disputes, union contracts continue to get even more specialized and defined, until union worker A can't install a lightbulb because that's union worker B's job, even though union worker B lives a mile away.

7) Union contracts get to be SO much of a hassle that they are a detriment to employers, who have to juggle numerous contract negotiations.

8) ... ?



The rest of the story:

8) Company can no longer compete w/ non-union competitors who aren’t paying for such inefficiencies so they close down and move to China.

9) Now former union member goes to work for non-union business and complains about getting screwed by his employer

10) repeat

[clambake]

And you, as usual are pointless. please try and find a thought in the above sentence.

micca thinks workers form unions for the sole purpose of serving some political agenda.

[101A]

micca thinks workers form unions for the sole purpose of serving some political agenda.

Workers form Unions for the same reason just about everybody does anything; they are self-interested.

[clambake]

Workers form Unions for the same reason just about everybody does anything; they are self-interested.

yes.

[TeyshaBlue]

As a conservative, I can see that some unions actually function as intended...an effective collective bargaining partnership. Those, however, seem to be few and far between.
Stories emerged that outraged the citizenry enough that unions were able to form and hold. But, I don't see the reciprocity when a union is responsible for equally outrageous behavior. Stories like http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill?currentPage=all seem almost surreal.

[Extra Stout]

A lot of unions are relics of 80 years ago. They exist because some workers in the 1920's were upset about work conditions and banded together. However, they have long since degenerated into pointless bureaucracies.

The threat of a union still motivates certain companies that don't have them, but easily could if they started screwing over their labor force.

[DarrinS]

Does anyone NOT associate unions with corruption?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Does anyone NOT associate unions with corruption?

We know darrin conservatives think unions are bad.. by the way I don't automatically associate unions with corruption. I tend to not make blanket statements..

[LnGrrrR]

Yes.

See, I don't agree with having to join the union to get the job mandated by law. Now, if the employer signed a contract stating that they will exclusively hire union members, that's different. But having it enshrined to law outside of a contract seems dumb.

[jman3000]

Sometimes, if a union is tame enough, it's actually easier to deal with union vs. non-union. It allows the company to negotiate large, blanket contracts and not deal with individuals. It allows them to let the union do the micromanaging for them. The problem is that a tame union is rarely the case.

[LnGrrrR]

...it's all in the CBA, then...when he doesn't give in to his demands, they can strike; he cannot hire replacements to prove that they aren't anything special; it simply becomes a waiting game; who can hold out the longest.


That's what bothers me the most about union law. I see no reason why an employer shouldn't be able to hire scabs. Now, if you want to put in a law saying that the employer would have to pay for two weeks severance for strikers or something, or they'd have a limited amount of time to strike, then ok. But otherwise is folly.

[LnGrrrR]

The rest of the story:

8) Company can no longer compete w/ non-union competitors who aren’t paying for such inefficiencies so they close down and move to China.

9) Now former union member goes to work for non-union business and complains about getting screwed by his employer

10) repeat

Thanks! :toast :lol

[LnGrrrR]

So... what laws should be repealed/put in place?

From my extremely limited knowledge of the situation, I don't think any company should force someone into joining a union; however, that would seem to be the company's right to make that decision. I'm squeamish about instituting a law that mandates companies have to hire non-union workers. Then again, there are laws preventing firing workers for certain reasons (discrimination, for instance.) So perhaps a law stating that an employee couldn't institute a union-only hiring process would be legal. Those with the union would get whatever concessions the union applied for; those who weren't with the union would get what they could take.

I definitely think employers should be able to hire scabs during times of strikes, also.

[DarkReign]

Modern day Unions are redundant at this point in time. The first Unions (freight, docks, auto) were/are responsible for every federal law that protects workers, workman's comp and basically every facet of "fair"-ish employment standards practiced across the country.

For that, they should be thanked for their service and shelved for future use.

[hope4dopes]

Does anyone NOT associate unions with corruption?

It appears clamebaked is under the illusion they are not. But so help me God Darrin, don't you dare let the cat out of the bag about the easter bunny to him.

[DarkReign]

It appears clamebaked is under the illusion they are not. But so help me God Darrin, don't you dare let the cat out of the bag about the easter bunny to him.

I believe, "he" is a "she".

[Gino]

I know most conservatives don't like unions, because they can be considered "anti-business" as well as other reasons.

However, usually the first principle of a conservative is individual liberty, correct? What is a union, if not people agreeing to join up, and band together, in order to gain better concessions from their employer?

Of course, those IN the union will try to pressure those that aren't in the union to join. The reasons are twofold: one, those in the Union that have procured promises from their employer usually have done so for all employees, not just union employees, correct? This would introduce a free rider problem. Second, if those not in the union are willing to work for less, it lowers the position of strength for the unions to bargain/argue. It's understandable they want everyone to join the union.

Given this, are conservatives against unions in general? Or just certain laws protecting unions? And if I'm wrong on anything, feel free to correct me.


Um. Do you seriously not understand how unions hurt a free market?

[hope4dopes]

That's what bothers me the most about union law. I see no reason why an employer shouldn't be able to hire scabs. Now, if you want to put in a law saying that the employer would have to pay for two weeks severance for strikers or something, or they'd have a limited amount of time to strike, then ok. But otherwise is folly.

Oh, they sometimes do. The problem is union goons going out breaking a scabs head or say trashing his car while he's at the jobsite working and they're picketing outside.

[Wild Cobra]

I know most conservatives don't like unions, because they can be considered "anti-business" as well as other reasons.

However, usually the first principle of a conservative is individual liberty, correct? What is a union, if not people agreeing to join up, and band together, in order to gain better concessions from their employer?

Of course, those IN the union will try to pressure those that aren't in the union to join. The reasons are twofold: one, those in the Union that have procured promises from their employer usually have done so for all employees, not just union employees, correct? This would introduce a free rider problem. Second, if those not in the union are willing to work for less, it lowers the position of strength for the unions to bargain/argue. It's understandable they want everyone to join the union.

Given this, are conservatives against unions in general? Or just certain laws protecting unions? And if I'm wrong on anything, feel free to correct me.
Unions once were needed in this nation. They have become forces that serve their own best interest, not even the employees. Yes, they appear to protect the worker, but they are like politicians who give to be liked.

Structured pay scales, agreed upon rules... it takes away from individual agreements between the employee and employer. It makes everyone the same, and worse yet... as "The Lowest Common Denominator."

Yes, there are good things about unions, but in the long run, we trade individualism for collectivism.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's what I don't get: having to join the union to get the job. Is that mandated by law? Or did the company agree to only hire union workers?
If it's a union job, you better join if it's optional. Otherwise, the union will find reason to get you fired. Strong union supporting coworkers will document things you do wrong, and give them to your boss. Then when they want to let you go, the union does not back you.

There is no merit pay, or promotions based on merit. You work a "cookie cutter" job and get the same pay scale as others, but based on seniority rather than merit.

I hate unions. I am a better worker than most my coworkers, but get paid less than those who know how to work the system to stay lazy.

[clambake]

It appears clamebaked is under the illusion they are not.

show where i said this, micca.........then....tell us all about paris.

[SpurNation]

Let us consider what the role of a union is. A union’s job is to get as much for its workers as possible, regardless of good work, regardless of the needs of business or the market place. Unions are not concerned with work, they are concerned with what they can force employers to give away.

Often unions don't re-address issues that come up between periods of negotiation. I don't know if most know this but...Union Auto Workers can make up to $74 per hour. That's to stand around and place bolts in a specific part of a car. Oh...I'm sure that job is so hard...so demanding...so precise that it requires a person to make $74 per hour. There are no caps within unions.

Also labor cost disparity comes from legacy pension and healthcare benefits to retired members... as well as ...unions have been accused of benefiting insider workers, those having secure jobs, at the cost of outsider workers, consumers of the goods or services produced, and the shareholders of the unionized business. Those who are likely to be disadvantaged most from unionization are the unemployed, those at risk of unemployment, or workers who are unable to get the job they want in a particular line of work.

You see...it's not just Republicans involved in these actions but many, many, many Democrats as well.

The way I've become accustomed to the many years of being able to vote is that it's not a Liberal or Conservative issue (and I've voted for on both sides of that aisle)...it's who's pockets are getting filled the most. Government is the biggest business in this nation far exceeding that of any private capital endeavor.

In fact...government has the largest amount of union members of all the unions in this country. Why should government have unions to begin with?

[Wild Cobra]

In fact...government has the largest amount of union members of all the unions in this country. Why should government have unions to begin with?
That's what get's me the most. Governments tend not to care what they spend like business does. There is nobody to counter union demands that really gives a damn.

[LnGrrrR]

Um. Do you seriously not understand how unions hurt a free market?

Obviously I can understand. Heck, it'd be best for the markets is individuals were chained and forced to work 20 hours a day to crank out product.

My question is how we can FIX labor laws to be better for the market, while still maintaining the right to assemble for people to hammer out better conditions for themselves.

[LnGrrrR]

Often unions don't re-address issues that come up between periods of negotiation. I don't know if most know this but...Union Auto Workers can make up to $74 per hour. That's to stand around and place bolts in a specific part of a car. Oh...I'm sure that job is so hard...so demanding...so precise that it requires a person to make $74 per hour. There are no caps within unions.


See, I don't get this example. The company agreed to pay the people installing these bolts 74$ an hour right? So why should we feel the corporation is being taken advantage of? If they made a stupid promise and put it into a contract, that would seem to be their fault.

Now, if for some reason the business starts doing horrible and can't honor their agreement, there should be some sort of third party arbitrator to determine a solution.

[coyotes_geek]

Obviously I can understand. Heck, it'd be best for the markets is individuals were chained and forced to work 20 hours a day to crank out product.

My question is how we can FIX labor laws to be better for the market, while still maintaining the right to assemble for people to hammer out better conditions for themselves.

Just out of curiousity, what labor laws do we have today that need to be fixed? Back when unions first cropped up and were interested in working conditions I agree the lack of labor laws had to be addressed. But between OSHA and all the other agencies/laws/regulations I think we've taken care of that. Union-company disputes these days are pretty much entirely over compensation.

[coyotes_geek]

See, I don't get this example. The company agreed to pay the people installing these bolts 74$ an hour right? So why should we feel the corporation is being taken advantage of? If they made a stupid promise and put it into a contract, that would seem to be their fault.

Agree with you here. A contract is a contract and if you make a bad deal, that's on you.

On a side note that $74/hr figure is misunderstood by a lot of people. No one is getting paid $74/hr to install bolts. The $74/hr is a derived value taking the total cost of all labor and labor related benefits and dividing that number by manhours actually worked. Retiree benefits get added into the labor cost, yet the retirees are not working any hours. So cost per hour figure ends up being a lot higher than what the people actually working are actually getting paid.


Now, if for some reason the business starts doing horrible and can't honor their agreement, there should be some sort of third party arbitrator to determine a solution.

That's what bankruptcy courts are for.

[SpurNation]

Agree with you here. A contract is a contract and if you make a bad deal, that's on you.

On a side note that $74/hr figure is misunderstood by a lot of people. No one is getting paid $74/hr to install bolts. The $74/hr is a derived value taking the total cost of all labor and labor related benefits and dividing that number by manhours actually worked. Retiree benefits get added into the labor cost, yet the retirees are not working any hours. So cost per hour figure ends up being a lot higher than what the people actually working are actually getting paid.



That's what bankruptcy courts are for.

Many times these "contracts" are the best deal the manufacturers have to agree with. It's not like they can simply employ others to work in the plants who are not union because they are forced to hire union.

Now that GM is manufacturing outside of that realm in other countries...all of a sudden it's their fault because the union won't concede some of it's over burdoning economic demands?

From what I gather...Detroit's problem is with unemploymment. If the union were to concede many of the over burdoning demands it places on the manufacturers...unemployment issue solved.

Again...as pointed out earlier...
Also labor cost disparity comes from legacy pension and healthcare benefits to retired members... as well as ...unions have been accused of benefiting insider workers, those having secure jobs, at the cost of outsider workers, consumers of the goods or services produced, and the shareholders of the unionized business. Those who are likely to be disadvantaged most from unionization are the unemployed, those at risk of unemployment, or workers who are unable to get the job they want in a particular line of work.

[LnGrrrR]

Just out of curiousity, what labor laws do we have today that need to be fixed? Back when unions first cropped up and were interested in working conditions I agree the lack of labor laws had to be addressed. But between OSHA and all the other agencies/laws/regulations I think we've taken care of that. Union-company disputes these days are pretty much entirely over compensation.

I have no clue, to be honest.

[johnsmith]

Modern day Unions are redundant at this point in time. The first Unions (freight, docks, auto) were/are responsible for every federal law that protects workers, workman's comp and basically every facet of "fair"-ish employment standards practiced across the country.

For that, they should be thanked for their service and shelved for future use.

:toast

[SpurNation]

I'm not familiar with the rest of the country but...could unemployment in those areas where unemployment is high be due to having to be in a union to secure a job?