ShaniFaye

I didnt want to thread jack the walmart thread, but a few things brought up in it make me want to discuss this.

Is the day of the union past (yes Im pretty much stealing what Maleficent said)? Does a Union still serve the original purpose?

I work for a VERY large company. We are in 38 states and 9 countries. All of our plant employees are required to be in a Union while the salaried employees/corporate employees are not. I myself have never been part of a Union, but part of my previous job duties with this company dealt with helping new employees get set up with unions, setting up payment of their union dues and typing up reports of company disciplinary actions for the union.

I can honestly say that the only thing I've ever seen the unions do is keep a person in a job that didnt really need to be there, and quite frankly it made me sick to see it.

Are Unions nothing but bullies? Or do the serve a good purpose?

Discuss!!!!

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Supple Cow

We're talking about this in my econ class right now. I think the days of rampant unionization are definitely past, especially since the idea is really only useful in certain industries (like in manufacturing as opposed to service). The notable thing I learned about it recently was that the long run effects of bargaining for a higher wage floor are to lower wages for future workers. I guess that's something I could have figured out without my econ class, considering that companies will obviously just want to hire fewer union workers and pay non-union workers less to compensate for the union workers they DO keep. But given the new light shed on the subject for me, I'm kind of surprised that labor unions lasted so long with such a short-sighted view.

Besides, most of the working conditions stuff has been addressed with laws passed in the last few decades, no?

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

Mbwuto

God save the poor corporations helpless at the hands of workers actually uniting. Bullies indeed.

Unions are fading away partly because public perception of them has changed. Rather than something to be proud of, unions are regarded as a parasite on corporations, much to Wal Mart's pleasure. Unions have done a lot of good in the past. They can continue to do so, but only if public image changes.

My father belongs to an electrician's union, the benefits? Well, benefits for one. A higher starting salary and stringent safety requirements. You'll have to pardon me if I don't feel bad for a large corporation that feels the real effects of the free market.

__________________
- people who have fallen into solitary, half-mad grooves of life and given up trying to be normal or decent.

George Orwell

martinguerre

one of the places where i really hope to see them take a stand is in health care. number of hours worked per week, training and conditions for nurses makes a HUGE difference in quality of care.

SEIU is one of my new favorites...they've been recruiting agressively, and putting unions in to service fields that have serious quality of work issues.

/proud son of a union mom

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Cynthetiq

all the benefits that unions fought for eventually got to the non union employee. 40 hour work weeks, sick days, vacation days, etc.

i also don't see getting $14 for strike pay being very worthwhile for anyone but the union.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

jorgelito

I'm sorry Cynthetiq, would you mind terribly clarifying a bit? I'm afraid I didn't understand your post too well.

Are you saying that the benefits that non-union employees receive today (i.e. - 40 hr work week, sick days, vacation etc) are a benefit/result of unions?

Secondly, could you clarify what you meant by "...$14 for strike pay being very worthwhile for anyone but the union..."

Thanks man!

Cynthetiq

Unions fought for better working conditions, retirement funds, work weeks, sick days etc. Eventually, regular non union empoyees eventually also got this benefit.

When the union calls a strike, they pay members $14/day (could have changed today) as strike pay to walk the picket line. When employed they get over $100/day so to dwindle it down to such a paltry amount isn't really any kind of insurance.

Here's an example:
One of the requirements for TV unions is that after 8 hours they have to be given a meal break and a hot meal and it cannot be pizza unless agreed upon by all union members working. I wasn't part of the union but since I was part of the crew, I was also fed.

TM875

Speaking from a purely Economic perspective, Unions are terrible to the free market system. They are a market failure that affects the Marginal Price of Labor, which therefore results in an inefficient distribution of resources. The end result? A too-high price for the consumer.

Unions should have no place in the free market system under economic conditions.


However, they do help workers, almost absurdly so. I've always worked in non-union stores and jobs, and have been happy for it. Unions do nothing but strong-arm employers (raising costs, prices, and eventually pushing big businesses out of the market - look at GM). They force fair-market wages out of control.

__________________
"I've made only one mistake in my life. But I made it over and over and over. That was saying 'yes' when I meant 'no'. Forgive me."

Derwood

Unions are very important, especially in this age of escalating health care costs and movement of labor overseas for cost-cutting.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Cynthetiq

how so?

Hollywood moved productions to Canda and Florida to cost cut the labor costs of Unionized workers in CA and NY.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

jorgelito

So are you for or against unions or do you think that at one time they performed a function that benefited many and have since outlived their usefulness?

Elphaba

The formation of unions was immensely important during the early years of industrialization in the US. Marx's theory of socialism probably didn't materialize here because the workers found a legal means to confront and bargain with management.

Today, I am doubtful that unions serve a purpose in a global economy. If I can purchase a superior product for less money than what is manufactured in the US, my choice is simple.

roachboy

what really killed off the old-school unions, particularly in the states (for particular reasons, starting with sector monopoly) was the change in the politics of firm location, and of the type of relation between capital and nation-states implied by it.

this happened across the early 1970s, at about the same time as stock ownership internationalized.

american unions, because they operated on a sector-monopoly model, became more a counter-business than any other unions i know of--they were tied to a particular phase of the organization and location of production---and (not surprisingly, if you think about it) found themselves totally unable to respond to the above shift in the politics that had restricted capital to acting within nation-states

[[[you know, writing cliff notes must be fun, in a perverse kinda way, dont you think?]]

either way, what happened to the american trade union system is not generalized, so if you are talking about unions in the way those who posted above are, you are really only referring to the situation in a particular place--with a particular (reactionary) political climate--dominated by folk who detest all forms of organization among people, (unless the right controls them)----and unions worst of all.

the american type of trade union activity was structured from the outset by a fear of politics. the system was designed to reduce the space for the left by eliminating competition amongst trade unions for the same employees within a given workarea....
they were also quite willing to trade away the right to strike.
this was the beginning of the end for them.
the american model was based on a substitution of material benefits for politics. they therefore represented a very particular development of the union model in any event. for myself, i never thought the model a good one.
the organizations that made up this model may well have outlived their functionality--but because of the particular choices they made in how they would interact with capital, not because there is any problem at all with working people organizing to defend themselves and their interests against capital.

i think the distinction is important.
people only have power when they organize themselves, and when these organizations are in a position to shut down areas of activity.
of course people should organize themselves and learn to take and maintain power, whether in local conflicts over service delivery or anything else.
of course working people should form organizations--but they would have to be more adapted to the new situation they face in a new and improved type of capitalist barbarism (witness the american health care system. go from there. its easy.) without organization, individuals who are not holders of capital are powerless.
kinda like now.... hell, even those who do hold some capital are powerless.

one result of powerlessness is that folk actually believe that it makes sense for them, for their own interests, that business can shop internationally in search of the lowest possible wages--that it is possible to see this pattern as natural when in fact it has only existed for about 40 years and required an enormous change in the rules that had shaped the capitalist game for the previous 140 years or so.

this situation is not natural.
you just werent paying attention



as for the econ class view of unions--neoliberals dont like unions. lower level econ classes in particular are little more than distilled presentations of neoliberal ideology with lots of curious little equations that make all seem rational. but if you compare particularly these classes to the world they puport to describe, they are almost always worth even less than the short course was.

at least the short course is retrospectively kinda funny--you get to meet the strange fictional character known as the hitlero-trotskyite wrecker, one of the great feats in the history of literary paranoia. if you put aside that stalin played a big role in writing it and how many people died on account of it, the short course can be quite entertaining. kind of. in a strange sort of way.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Rodney

No. There are many low-paying industrial and canning/foodpacking employers, some large but many smaller, who employ new immigrants or legal/illegal aliens. Because the immigrants are 1) not well educated, especially in their rights and how to obtain them, and 2) are afraid to complain because they fear they may endanger their status here, they put up with many terrible and illegal working conditions.

And that doesn't even count the people working completely off the books as casual labor for whatever reason (illegal alien, criminal record/on the run, etc.). Within a half mile of where I live is a large street-corner casual labor market where over 100 workers (most latino, some caucasian) wait every day for contractors to hire them for $7-$10 an hour. They go off in pickups and often work under terrible conditions. If they're injured, the contractor usually drops them at a drop-in medical clinic with $75 and is never seen again. There's another market like it just five miles away.

Yes, the laws are the on the books. And for the least fortunate among us, they are meaningless.

Supple Cow

I hate to state the obvious, but all of the situations you mention involve somebody breaking the law. When I say that certain things have been addressed by labor laws and you tell me that they aren't, you might be better off giving me examples of how the laws are not addressing unsafe working conditions in situations where everybody is actually obeying the law... and aren't we talking about unions here? If a worker is not obeying the law to begin with and wants to avoid trouble, as in many of the situations you describe, s/he is probably not going to join a union because that would only bring them closer to (you guessed it) the law.

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

ngdawg

Picking up groups-called daylaborers-is not illegal all over. In fact, it's a very common regulated business here.
I belonged to unions in different jobs. The worse was NJEA. Benefits were good, I grant you. But, due to their own lobbying of the state, I and many other lay teaching assistants were put out of our jobs. This due to the change in laws stating teachers or certified in asst teaching only can be asst. teachers. And when it came time for my contract renewal, it wasn't. Among the(unwritten) reasons-I would have tenured as to benefits paid in full come the following school year.
You don't get union dues back should you leave-something I think must be changed. Union leaders make so much off their positions, their salaries (read kickbacks, etc) rival the President of our country and probably a few senior senators. They have little clout at the negotiation tables because there are always enough people to take over for the striking workers and maybe even for less money.
They had their day. I would like to see something more akin to worker advocates in settings where unions used to rule. No dues, no following a mindset you may not agree with, but are obligated to follow. Just a laision to make sure no worker is exploited.

SC. your avatar is..uh....giving me the willies!

Supple Cow

It's just an innocent little menstrual cup! Friend, not foe.

/threadjack

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

Cynthetiq

I don't find value or security in them for myself. I think they are an additional wage tax to someone not the government that I did not elect before I wanted to work in such industry (ex. plumber, electrician, butcher). I think that they add cost to goods without adding value to the end consumer, even in insuring a better quality product.

I know electricians who like the idea of going to the local house and getting sent to different jobs. I guess maybe for them it's equal to cost of advertising and marketing.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Cimarron29414

It should be illegal for unions to strike except regarding safety issues. They have long outlived their usefulness. Lawyers happily replace the use of unions. The little man can find a lawyer to sue if he feels unfairly treated.

Take the California dock workers strike around 2002. They struck because 9 workers were going to be moved to different jobs because their obsolete jobs to were being removed due to automation. That strike put thousands of small businesses out of business, for 9 guys.

Take the Charleston Five: dock workers that were arrested for beating up cops. The cops were protecting non-union dock workers from the union guys that were trying to beat them up for unloading a ship for 1/4 the cost of the union workers.

There are hundreds of stories in the early 1900's as to why unions needed to exist. There are hundreds of stories in the late 1900's as to why unions need to go away.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Rodney

A law that is ignored is nothing to be complacent about. All of these things happen in plain site, especially the streetside labor markets. We have all sorts of wonderful laws on the books that are ignored or not enforced, and the labor laws are increasingly irrelevant to the poorest among us. Hey, and a lot of those workers are illegal, and where's the INS? Where's the IRS? Nowhere to be seen. Why? People _want_ those workers there: businesses, contractors, even individuals. They want a cheap source of exploitable labor.

As for poor workers not wanting to form unions, one of the few places where unions are doing well are in lower-income industrial facilities. They fight not for higher wages but better working conditions. It's difficult because union organizers don't have the access to industrial facilities that they had 30 years ago. More of those "new laws which protect us."

Mbwuto

Boy you sure do love the little man. Make strikes illegal? What are you going to do? Arrest someone who walks off his job in protest? Make it illegal for workers to organize? Seriously, I want to hear exactly what you want. Do guys get arrested for unionizing in your corporate utopia?

__________________
- people who have fallen into solitary, half-mad grooves of life and given up trying to be normal or decent.

George Orwell

Supple Cow

I didn't say poor workers, I said illegal ones. I don't disagree that ignoring laws is nothing to be complacent about. Where are the people to enforce the labor laws? Where is the INS? Not where they need to be all the time. But I'd be willing to bet that an illegal immigrant worker would be more concerned about the INS showing up than figuring how to organize a union to fight for better conditions.

What I am saying about law-breaking workers is more of a positive (as in descriptive) statement rather than a normative one. I don't think that poor immigrants should be exploited, illegal or not, but I don't think unions are going to solve their problems if all the illegal ones are going to be afraid to join a union anyway. This discussion is about unions, not solutions for exploited illegal workers.

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

ubertuber

If workers want to organize, that's fine by me - but I think they and their unions should still be subject to the consequences of their actions. I wonder what would happen if some small-business owners tried to sue the longshoremen.

And Mbwuto, in your rush to hyperbole and sarcasm you've forgotten some precedents. Remember the air-traffic controllers and Reagan? They were allowed to organize, but not to strike because of the consequences of their work-stoppage. They struck anyway and attempted to negotiate from that stance. And then they were fired, because they didn't have a right to strike. When asked about firing them, Reagan replied that as far as he was concerned, they had quit their jobs by breaking their contracts. I don't think that's so unreasonable.

My personal experience with union work (in NY, a highly union-sensitive city) has been that unions have two major effects. They price the workers out of their markets, which is why we have hardly any TV, movie or substantial recording work in the NY musical market. Secondly, they virtually guarantee an inferior quality of work, likely at a higher price. I see that in the building in which I live and work all the time.

The painter in our building (union guy) attempted to stop us from painting our office OURSELVES. Our maintenance staff is horrible and each of our elevators spend around 15% of the malfunctioning in some way. Is this what union labor is getting us? Then our elevator repairmen went on strike, and our elevators were still broken. This makes life in NY almost impossible - have you ever thought about living in a 29 story building without a working elevator? We hired scabs to fix the elevators so people could GO HOME at night and the rest of our maintenance staff put signs up and stood in front of the elevators because they were being serviced by non-union laborers. One wonders exactly how they thought they were going to generate support that way, because at the end of the day, I want my elevators, heaters/air conditioners, toilets, and shower drains to work. If the union is going to make this more expensive then they damn well better be doing a better job as well. If they are going to make this impossible, then for all I care they can all lose their jobs, because by refusing to do them they have quit. This is one reason I like Bloomberg - in his negotiations with the transportation workers' union (among others) he demands productivity increases along with any concession he grants.

Possibly the most irritating thing I see is unions demanding money that doesn't exist. I see this in the music business and in other industries. When unions are too powerful the become focussed only on their half of the equation and try to win battles that will lose them the war. Then when their particular factory/orchestra/industry goes belly up or the freelance work in the area dries up and goes somewhere else, they all complain.

I think unions have outlived their usefulness in a large way. If they want to survive, then they'll have to start acknowledging the real world and the big picture. The days of globalization (which is here whether you like it or not) have made it very easy for a union to price its workers out of jobs. A company may be left with no choice but to outsource labor that is prohibitively expensive in this country. To fail to do so would be irresponsible, and might even invite legal action by shareholders over failure to act to preserve and increase shareholder value. It is time that we get our heads out of the sand and start paying attention to the ways of the new world - because the penalties will be enforced whether or not we want to play by the rules. In that frame of thinking, Walmart may be doing companies a favor. By "extracting a poind of flesh" and force companies to take the supply-chains and logistics seriously, Walmart might actually be saving American businesses from going under 10 years from now.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

BigBen

HOLD ON THERE BIG GUY.

/ Ben has worked in both union and non-union jobs
/ Ben has an honours degree in Economics

You cannot bring economics like that into this. If you are, you have to talk about labour economics, not your "Perfect Competition" and "Externalities". Pick up the text book (not the neo-conservative toilet paper those bullshit 'free market system' ideas are printed on) and start again.

I beg to differ: A group of workers has every right to form a union and bargain collectively with their employer. The employer has every right to bargain with that group or look elsewhere of labour. When you cloud the issue buy calling unions a "Market Failure" you are comparing peoples free decision making into air pollution and acid rain. SHAME ON YOU.

When we see big corporations move their production facilities overseas, That is the global market and free-enterprise that seeks lower wages. That is a direct result of unions and government regulated wage floors. I don't see a big problem with it, personally: That is approaching PERFECT COMPETITION. So the unions have priced themselves out of a job... I don't care. I maximize my marginal utility, carefully considering all aspects of my buying decision.

what are these "Economic conditions" you speak of?
Note: There is no such thing as "Too high a price for the consumer" in the social science of economics. That term simply does not exist academically. There are supply curves and demand curves, and the point in which they intersect is never called "Too High".


Please don't use academic terms in an inappropriate context to confuse people.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

ubertuber

Thank you - well said and I agree completely.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

meembo

Unions will be an international labor force in the next few years, but not so in the US. Collective bargaining worked for workers in emerging industrial nations. The US suffers from labor leaving their shores. Unions are a permanent establishment in the US, but are not a major player as in the Hoffas days, and never will be again in then US.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

jorgelito

I find it interesting tha WalMart has "allowed" unions in China. Apparently they're the only ones who are allowed to form unions.

TM875

Okay...let's get out the (neo-conservative? please. That comment hurt more than anything else) textbook.

:usts off the Econ 101 textbook from college::

Let's keep this simple. Page 656 of Economics by McConnel/Brue, speaking on the effects of the union wage advantage on the allocation of labor:

"[The] loss of output suggest that the union wage advantage has resulted in a misallocation of labor and a decline in economic efficiency"

Assuming that normal wage, Wn, is given when employment is equal to N1; Unions reduce employment to a lower amount, N2, while raising wages to Wu. Output falls.


However, I will relent to you on one thing - it is extremely difficult to tell, in the long-run, if unions help industries or not. I will agree that they reduce worker turnover and, in that area, increases productivity.

Yes, I completely agree. However, if it wasn't for unions pricing themselves out of a job (and, therefore, pricing the industry out of this country), then maybe we'd still have a number of our industries here and not have such an abhorrable trade deficit. Maybe.

The "too-high" price I was referring to was a price that should not have to be charged. The union's increased wage cost (Wu) creates a higher ATC (average total cost) for the firm. Therefore, for TC (total cost) to equal TR (total revenue), thus a normal profit found under perfect competition, the price of the good must be higher. Since the price is higher, the quanitity of goods sold along the demand curve decreases to the left along the curve. The result? Fewer sales and lower efficiency of the firm.

And, for the record, don't put words in my mouth. I respect you for going through the schooling needed to get an economics degree and your military experience, but I believe they must be teaching a different sort of economics in Canada.

__________________
"I've made only one mistake in my life. But I made it over and over and over. That was saying 'yes' when I meant 'no'. Forgive me."

Elphaba

TM875, could you supply more information on this text, including the publication date?

G5_Todd

its hard to say....there are so many labor laws now that it makes it very hard to say

i myself have always been in unions...

do they affect me directly i guess....we have people that lobby the state for certain laws that help us....and without the union these laws prolly would not come about....

but is it worth 800 bucks a year to be in the union i dunno....

overall i would lean toward the union being a good thing...

__________________
"....and when you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy."

-General Franks

TM875

Um, sure...I collect Econ books for fun...

The one I grabbed was the most recent economics book on my shelf (a newer edtion of the one I used in college 5 years ago; I think that was 14th edition)

McConnell, Campbell and Stanley Brue. "Economics: Principles, Problems, and Policies". 16th ed. MrGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston; 2005.

There are, however, dozens of similar books that would agree with my point. My personal favorites are
1) "Microeconomics" by Bamoul and Blinder
2) "Economics in our World" (or something similar to that) by my hero, Paul Krugman

__________________
"I've made only one mistake in my life. But I made it over and over and over. That was saying 'yes' when I meant 'no'. Forgive me."

greytone

I have no doubt that unions have done quite a bit of good since the industrial revolution, but for the most part, I think their time should pass. Most of my recent experience is that the unions do more harm to their members than good. Often the union leadership is only looking out for their own good instead of the membership. They convince the members that they are getting something they could not get on their own.

While I think most workers should be allowed to join unions, I think being forced to join a union in a closed shop state is horrible. A friend of mine was in that situation once. When his contract was up, he and his employer both wanted different things. He is a night person and they needed a morning shift employee. They both agreed to continue with the existing contract until he could find another job. He is a broadcast journalist, so that can take some time. About 3 months into this, the union he was paying dues to against his wishes figures this out. They sent a letter without asking him that forced the station to fire him immediately. Who benifited from this other than the union membership?

Take the UPS strike of several years ago. They permanently lost market share. Well a year or so later, the company went public. Now get this; the company had been employee owned at the time of the strike. They made a killing on the stock sale, but who knows how much more they would have made if they had not permantly lost market share in the strike (which coincided with the big boom in on-line sales).

About 6 weeks ago the workers at the Lockheed plant near me went on strike. The workers at other plants were happy with the same contract, but not here, with our low cost of living. This strike happened to coincide with congressional hearings on cutting the F-22 which is having big cost overruns. I am sure that if the strike went on more than a few days that the cuts would have been really dramatic.

__________________
I was there to see beautiful naked women. So was everybody else. It's a common failing.
Robert A Heinlein in "They Do It With Mirrors"

smooth

I think it's important to recognize that at least two people (I'm not sure about ubertuber) with advanced degrees have explained that your introductory level economics isn't meshing well with a more in-depth view of economic principles.

Since we have at least three econ buffs in here, I'd like to ask how any of you could use the term "free" market within a context that allows capital freedom of movement, yet restricts labor?


And yes, Canada is very likely teaching a different view of economic principles. They have a more liberal economic structure, political context, and culture. So that would make sense, as well as explain the "neo-conservative" statement. Which set of principles are most accurate, however, is an empirical question, not a matter of opinion. Simply test them cross-nationally.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

BigBen

I absolutely gaurantee that they teach a different type of Economics up here... good thing we have different styles, or how could we publish in journals to further our academic careers?

I truly appologize for the neo-con comment. No offence. I realize now that if someone called me that they would be picking up their teeth with broken fingers. I should have been more careful.

Love you like a brother. I call him on stuff too. Next drink is on me!

Here is the great thing about the 'science' of economics: We put so many restrictions on our theories, our models, that when a real life situation arises and it doesn't jive with our plan we have an easy out!

To have Perfect Competition (and thus arguably a 'free' market) the following conditions must be met:

Perfect Information
Free Entry / Exit
Infinite number of Buyers / Sellers
No Externalities
Homogeneous goods


Although the labour market approaches perfection on several levels, notice that there is Information asymmetry. You and I went to different schools.

You can work if you want (free entry)
You can quit when you want (free exit)
There are an Infinite number of sellers (what is there, like 3 billion labourers world wide?!?)
No externalities (There are almost always externalities… damn acid rain)
Homogeneous goods (no, my labour is better than others and not as good as most!)

So, there is not really a free market 99% of the time IN AN ACADEMIC SENSE!

But I am curious when you use the term "Restricts Labour"... Are you an endentured servant? Are you incarcerated? You state that the labour market is restricted because the new employees must join the union on the acceptance of a job. Are they not allowing you to work there in the first place? That would be an externality, alas.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

martinguerre

it's not totally free exit. people stop working, and they may starve/not have healthcare/etc...

that inequality is one of *the* reasons unions are needed, IMO.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

c172g

I'm not against unions, just what they stand for!

Our small northern Michigan town just had a large plant close up about two years ago, and over 200 people lost their jobs. Most had a high school diploma and nothing else. Most were making over $45,000 (plus benefits) per year making paper (in our town, average household income is about $35000 per year).

One of our long-time employees used to work for them. On the night shift, out of 25 guys, three or four would actually be working. Others slept, drove around on the forklift, and one night one of them was drunk & drove the lift through the side of the building. He was fired on the spot. Two days later he had his job back, thanks to the union protecting someone's job that shouldn't be working. If the guy drove a truck, or even delivered pizza, he would not have his job back. But thanks to the union, the guy was allowed to keep his job.

My good friend works for a union machine shop. He makes $40,000 in his fifth year with the company. The first day he started his job, the foreman told him NEVER to do 100% of his assigned work. If he did an average of 75% the company would never complain. He makes replacement parts for their block machines.

To start with (he's been a machinist for about ten years), when they give him a two hour job to make one part, he tells me that he can set up the machine, make the part, and tear it down in under an hour. If he does that, the time allotment for the job will go down (heaven forbid a union guy having to work 8 straight in a day) as the company averages the allotment based on performance. Anyway, he's given two hours to do a one hour job. On top of that, the foreman who sees the order will combine orders for parts he knows will be ordered repeatedly...in other words, if part A is ordered, the foreman will wait until four or five are on order, then give the job to someone. Now, part A is a two hour job PER PEICE...so my buddy has ten hours to run five parts. He's still given all the setup & teardown time as if he's doing them one at a time, but since the job has been combined with others, he can set it up once, run five, and tear down once. He can do this all in three hours. So, he has ten hours to do a three hour job, of which he's only supposed to do 75%. That puts it to 12.5 hours for three hours of actual work. This practice is common in the company he works for.

How about sports? You have guys making millions of dollars per year, playing games. Put it in perspective...a New York Firefighter makes under $50,000 a year and actually puts his life in the way of danger every day. A guy from Cuba can come to America, make five million a year throwing a baseball around. I love hockey, but the players can strike for the next ten years for all I care, they are a bunch of cry asses. The owners SHOULD make the money, when no one comes to watch the games, they lose the money. The players have no care whatsoever if the owners lose money, but when they make it, watch out, we need more. For what?

I can go on & on about union stories like those above. My buddy is an engineer at Ford. His entire line went down one day due to a breaker tripping. He tried to get one of the two electricians to fix it, one was clear across the plant, the other was "on break" which was going to last for 30 minutes. In the meantime, there are probably a hundred guys standing around (all making $75K-$90K per year with no college education) waiting for their line to get started back up, so my buddy goes & resets the breaker. The next day, he had 25 grievances filed against him, not just by the electricians, but by the rest of the guys who wanted to stand around instead of actually do something.

If you're wondering why almost everything you buy in Wal-Mart or just about any place else says "Made In China", think about the money being wasted by some of our nations better workers. I have no problem with paying someone what they are worth, but the unions give way too much power to people who don't deserve it.

If you are a decent worker and a responsible person, you don't need a union. If you want to go into work drunk every day & have five chances to get busted & keep your good-paying job, find a union job. Even in baseball, you need to get busted (randomly) for drugs at least five times before you are permanently banned. UGH!

My dad was forced to join a union in Detroit years ago. As he put it, "the best day of my working life was the day I told my union foreman to jam his card in his ass".

Sorry about the long post, but this subject burns my ass!

God of Thunder

Many interesting points here.

Here's my $.02, for what it's worth.

I not only grew up near Flint, MI, home of the Sitdown Strike, but have a lot of family that worked in the shop. I have so much union blood running through me, it's not funny. I'm a proud member of the AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) myself.

Yes, the union tends to protect workers that don't deserve it. I've seen it happen here many times. But, I look at it this way, if they fight that hard for someone who doesn't deserve it, think of what they'll do for me.

Unions can be bullies, but so can management. The guys at the top want all of the money. They don't always want to share it with the folks at the bottom doing all of the work. Unions tend to fight for the rights of the workers to see they get a fair wage/benefit package for the work they do.

Couple of personal examples.

The new Mayor came in two years ago and promised the taxpayers he was going to "clean up City Hall" "Fire all of those no-good lazy city employees" I mean, after all, we all just sit around and do nothing all day and steal from the taxpayers. While I agree there is coruption here, not all of us are bad. Given the chance he would have come in here firing people at will. The union threw up a red flag and demanded burden of proof. So far only a handful of people were actually fired, and several more received suspensions or other diciplinary action. Many of the workers he was said to have been targeting kept their jobs because he didn't have the proof he thought he did.

Another personal example concerns my father-in-law. He works at a local factory where there is no union. He barely makes what I do, even though he has been there 15 years and he is supervision. I've been here only five. He has lousy benefits, and no vacation time. The owner's philosphy is that "I'm paying you to work, not take a vacation". He hasn't taken more that a couple days off in 15 years. One worker come back from his honeymoon to find someone else doing his job. "I needed someone dependable" the owner told him.

Sure the unions have their bad points, but I think they serve a useful purpose in most places. Don't blame the unions for their faults though. Blame union leadership. Our union president is up for re-election, and it doesn't look good for him. (Don't tell him though, he still thinks he's getting re-elected.)

__________________
I reject your reality, and substitute my own

-- Adam Savage

Cynthetiq

I think you are confusing CONSEQUENCE OF ACTIONS with FREE EXIT.

They are free to exit on their own, if they have bills, healthcare issues, that's of no concern of mine, as it's no concern my issues to someone else.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

alansmithee

The problem with unions now is that they are too much bureaucracy. It's not just workers uniting, it's PAC's, lawyers, administrators, etc. that make unions nothing more than mini-businesses inside another business. In a way, they got too organized and lost their purpose.

smooth

I never stated that the labor market is restricted because new employees must join the union on the acceptance of a job.

My post was referring to the fact that capital can move trans-/multi-nationally whereas labor can not due to immigration/emmigration constraints.

This issue is further complicated by import/export regulations.

So what we have are powerful corporatins that can move production at will, yet they have powerful voices/influence in politics resulting in curtailed mobility of labor as well as consumers.

Where is the "invisible hand" in this context?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman