Regarding unions

[gnome]

Recently I've been contemplating the politics of unions, and one contentious issue comes to the forefront--mandatory union membership.

Florida is a "Right to work" state which means, I am given to understand, that you cannot be required to join a union in order to work in any profession here.

On the surface that sounds like a pretty good idea, but I can't help but wonder if I'm missing one side of the issue.

In Florida the public school teacher's union negotiates the salaries for all teachers, union or non-union--this could naturally lead to calls that non-union members are spurning the organization that gets them raises. It seems the simplest solution is to allow voluntary union membership still, but those that are not union members must negotiate their own contract.

Before I make up my mind on this issue, I'd like to hear how mandatory union membership came about and what justification was used to supersede what seems a natural right to choose whether to be a member.

 

[Upchurch]

Slightly off topic, I've always considered unions to be like medicine. They're great if you have a legitimate reason to need them. If you don't need them, you have a recipe for abuse.

Saint Louis is having a big grocery workers strike going on for the last week or so. While I support their right to strike and protest, I do not feel obligated to go to either more expensive or lower quality stores just to support their cause. I resent the pressure I feel that I must do so.

 

[Suddenly]

Recently I've been contemplating the politics of unions, and one contentious issue comes to the forefront--mandatory union membership.

Florida is a "Right to work" state which means, I am given to understand, that you cannot be required to join a union in order to work in any profession here.

On the surface that sounds like a pretty good idea, but I can't help but wonder if I'm missing one side of the issue.

In Florida the public school teacher's union negotiates the salaries for all teachers, union or non-union--this could naturally lead to calls that non-union members are spurning the organization that gets them raises. It seems the simplest solution is to allow voluntary union membership still, but those that are not union members must negotiate their own contract.

Before I make up my mind on this issue, I'd like to hear how mandatory union membership came about and what justification was used to supersede what seems a natural right to choose whether to be a member.

More or less, mandantory union membership (Closed Shop arrangement) is an agreement bargained for between labor and management that management will not employ anyone not in the union. Without this, management could simply only hire people that didn't want to join the union, thus hampering the union's effectiveness. In essence, it is a bargained for empolyment policy. Sometimes, it goes a bit farther where the union does the hiring and firing. This is a "Union Shop."

"Right to Work" laws are a cleverly titled act to make the above arrangement illegal, requiring the choice not to join a union (Open Shop).

Federal labor laws make the above relationship so frightfully complicated that I took Advanced Scientific Evidence in law school rather than Labor Law, so I can't be too precise, even though I have dealt with those laws in real life.

In my opinion, the "right to work" laws have less to do with rights than they do with harming unions. Big companies do not like unions, and big companies also hire good people for marketing, media relations, and lobbying. Thus the don't call these laws "Lets Bust the Union Laws." These laws aim to strike at the core power source of a union, the ability to strike.

One irony is the use of "rights" as rhetoric to prevent a private business from making a particular agreement with its workers, where as those favoring these "Right" to work laws are the loudest complainers if the government affects other employee -employer relationships, like establishing a reasonable minimmum wage. The "right" to work somewhere while not in the union when company policy requires union membership is similar to saying someone has the "right" to work on a job and not follow a dress code set by company policy.

It is quite curious.

 

[Segnosaur]

I have problems with unions from both a theoretical and a practical standpoint.

From the theoretical side, unions are a form of collusion, or price fixing. People complain when (for example) gas stations all raise their prices at the same time, suggesting cooperation between the various companies. But with unions, the same thing is happening; the employees agree to 'fix' the price of their labour, instead of letting the idea of supply and demand take over. (The result being that wages, and ultimately the cost of a product to a consumer, end up being higher than they would be otherwise.)

On the practical side of things, the trouble with unions is that they tend to protect the weaker employees at the expense of the better ones. (Incompetent employees cannot be fired, good employees cannot get promotions and/or wages that are not offered to all.) An additional problem is that union activities often get diverted into areas that they really have no mandate in. (A union member pays their dues to the union so that they may represent him in collective bargining; yet unions are very happy to get involved in social issues, like feeding the poor, the environment, etc. While these may be important issues, a union member shouldn't have to pay for these programs, especially in cases where he disagrees with the union's position.)

I've had 3 main jobs since I entered the work force... 2 were unionized, 1 was not. I never technically joined the union out of principle, but they had a rule that said everyone had to pay union dues if they were covered under the collective agreement, regardless if they were a full member or not. The best of the 3 jobs was actually the one that was not unionized. (Best pay, best benefits, best group of coworkers.) That should tell you something.

 

[Suddenly]

I've had 3 main jobs since I entered the work force... 2 were unionized, 1 was not. I never technically joined the union out of principle, but they had a rule that said everyone had to pay union dues if they were covered under the collective agreement, regardless if they were a full member or not. The best of the 3 jobs was actually the one that was not unionized. (Best pay, best benefits, best group of coworkers.) That should tell you something.

That the job without a union was with a company that actually treated its workers well?

 

[DavidJames]

"unions are a form of collusion, or price fixing."

Am I missing something, do the companies and unions not agree on the wages during contract negotiations?

You comparison to gas stations is not valid as the other party, namely the consumers, are not part of the process.

"Incompetent employees cannot be fired, good employees cannot get promotions and/or wages that are not offered to all."

"cannot" is a pretty strong and final word, you wouldn't be exaggerating would you If that happens it's the result of a poor agreement between the parties and not the fault of the union, per say.

 

[Drooper]

"unions are a form of collusion, or price fixing."

Am I missing something, do the companies and unions not agree on the wages during contract negotiations?

You comparison to gas stations is not valid as the other party, namely the consumers, are not part of the process.

No you are not missing anything here. Restricting supply to force up price. It is about buyers and sellers; the "consumers" in this case are the companies. Net result is analogous to a classic monopoly situation - less labour (goods) employed (consumed) at a hirer wage (price). Too bad if you are unemployed and just want more jobs.

Unions get away with practices that would land company directors large fines and/or prison sentences.

"Incompetent employees cannot be fired, good employees cannot get promotions and/or wages that are not offered to all."

"cannot" is a pretty strong and final word, you wouldn't be exaggerating would you If that happens it's the result of a poor agreement between the parties and not the fault of the union, per say.

It probably is the fault of the union. Unions are political constructs. Any labour reaction to discip[linary action against a union official will always far exceed any reaction from something involving a regular employee.

Also, a substantial (somteimes a majority) of labour disputes centre around demarcation or or inter-union squabbles. That is a complete dead loss.

 

[Segnosaur]

"unions are a form of collusion, or price fixing."

Am I missing something, do the companies and unions not agree on the wages during contract negotiations?

You comparison to gas stations is not valid as the other party, namely the consumers, are not part of the process.

While it is true that the unions and companies do negotiate wages and benefits, the unions still have the ability to have workers strike, which makes things a little more different than a straight negotiation process. There also tends to be more restrictions on what companies can do (ability to hire outside labour) than there are on the employees themselves (they can search for other jobs if they so desire).

And while it is not identical to the gas station example, note that I did say its a 'form' of collusion.

"Incompetent employees cannot be fired, good employees cannot get promotions and/or wages that are not offered to all."

"cannot" is a pretty strong and final word, you wouldn't be exaggerating would you If that happens it's the result of a poor agreement between the parties and not the fault of the union, per say.

Yes, saying an employee 'cannot' ever be fired is a bit of an exageration, but any place I've seen unions, there were so many rules (allowed appeals, seniority rules, etc.) that simply firing for incompetince was virtually impossible. (And trust me, I've seen some incompetent people at places I've worked.)

As for it being simply a 'poor agreement', there may be good agreements between unions and management, that do allow managers the flexibility to eliminate poor employees and reward good ones, but I haven't seen any. (All the wonderful theories of 'wonderful' union deals mean nothing if, at the end of the day, most negotiated deals end up sucking.)

 

[Segnosaur]

That the job without a union was with a company that actually treated its workers well?

Yes, and the company did not need a union to force it to treat its workers well, they simply offered a decent benefits to those that deserve it, lesser benefits to those that don't, and eliminated the 'dead wood' when necessary.

 

[Thanz]

My own experience with unions has been somewhat mixed. I was a member of a union when I worked in a grocery store, and was less than impressed. While I did receive high wages, the seniority focus of the union was a pain in the butt. We had some long time employees who did nothing all day, leaving the work for the part timers at night. But with seniority, there was nothing you could do.

They also left negotiations on a new contract to the last minute, which resluted in a fairly lengthy strike and a decrease in pay as well in the new contract. The strike itself didn't affect me (I was away at school) but the less pay certainly did.

The other union I belonged to was the Teamsters when I worked in a small industrial shop for 3 summers. The conditions sucked, the relations between management and the employees sucked, but the pay was okay. Not great, but okay. In that shop, I think that the union was required to keep a check on some parts of management.

Finally, I was working for a couple of summers at a chemical plant. At the end of one summer I was promised a certain job the next year. When I came back, however, one of the VP's sons had taken my position, and was being paid a lot more for it. Further, they actually found him asleep in box on the job - and he wasn't fired or disciplined at all. I guess it just goes to show you that some people will take advantage however they can - whether it is through seniority in a union shop or other factors in a non-union shop.

 

[Suddenly]

Yes, and the company did not need a union to force it to treat its workers well, they simply offered a decent benefits to those that deserve it, lesser benefits to those that don't, and eliminated the 'dead wood' when necessary.

Yeah, but you gotta admit a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" problem here. There is every possibility that the union companies would be worse without the union, and that no union exists at the non-union company simply because it is not needed.

 

[Thanz]

Yeah, but you gotta admit a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" problem here. There is every possibility that the union companies would be worse without the union, and that no union exists at the non-union company simply because it is not needed.

Both of these statements are probably true. The union is successful at organizing in companies that do not treat their workers especially well, and the union probably does improve the workers' lot at that company.

At other companies, however, the workers are treated well so that the union cannot make any strides in organization efforts. Unions will not organize where there is no worker dissatisfaction problem. The easiest way for management to keep the union away from its doors is to treat the workers fairly.

The problem, of course, is that once the union gets in it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to get them out, even if they are not needed anymore. The prime example (in my mind) are the autoworkers unions. The autoworkers in the big three get paid far too much for the tasks that they have to perform. That doesn't stop the union, however, from demanding more each time around. And they usually get it due to the large costs of shutting down an outo plant for even a short period of time.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yeah, but you gotta admit a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" problem here. There is every possibility that the union companies would be worse without the union, and that no union exists at the non-union company simply because it is not needed.

And there is the possibility that the workers would be better off if unions at union shops suddently disbanded. Just saying "there's a possibility things would be worse without the union" doesn't really prove anything.

And of course, it depends on what you mean when you say 'worse'. There are 2 things to keep in mind:
- As I mentioned before, unions tend to protect the incompetent. So, the 'bad' people would be worse off if the union was dispanded, but the 'good' people may end up being better off
- A union may indeed make things better for its employees; however, the end result is often an increase in the price of the companie's products. This means that the end consumer (who are often members of other unions) end up paying more than they should for a product. Some union people benefit, everyone else suffers to some degree

 

[Malachi151]

Modern unions in America are pretty lame and don't serve the purpose that the once did. Once they came under state control they were no longer organization that wroked for the workers and became organization that work for the state, and thus ultimately the employeers, hence my paper in the Germany thread about the rise of fascism in America.

So, modern unions are tools of the state and thus the establishment, not expressions of democratic employee organization, thus they suck.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=2303

Now, as for the fundamental idea behind unions, that is good, its just no longer in effect anymore.

Back when unions were really making progress busines itself was much less regulated so unions were just workers to banded together to press for chane and improvement in the workplace, like better safety, shorter working hours, and better pay.

Basically people just got together and said "this sucks, let's all refusee to work until they stop making us work 12 hours in the mine which no safety equipment for 10 cents a day."

That's back when the owners of businesses like railroads or mines were among the richest people in the world and weren't even paying their workers enough money to live on even with 12 hours a day of work.

 

[Suddenly]

And there is the possibility that the workers would be better off if unions at union shops suddently disbanded. Just saying "there's a possibility things would be worse without the union" doesn't really prove anything.

Not seeking to prove anything. It is just another conclusion from the finding that a non union job is better from the one with the union.

And of course, it depends on what you mean when you say 'worse'. There are 2 things to keep in mind:
- As I mentioned before, unions tend to protect the incompetent. So, the 'bad' people would be worse off if the union was dispanded, but the 'good' people may end up being better off

Sounds true, at least to a point. Unions will police some incompetence because at some point this hurts other workers. One of those things where extreme examples may attract more attention than their effect merits. This is cost of having a union. Unions do not seek to serve the concept of meritocracy. They exist to promote the interests of the laborer, being more in line with socialist ideas of the right to make a decent living then about maximizing weath.

- A union may indeed make things better for its employees; however, the end result is often an increase in the price of the companie's products. This means that the end consumer (who are often members of other unions) end up paying more than they should for a product. Some union people benefit, everyone else suffers to some degree

That or perhaps the business owners just do not profit as much as before. Price is not a function of cost, rather the free market.
Claiming harmful effects of a union presuppose that the pre-union price for labor was proper to begin with. This is where you drew your baseline for "pay more than they should."

A practical example comes from your own story. The non-union company paid more for your labor than the union company. This would be contrary to the union companies having higher labor costs, as they paid less for the same labor.

 

[Segnosaur]

That or perhaps the business owners just do not profit as much as before.

That is another possibility. So, even if people aren't paying more for products, the company is earning less profit.

But remember, many people (union and non union) earn some of their income through profits, such as mutual funds used for retirement. So a decrease in profits can still affect the end consumer, even if prices don't change. Also, if profits fall, businesses will be less likely to reinvest, reducing job growth, etc.

Price is not a function of cost, rather the free market.
Claiming harmful effects of a union presuppose that the pre-union price for labor was proper to begin with. This is where you drew your baseline for "pay more than they should."

But the cost is part of the free market. If the cost of manufacturing a product goes up (because of higher labour costs), then prices will go up, according the supply and demand curves, because the supply curve will shift.

Therefore, price is a function of cost (at least in part).

Claiming harmful effects of a union presuppose that the pre-union price for labor was proper to begin with. This is where you drew your baseline for "pay more than they should."

I do realize that establishing a 'real' baseline is probably impossible, for both the pro and the anti union side.

A practical example comes from your own story. The non-union company paid more for your labor than the union company. This would be contrary to the union companies having higher labor costs, as they paid less for the same labor.

But there are other reasons why a non-union company might be able to afford higher wages and better benefits
- Since they can be more flexible with highering and firing, they can get the best employees, who are likely going to be more productive
- Less time/money lost due to work stoppages (strikes/lockouts)
- Promotions based on merit (rather than seniority in some union jobs) could mean better leadership and better decision making
- Remember, part of the reason I liked the non-union job wasn't because of wages/benefits, but because of the working environment; its more enjoyable to work for a company when I don't have idiots for managers.

 

[Malachi151]

Price of goods = cost of materials + cost of labor + cost to bring to market + profits

Profits = demand - (cost of materials + cost of labor + cost to bring to market)


Thus the cost of labor is only one part of the equation, changing any of the other parts of the equation can result in the same exact price of goods.

If the cost of labor goes up but cost to bring to market and profits go down then the price is the same.

Prices are effected by all of the above factors, demand, plus all the various costs, plus profit motive.

Keep in mind also that in many cases demand is shown to go down when prices go down. This was true of linolium (sp?) which was once expensive, so everyone wanted it, then it became cheap so people didn't want it in their homes anymore.

The same would happen with diamons for example, which is why DeBeers hoards them to keep the prices up, which also keeps demand up. If they did not hoard them diamonds would become almost as cheap as glass, and no one would want them anymore.

 

[Suddenly]

That is another possibility. So, even if people aren't paying more for products, the company is earning less profit.

But remember, many people (union and non union) earn some of their income through profits, such as mutual funds used for retirement. So a decrease in profits can still affect the end consumer, even if prices don't change. Also, if profits fall, businesses will be less likely to reinvest, reducing job growth, etc.

There are considerations other then the obvious, but a person making a higher wage helps rather than harms that person overall. The principle that because the higher wage (maybe) harms third parties that it is somehow wrong seems a curious point in support of a free market position.

But the cost is part of the free market. If the cost of manufacturing a product goes up (because of higher labour costs), then prices will go up, according the supply and demand curves, because the supply curve will shift.

Therefore, price is a function of cost (at least in part).

Yes, in a macroeconomic sense this is absolutely true. However, there will be times where ownership is simply stiffing the workforce and pocketing money. Unions are admittedly not a plus in the macroeconomic ledger, rather they are an instument of social justice, and are not really necessary where wages and worker treatment are reasonable given economic conditions. However, there are some long, long, memories in some union halls. The labor/mine wars weren't that long ago.

I grew up in a heavy union area (steel workers and coal miners), and the sophistication of most of the "rank and file" members when it comes to market economics suprises me when the subject of "business" comes up. They aren't always the greedy wage grabbers as portrayed, but they do not buy the idea that company survival trumps their well being, and know darn well that the purpose of management is to "maximize shareholder wealth." They also have (or claim) a relative that was in some sort of cataclysmic strike in the past. For many, union activity is a heritige, somthing their ancestors fought, bled and died for. Being jerked around by management isn't just an economic issue for them, although when convinced in the past workers have made concessions to keep companies viable. It goes beyond money sometimes.

But there are other reasons why a non-union company might be able to afford higher wages and better benefits
- Since they can be more flexible with highering and firing, they can get the best employees, who are likely going to be more productive
- Less time/money lost due to work stoppages (strikes/lockouts)
- Promotions based on merit (rather than seniority in some union jobs) could mean better leadership and better decision making
- Remember, part of the reason I liked the non-union job wasn't because of wages/benefits, but because of the working environment; its more enjoyable to work for a company when I don't have idiots for managers.

Maybe, but this doesn't really contradict what I am saying. Some companies manage to not end up with unions as they treat people well. The lack of unions allows some flexibility and maybe higher wages. This is all fine until someone gets the bright idea and squeezes labor to increase profits. Then, whack! Union time, and the whole thing gets serious. As long as that squeeze never happens, no union. Management will get canned if they cause a union to come in. Thus, no squeeze.

So ironically, the unions are indirectly responsible for the positive conditions. Without the threat of labor unrest why wouldn't wages on labor (especially unskilled) be sought to be minimized? A company that takes care of the workers just for the heck of it, or maybe to be nice is (if it is a corporation) violating its duty to shareholders to maximize profit. Threat of a union creates a nice counterpoint to the temptation to squeeze every last penny out of labor costs.

And this is completely ignoring the whole "union labor is better labor" argument that is sometimes true depending on context and area of the country.

 

[WildCat]

That the job without a union was with a company that actually treated its workers well?

In business school, we were taught that bad management creates unions. Employees have no incentive to unionize w/ good management.

 

[Jessica Blue]

Originaly posted by Suddenly
In my opinion, the "right to work" laws have less to do with rights than they do with harming unions. Big companies do not like unions, and big companies also hire good people for marketing, media relations, and lobbying. Thus they don't call these laws "Lets Bust the Union Laws." These laws aim to strike at the core power source of a union, the ability to strike.

Yes. In Australia trade unionism and collective bargaining have declined in recent years because governments and employers have worked hard to erode unions and push enterprise bargaining[business is the enterprise, the workers are the bargain!]. We still need unions...employers are hostile to collective bargaining because it's effective.

It's worth remembering that many of the benefits workers just take for granted today could only have come about through union action.The following benefits were strongly resisted by employers:

Occupational Health and Safety Laws
Workers' Compensation
Annual Holidays
Superannuation
Medicare
The award system, which ensures that at least minimum conditions are met
Types of Leave including long service, parental, sick, bereavement or carers’
Paid Public Holidays
38 hour week
Penalty rates for overtime and weekend work
Workplace amenities such as lunch rooms, showers, change rooms, lockers and hot and cold running water depending on the industry

We need to hang on to collective bargaining because there are no guarantees that benefits we currently enjoy woudn't be wound back if conditions permitted it.


In business school, we were taught that bad management creates unions. Employees have no incentive to unionize w/ good management.

In an ideal world there would be no need for unions.