-- Comment At Your Own Risk --
It isnt that Unions serve no purpose, it is that the purpose almost never exists anymore. Their purpose is to force unscrupulous companies from abusing their employees, and from time to such issues do arise. The danger is it is just like a government, once you allow it in it strives to create a life of its own.
Their purpose is to force unscrupulous companies from abusing their employees, and from time to such issues do arise.
But the market takes care of that situation on its own. Once the abuse becomes intolerable the employees will either seek work or be sought out by other companies offering better conditions. Unions are simply abuse of the employer by the employees. Unfortunately, by law, an employer cannot simply get rid of the unionized employees when the situation becomes untenable.
Dif, you are assuming we have a free market. We dont, there are restrictions upon the market one of them being that idiotic law you just mentioned. Also the Unions being outside of the law is a despicable situation.
There are times when employers will all have the same working conditions. This is rare anymore but does happen. a Union can be an effective way of correcting problems. The problem now is that the vast majority of unions have either outlived their usefullness or are overstretching their bounds.
"The same argument can be applied to the minimum wage."
This is true, but the argument is much more forceful when talking about unions. It is debatable that the minimum wage is below the market equilibrium for most, if not all, jobs, and has little effect on unemployment. This is certainly the case in Maryland, where the minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. Pay less than that and people would leave the job, regardless of minimum wage legislation.
Unions, on the other hand, create ridiculously high firing costs and inflated wages, both of which are inefficient for firms. This translates into higher prices for consumers, or in the case of municipal industries, the government. Talk about an annoying waste of tax dollars.
a Union can be an effective way of correcting problems.
I absoutely disagree. Unions are incapable of solving one problem without creating many more. Unions, like governments, exist for the purpose of accruing power to themselves. A union cannot simply solve a labor problem, they must entrench themselves in such a way as to destroy some portion of the liberty of the employer.
I would have very little problem with unions if they did not have such strong legal backing from the government.
As much as I hate to say it, Eric has several good points. It is not the union as such that is bad. Collective bargaining and contract enforcement are not the problem with the unions. If unions limited themselves to these two functions there would be little difficulty.
State law is the problem when it comes to how a union is allowed to function. Each state can determine if it is an open or closed shop, and if they are a true employment at will state. Only a handful of states are true open shop states. New York isn’t one of them. In an open shop state employees can choose to join or leave the union without losing their jobs. This tends to keep the union week and limited in what they do.
In a closed shop state the union requires everyone working in the company to join and they receive a portion of their pay as dues. The union is truly parasitic in this case as they seek their own agenda, often at the expense of the employee’s long term good. See GM and the UAW for a prime example of the union screwing its members for its own benefit.
Public employee unions are the worst mutation of the best possible and in a closed shop state the union reps have the keys to power and have no need to listen to the workers. In these cases you’ll see the worst abuses and whatever benefits the workers receive from the union is incidental to the union boss’s agenda.
Just remember, the first $1,500 of a GM car goes to pay for union health insurance. When you want to think that the unions are at all good for America, just think of that loss of profitability and apply it to other sectors.
Res,
Eric does have some good points, unfortunately they just aren't applicable under the current system.
The current incarnation of organzized labor is a sham. A truly market based bargaining system could be very beneficial. Employees should be able to spontaneously organize for a specific purpose but for unions to be imposed on an employer is a travesty of liberty.
When employees go on strike, an employer should be allowed to unilatterally fire every last one of them immediately if he thinks it's in his best interest. Employees should still be allowed to go on strike, but they should never get the idea that such an act is without consequence.
“Eric does have some good points, unfortunately they just aren't applicable under the current system.”
Dif,
You and I seldom disagree over major points, and this may not be one of them, however, each state sets it’s own laws on this.
Where I live there are a number of union jobs. We don’t have ¾ the problems that other states do. The reason is it’s a true open shop state. The unions are limited in what they can do and how they can spend the guys money. What happens is every contract cycle most of the guys in the shop start paying dues 2 months before the contract comes up for a vote, this lets them vote on it. Then they quit the union 60 days after the vote, since they have to belong that long. The reason for doing this is they like working under the contract but they don’t want the union to do something stupid. Since the union only has about 1/3 of the guys paying dues for the entire contract period, they don’t have a lot of cash to blow on hookers, extortion and other normal union activities like bribing politicians, which is illegal under our state constitution.
“When employees go on strike, an employer should be allowed to unilatterally fire every last one of them immediately if he thinks it's in his best interest.”
What about for breach of contract?
As far as I know a private for profit company is able to hire non union workers during a strike. If they can gain enough workers via the scab system they don’t have to negotiate with the union.
The only workers not allowed to strike are public employees working in a field vital to national interests. Regan dealt with this issue with the air traffic controllers.
Understand I’m not arguing to support the abuses found in closed shop states, and I admit closed shop is the majority. I do contend though that in a truly free state where right to work laws are in effect, unions are limited to acceptable roles by the members and government intervention isn’t required.
BTW, I decided not to take that job. The industry is tanking and I'm unsure as to the company and their ability to perform. I tried them out for a breif test drive and they disapointed me.
Thanks for helping me eval their products.
Perhaps we're not in disagreement as much as it would appear. If the laws of a state have in fact limited the power and scope of organized labor then I'm all for it. We can only hope for more.
As it stands though, under Federal labor law (unless I recall incorectly) an employer can be forced to negotiate with union representatives trying to organize the shop. Freedom of association anyone? An employer cannot refuse to have a unionized shop which means he can be forced in to signing some sort of collective labor contract. Anything that can be done to reduce the unions down to the barest level of power necessary is fine by me. The primary means of doing this is to remove government protection of unions.
I'm glad to hear that your state makes it a little more difficult for the unions to accrue power though.
Also, you never sent me the info for your new company. I'm going to have some scenarios to submit in the first half of January.
Weird Res, you posted your answer as I was writing my question.
They just didn't seem to have it together with all the tech issues and every person I asked about underwritting guidlines gave me a different answer.
When I used to do that job, I was successful by doing business face to face and knowing exactly what I could or could not buy. Brokers trust you when things work the way you say and thats the test. The other big issue for me was the company wasn't legal in a state I used to work in which ment I can't buy there, which means I'd have to start from zero and telemarket all over to get business. How many reps will you let call you up and BS with a day? Some places won't even let you talk to a LO unless you've got a deal you're allready working on.
Anyway, I'd love to get back in if I could work from home and do everything remote. So if you're talking to a wholesaler that wants a great remote rep have em give me a call.
So if you're talking to a wholesaler that wants a great remote rep have em give me a call.
Will do.
Good post. I think the Soviet Union flag was an apt choice.
unions are like a caveman club (you know the kind you hit things with). its useful for certain things, in a limited context, for a limited duration, but you don't want to lug it around most places. closed shop unions would appear to be a severe encroachment of liberty.
the lawyer world had an interesting mini-uprising in the late 90s with the entry of greedyassociates as a Yahoo group. without unionizing, they hugely changed the power dynamic. the junior associates of the largest American firms went against law firm policy and shared salary info anonymously in one centralized location. once each lawyer knew what the other was getting, suddenly the top law firms were on the defensive and there was the equivalent of a massive capitalistic collective bargaining negotiation. salaries eventually stabilized and work continued as before. now firms (and the unrealistic expectations of some associates) are kept in check by the free sharing of information.
go capitalism. viva la revolution.
"its useful for certain things, in a limited context, for a limited duration, but you don't want to lug it around most places."
Thats what I am saying. Once a union has solved the problem or perhaps problems it was created for it should go away. The longer it stays the more useless it becomes, but worse than that it harms the image of unions in the public eye.
Unionization is a tool and like any other tool it is created for a purpose and wont work well when it is used for other work. Yes that 3/4" ratchet can double as a hammer, but it will never work as a... hmm bad example. That 3/4" ratchet is my trusty backup! (o= Anyways, you get the point.
As it stands though, under Federal labor law (unless I recall incorectly) an employer can be forced to negotiate with union representatives trying to organize the shop.
This is the crux of the matter: if violent coercion is involved, by the government or private individuals (union members), then the union can hardly be said to be acting within the bounds of liberty. The Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley Act are examples of government coercion, or the implied threat thereof.
If there is no coercion, but rather peaceful persuasion, then the union is acceptable to the libertarian position.
Without coercion, however, many union objectives would fail, since the unions often pursue goals that are unobtainable in a free-market scenario.
Good post, Dif.
It may be a bit late to chime in on this, but I'll do it anyway: the biggest (and pretty much only) problem with unions today is that they often have an unnatural monopoly. There are private companies whose unions have 'bullied' them into contractually agreeing not to hire non-union employees, destroying the freedom of the labor market.
Scabs? What scabs?
the lawyer world had an interesting mini-uprising in the late 90s with the entry of greedyassociates as a Yahoo group.
Excellent story poete, I'm going to have to remember that one. If you have an links to that info, please forward that on to me.
Schmendrick, you're not too late at all. Thanks for dropping by.
Erik, I think we're basically in agreement, I'm just taking a more extreme position.
You put it very succinctly Triton, now we just have to continue to tell other the same thing.
Dif
We do basically agree and your position is one I used to have. in the past few years tho I have read of examples where unions were actually good things. They are simply a government. and it has been said "that government is best which governs least" and it is very true in Unions too. Govern little and you are helpful, govern much and you become a tyrant.
Disney World has had automated cars for 20 years. Why does the NY subway still need human operators?
In DC, the METRO system parking garages all recently converted to automated fee collection. Human parking fee collectors could not be trusted handling the cash. The system was loosing MILLIONS every year to employee theft. There were no prosecutions. The technology for automatically paying has been around for a long time. METRO changed almost overnight.
Roci
Prosecuting people for theft or embezzlement in DC is taboo. Congress is greasing the skids should they ever need it.
Govern little and you are helpful, govern much and you become a tyrant.
And I've been saying for years that government always tends toward tyranny.
At the very least they should all be fired and if rehired, start with zero senoirity.
Their strike is illegal and each striker could be prosecuted, if someone had the balls to do it.
The company should simply fail to recognize it as a strike and penalize the employees individually for not coming to work without an excuse/vacation.
They could begin charging it as "vacation time" against the employees and send them notices to their homes about firing if they are not back in x days, or their vacation balance elapses.
You want to see union guys screem? charge them vacation days for striking.
The company should simply fail to recognize it as a strike and penalize the employees individually for not coming to work without an excuse/vacation.
That would be awesome Roci.
My father is a mechanic and is Union and he hates it. It makes him sick to his stomach to see his mandatory dues spent on causes he abhors.
Difster, I showed my husband your union labor symbol and he got a good laugh out of it.
My grandfather, father and brother were/are all Union Boys. Finding good paying work in rural Montana without being in good standing with the Union was impossible and we all thanked God dutifully for the blessing of the Union. The members of our local were friends and family. They were conservative rednecks just like us and the dues went to support causes the community believed in. We didn't have a problem with supporting one another.
Then we all came West. To Oregon and to Bigger Labor Unions...
Now I see my dad and brother jumping through pretty little hoops. One for retirement and the other for occupation.
I've seen one entreprenuerial (sp?) contractor after another get bullied and pressured into the box. Or wiped off the map.
Again we see the power of the few with the consent and support of the many creating a farce of Equality based on terms no one agreed to and no one understands.
Actually they're striking because the city wants to shoehorn them into a pension plan. All the city has to do is agree to discuss the pension issue SEPARATELY from the other issues, and all workers will return to work immediately.
The MTA refuses.
Obviously the city feels they have something to lose by splitting up the discussion. It is an ILLEGAL strike. Obviously the union feels that it has something to lose also. I don't feel bad for the union people AT ALL. Most union pension plans are far above and beyond normal private sector pensions (when they even exist). Why should there even be a pension? Perhaps the city should eliminate the pension plan.
You're killin' me, Dif!
Signed,
The Conservative UAW Guy
You're killin' me, Dif!
Nothin' personal Jimmy, believe me.
I would have to disagree with the fact that unions are not useful. I would however state the fact that they have over done their welcome by being greedy. Unions do provide a competitive wage to those companies who chose to not have a union. With out the union setting a standard for wages there is no standard and living in South Carolina where there is no union and never has been we have some of the lowest wages in the country. I have lived in other states with union and a starting wage for someone in my trade is paid a considerable amount more for their skills. Why, because we can compare our wages to organized labor and forces those who would rather pay their guys minimul amounts to shadow the union in some way. The union however is a safe haven for some lazy people who could careless about their job but know their way around the union rules. That and the fact that the union cannot seet that they are striking themselves out of existence because they can never make enough money is my only grudge about unions.
Having been a union member briefly all I can say is "IT SUCKS". And the fact that they as a body can try and tell their members who to vote for and endorse communist (liberal, New Democrats) parties here in Canada really pisses me off.
Commenting by HaloScan
