How beneficial is a Union?
 

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!!!!

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?

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.

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

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'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!

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.

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.

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

how so?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

/threadjack

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.

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.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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. :|

Thank you - well said and I agree completely.

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.

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

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

::Dusts 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.

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

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...

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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!

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 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.

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.

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?

Are you stating that to move production to a different location is free? There are setup costs, transportation costs, duties/tarriffs that you have mentioned already, lease costs, all of these things come with an explicit price.

The difference is that this new price bundle is STILL CHEAPER than continuing to pay 1st world wages... There is no such thing as a free lunch.

And there are costs to moving your labour to another location (haven't we all moved for a new job at one point or another?) but your proposition that labour is fixed to one locale is flawed. People move, and some of them move internationally, for work. The social costs of leaving friends and family behind is steep, but economics teaches us that a rational person has a wage rate such that they would be willing to move. There is a price, for example, that I would be willing to go to Iraq and drive a delivery truck full of explosives. To say that "Everyone has a price" is jaded and not the point; I said a RATIONAL person has a price. People do not act rationally sometimes. :D

The invisible hand, you were wondering? Well, Adam Smith would probably say (and I hate to put words in his mouth) that the hand was quite busy in this regard:

The wages in the home country "Pushed" the capital into a 3rd world setting;
The Rent in the 3rd world setting "Pulled" production to set up in that location;
The Capital did not care where it went, and therefore being simultaneously pushed and pulled in the same direction, landed in 3rd world.

Oooooooh, I get turned on when I talk about invisible hands, land, labour and capital...

All together now: Economics is the coolest subject in the world! :D

What does free exit mean for a corporation? It can cease to exist, pretty much on a whim, if it cannot be profitable anymore.

What does it mean for a employee? They can leave, provided they have another source of income. In a bad job market, there is no "free" exit, in that employees do not have the power to protest bad conditions in their job bceucase they will not be able to find a new one. It's not that complex...market freedom means something very different for the corporat actor than for labor.

without meaningful free exit, the equation is tilted in favor of the employer, and sharply.

Around work, I am famous for this quote "I use to hate the Union till I figured out that I was going to get more money."

Other than protecting my job and getting more money for myself. Wouldn't that be greed?

Your view of the constraints on capital movement versus labor movement are distorted.

When I use the term free, I am referring to ability, not cost.
Corporations have much more freedom to move laterally than labor does or consumers can and this is a direct result of their influence over the laws that govern such behavior.

It does not suffice to simply say that "some" people move internationally.
Movement of both labor and capital does not exist in a vacuum, they are bounded by law. I don't see you accounting for the influences powerful entities, such as capitalists and corporations, have over the movement of labor and ability to consume. I think you are giving a very superficial view of one's ability to follow capital from one nation to another--regardless of personal and social considerations.

I do not agree with your assesment of Adam Smith's position on this. I believe he would agree with me and that the "invisible hand," in so far as it exists, can only do so when labor and consumers can move laterally as easily as capital can. The legal and political domains have corrupted the regulations that economists argue exists naturally to control capitalism.

In the few posts you've responded to me on this subject, you've consistently not acknowledged my point in this regard. I remain curious why economists purport to follow the tenets of Adam Smith, yet violate one of his basic premises that labor and capital must be equally unfettered in their ability to follow one another.

I will have to disagree on every point you make in the above post. You have now wandered into the realm of Political Studies, of which I am no expert. You claim that corporations prevent labour from moving by enacting laws and pressuring the government.

I cannot comment on laws that government makes in the US, as I am almost completely ignorant to your labour laws. I can tell you that there is a section in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that explicitly states that there shall be no laws preventing the free movement of people and commerce within the country. Provinces are not allowed to discriminate.

Internationally, commerce is very mobile, and labour does indeed move from one location to another. My "Superficial View" on the subject is purposeful: I am keeping the discussion focused around economic factors and not political or ethical points of view.

Although we may agree to disagree, I appreciate the complexity of the issue. I do not pretend to know all facets af every issue, and on a personal level I find politics very frustrating.

Are there other questions you have? I think I might start an Economics thread in Tilted Knowledge. I haven't searched for it, but you never know...

The funny thing about American Economics is that they teach that labor is a fixed input (I never really understood that concept, even through grad school). I think that it's based on the concept that, even though a few can move internationally, a majority of the labor force is incapable of leaving the nation (even if the cost-benefit is greatly to their advantage). Capital, however, is extremely mobile due to the cheapness of moving it. It's much less expensive to ship a machine to Brazil than to move there yourself.


Or something like that.
I was never really into the labor thing myself, I mainly studied econometrics and development. You know, the cool stuff :grin:

My opinion of your post is that you haven't disagreed with everything I wrote. You have, however, utilized carefully selected wording to answer portions of my comments while simultaneously ignoring others. I just don't know if you did so intentionally.

For example, you used examples of Canadian protections for workers in regards to intra-national movement. Yet, those protections do not extend to their actions in so far as they might operate outside the bounds of the Canadian nation-state. I, as a US citizen, am not free to move into Canada and start working at will. You are not free, as a Canadian citizen, to move into the US and start working at will. If cost/benefit was the issue, that would approximate a more free market than what we have now. Cost is not the issue, however; rather, legal constraints are.

Furthermore, the Canadian protections for workers to move intra-nationally does nothing for an external consumer--the other end of the spectrum in my example of how capital controls the market rather than unseen forces. We could examine, for instance, the highly publicized debate over prescription medications. U.S. consumers are currently prevented from legally purchasing medications from Canada (and Mexico, among other places). Tariffs and favorable special trade agreements are not natural functions of the market. They are functions of government, guided by politics.


I actually had a detailed description of the two main views of how government responds to capital, but I erased it due to the fear that it would take too long to read and start looking like I was pontificating on something not really germaine to the discussion. At this point, however, I think I should at least respond to the view you ascribed to me in your comments.

I do not necessarily think that capital makes laws and overt demands on the government to regulate labor/consumption. Actually, I should say that it doesn't have to happen that way. An alternate view is that the people who run governments share similar class positions and interests as those who run capital. Their views on how the world, and the market, should operate are pretty similar. In the states, they go to the same schools together, they move laterally from economic domains to political domains to military domains, and they hold social functions together to rub elbows with the right people. The point is that there need not be an overt demand on politics for law to protect the interests of capital--we would expect it to naturally.


All this is to say that when people argue unions are artificial constraints or pressures on the market, such a statement completely ignores the political/legal realities that our labor market is no where near approximating a freely operating beast in the ways that Adam Smith wrote about. I reference Smith again because free-market proponents, in the US at least, speak of his work as their bible, yet they ignore the other half of the equation he laid out--free mobility of labor.

When a GM factory shuts it's doors in Michigan, due to overpriced labor or low sales or to bust a striking community, and opens a factory in Mexico, the community in Michigan should be able to move to Mexico and seek access to the employment in the newly opening factory. As of right now, they can't even while I admit that some won't. It simply makes sense then to attempt to unionize the workers in Mexico. In so far as it violates principles of a free market, it should only be understood as a response to capital's control over the market as it currently exists.

The "invisible hand," in the context I have described, becomes capital's influence over the laws that govern the market--not natural forces.

If economic models are incapable, or refuse, to account for the socio-legal realities on our global market, then I claim the models are deficient. If you want to step back and state that you have limited knowledge on politics and international labor laws, how can you then adequately discuss the ramifications, dangers, benefits, & etc. of unionized labor?

If your models are inadequate to account for some of the issues I brought up, and the data you feed into them inadquately addresses the context it exists within, then the addage 'garbage in >> garbage out' applies.


We could agree to disagree, but I don't see that as particularly profitable. We can move on to a different subject, if you prefer. But we can also spend our time here on this topic as easily as any other. We could, for example, pool our knowledge, yours in economics and mine in law & society, and begin a multi-disciplinary discussion of the issue at hand. Perhaps then we will come up with a trans-disciplinary question we can probe--one that breaks through discursive layers and opens new fields of inquiry.

Otherwise I have to continue learning what Marx and Weber say about politics and law with little to no knowledge of how economies operate.
You have to continue learning what Marx and Weber say about economies with little to no knowledge of how politics and law intersect with economies.
I think that's tragic because I know both of them studied all of these subjects holistically, yet modern students are short-changed in their ability to do the same.

When discussing the immobility of labour in the car manufacturer sense, I think that is what is called "Frictionally Unemployed" meaning that although you lost your job due to market factors, you need not worry since your skill set is highly sought after and you will soon find another job. "Structurally Unemployed" is the term of endearment given to those who lack the skill set necessary to gain employment. We used the example of the Buggy driver circa 1910-1920. Horses were being phased out by technology, and the buggy drivers needed to compensate. How many Ferriers do you know today? Me, I know three, but I am a little nuts.

Well, I had to study Marx and Weber "Pronounced 'Vay-ber' for extra credit in class" but haven't brushed the dust off of them in quite a while I admit.

In the long-run, labour is mobile.





In the long-run, We will all be dead.

I can go to the US and work. I have the necessary skill set that the US economy is looking for. I get a work Visa, move down there, and voila! I'm working. There is no Iron Curtain, no Berlin Wall. Are we talking about the same thing? People make the choice to not move. Economics can study that choice. In the microeconomic context, maybe labour is fixed or frictional; in the macroeconomic sense it rarely is. As one of the three main factors of production, labour is often held constant to simplify the capital usage / production function. Lazy? Sort of. True? Rarely.

I think you and I ARE saying the same thing. I also think that people ignore realities. I believe that the beast is pretty close to what ol' man Smith was talking about.

Labour is free to move. From one job to another within an industry, from one industry to another within the same skill set, and from one physical location to another, whether that be domestically or internationally.

I am not saying it is easy or universal, but there is mobility. Noone is a prisoner to their location, their work or thier industry.

BigBen, this statement is not true.
You already admitted that you are not well versed in international politics or law. Why are you disputing labor law with a law & society scholar who is telling you that your view on regulations that constrain international labor movement is inaccurate?

Labor is not free to move. It is artificially constrained. You mention that you can obtain a VISA. Do you believe the process is automatic?
If I seek a VISA right now to come teach in Canada, am I guaranteed entry into your country?

The truth is I am not.
I must obtain a work VISA in order to work there, but I am not guaranteed a work VISA from your or any other country.

Labor movement is regulated in ways that capital movement is not.

You mean my putting those words in a bigger font and italicising it did not convince you?

Shit.

I am going to have to come up with a better argument.

By the way, labour is free to move.

Welll, this morning the TWU and it's members decided to strike basically screwing 7million transit riders here in NYC along with of course the tourists here for the holidays. Since the Taylor law was enacted public officals cannot strike, but they did.

I have to walk 3 miles to work today.

I hope that Pataki decides to do what Reagan did when the ATC went on strike and fire them all.

What are their issues?
What are the counter-proposals?

from the blog:
twulocal100 blog

Both corporations and unions are attempts to alter the free market. Corporations (at least large ones) exert their will in the marketplace in order to drive higher profits. Wall-mart does a particularly good job of this -- much more so with suppliers than with labor. Unions do the same by restricting the labor pool to drive higher wages and benefits. I would argue that most professional organizations (AMA for doctors, ABA for lawyers) perform the same function as unions.

There is definately a balancing act. When corporations -- in the pursuit of profit -- create a more efficient market (as Wal-mart has through aggressive use of technology to streamline their supply chain), the perform a public service. When corporation -- in the pursuit of profit -- restrict the free market they perform a disservice.

Likewise, when unions act as a counterbalance to corporate excess, they perform a public service. When they act in their own self-interest they do not.

I have worked in both unions and management. I am more abused by corporations in management roles than I ever was as a laborer. Corporations are just very good at sucking every last drop of energy from their raw materials. It is up to us to put limits on what we give for the wages we get.

I think Unions have a place and can be very benificial, but like all good things, can and are often abused.

Those people helped by unions appreciate them. Those screwed by unions hate them.

Im betting there are a lot of people in NYC right now not to happy with the transit union

This is why unions suck these days. Its not about the job so much as job security to members reguardless of merit. They are saying they will take LESS money if they get in trouble less often when they fuck up.

I think everyone should have the right to strike but eployers should have the right to fire you. If your job is so unskilled that it can be replaced by scabs, the union has no purpose.

Why is it such a bad thing when workers organize in an effort to gain some job security when many executives have insulated themselves from market conditions by giving themselves golden parachutes, etc..

Of course, once again two wrongs don't make a right, but Isn't it ironic that many captains of industry preach free market and capitalism while at the same time protecting themselves from both (regardless of merit).

I will agree that in recent years it seems like unions have gone overboard but they are probably just pikers compared to our corporate and political leaders.

Only a very very small minority of 'executives' are of the golden parachute class. Most are slobs who work 40+ hour weeks, have their 401k, and don't get overtime. A few overpayed execs are not a drag on the economy or efficiency, but unions sadly have become so. They are still needed but not in their current form.

It makes sense to me to trade less pay for less porformance...isn't that what pay rates are all about (performance)? So I'm not sure why you would object to someone saying: we'll take less pay if we can perform less optimally.

Without the empirical data in front of us, it's pure speculation about the number of execs with golden parachutes, or the extent of "drag" they exert on the economy and vice versa with the union members. While it could be either or both harming the economy or efficiency, but your comments seems to stem from how you feel about unions in general rather than any actual evidence for your claims that most execs are over-worked and underpaid laborers. If that's true, and both the workers and execs are over-worked and underpaid, then where is the money going? To the stockholders (and not likely to be you and me who probably own a fingernail scraping of miscrosoft, etc.)?

I'd love to see if a legal action against the union could be instituted by all of the people who were adversely affected. People who missed work, stores and other businesses who had to close, that sort of thing.

I don't believe anyone would say (at least with a straight face) that this strike wasn't intended to harm the people mentioned above, and if what Cynthetique said about the strike's legality is accurate, a strong case could be made.

(...Waiting for someone to say that suing corporations is good, but suing unions is bad. I can't tell the difference between the two anymore.)

I would be interested to see that argument, since those organizations don't set wages, hours, or pension benefits, nor do they boycott or call strikes. Well, maybe they ENCOURAGE some boycotts, but they sure as hell can't require closed shops.

The most I've seen them do in that regard is pay lobbyists, and argue against whatever harebrained scheme Congress has recently come up with.

Was anything said anywhere about LESS pay, at least among those presently employed? They were negotiating the amount of proposed raises.

And a much more realistic approach (which is common in the workplace) would be less hours for less time on the job. It's hard to think of a business that would agree to have their employees do a crappy job.

Where I work the management will only talk pay reviews if the union has more than 45% of the staff. There biggest struggle is to get people to realise that to be represented by a union takes involvement. Sometimes people get annoyed that non-union members get a 'free ride,' because the pay deal has to apply to them as well. But I realise that unions have to fight for all workers, not just the members. Given that our union isn't a strongarming organisation, I think that they do a lot of good work. Unions have had to adapt, as many of the bigger battles have been fought and won (or at least compromised on.) I think that it may be cyclic, and it's always the few, either in management or corrupt union officials that ruin the thing. When things get bad the unions tend to get an increase in members, so while they may be less necessary today, who knows what tomorrow will bring?

A brooklyn Supreme Court Judge had authorized an injunction last week stipulating possible fines. He found the Union in contempt and is levying a $1million/day fine which is supposed to double each day that workers are on strike.

One construction worker was quoted with saying he couldn't make it to the job site and was replaced by someone who could 4 days before Christmas.

This is partially true but mostly false. In a handful of states the local AMA/ADA etc works for protectionism by making it hard for out of state practitioners to get a license there. Florida, Arizona come to mind. Hawaii and CA just recently changed to be open. That is very union like.

Also they will lobby at the state and federal level to an extent, but their strength is pretty weak and there is no real push to have its members vote any direction. Also you don't need to be a member of the AMA/ADA to be a doctor, and there are no laws or rules that prevent you from working if you are a non AMA member.

Also price fixing is illegal for the work we do. It is not legal for a group of doctors in an area got together and say 'We will charge no less than X for this procedure'. I'm not sure what law it is, but I was warned many times about it. Like all laws, in some places this may be broken, but in my area its very well followed and I'm not aware of the pricing of most of my competitors.

f the TA, those wage increases hardly keep up with cost of living indicies.

Is hardly keep up the same as saying they keep up?

If they keep up your issue is?

That's the kind of raise that I'm lucky to get. They pay nothing for their healthcare and want to retire at 50/55???? WTF is that? I'm not going to be able to retire at that age at all.

I can be fired at will. They have to go through hearings and lots of steps before you are fired which could take up to 4-5 years from some stories I remember, sometimes you don't even get to fire the person and they get to sail into good pension plans.

The issue is that a good employee deserves to make more each year. It's not a raise if you just get a cost of living increase. Sure you might make more on paper but your buying power hasn't changed.

My previous employer pulled that shit last year. They gave us our annual raise and cost of living adjustment and none of us even got what the cost of living increase was. They tried to rationalize it by saying that the business had a bad year but we all knew it was BS, especially since the source testing part had it's best year ever.

In the next year the business (consisting of 12 people, including the owner and his wife) lost 6 of its employees and at least 2 were looking for new jobs when I left.

Why not? I work quite hard each year, and I'm very lucky to get a 3% raise. Even when I was in management I had to jugle .25% taken from a couple persons to give someone else a 3.5% raise.

If you are happy with what you are getting then fine. I wasn't. I knew I was paid less then the industry norm and that their 'merit raises' weren't even covering cost of living increases. I left them and found a job doing the same thing for 25% more money and better benefits.

The conversations going on here are quite interesting. It actually mirrors many conversations I have with the guys I work with. Lets get some perspective here, and I'll use where I work as an example.... I work with about 90 other guys. My company is union, we have pretty good benefits, and I make a pretty good paycheck. Our contract was up this past September, and many guys cried that we didn't get a big enough raise... Considering the amount of money my company has made over the past couple of years I agreed with that so I voted my contract down. If everyone else really felt they deserved more wouldn't they have voted no? Only 7 guys voted no. After the vote all the same guys who cried they weren't making enough money said they had no choice because they have a family.... Maybe a good reason, but I think it's a lame excuse. The real reason they voted yes is because all the other guys who voted yes are really bad at managing their money. They blow their cash on dope, booze, cigarettes, $400 cell phones, motorcycles, 4 wheelers, boats, and the list can go on . If your family was that important you wouldn't drop those habits and expensive hobby's so your wife and kids can have more things and, more importantly, financial security with a savings account? Nearly everyone I work with lives pay to pay. How is it that I don't live like that and we work at the exact same place? I manage my money better, period. It's not necessarily how much you make.... It's what you do with your money that really matters, so make it count and quit blaming everyone else for your problems. And trust me, I'm not perfect. I got myself in a bit a debt, but I blamed myself, took responsibility for my actions, changed my lifestyle, and now I'm about 100x better off than I ever was before. If I can make the change than anyone can.

You quoted me, but I was responding to ustwo's statement.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you, I can only imagine that you're purposely being argumentative because of whatever opposition you have toward my political orientation.
Workers take home less money when they work less hours, businesses don't pay a worker a lower payscale when they work less hours. Businesses pay workers a lower or higher payscale depending on how good a job they do. In fact, the general right-winger responses to threads regarding minimum wage, living wages, "appropriate" compensation, & etc. is always that employees ought to increase their productivity (not hours worked, but quality of work) and bring more value to the workplace in order to earn a higher hourly wage.

That's the response, but when I repeat it in this thread, in support of a unionized worker to demand more money for better service or trade a lower demand for crappier service, then all of a sudden I'm talking alien-speak. you no comprendy anymo. So I guess that argument is just made for expediency, not that you actually believe people earn what they deserve. High pay == good service/difficult job/education; low pay== shitty service/easy job/skillless...at least, that's the general argument from conservative members on this board and often elsewhere.


So maybe you and ustwo can explain why in this particular case agreeing to a lower payscale (or not as high of a raise, if you prefer) in exchange for less quality work chaffs you so much. That seems to be the MO of employers and employee relationships when deciding on raises--how good a job did you/are you doing (NOT how many hours did you work this week, as you suggested).

without commentary on the issue of unions, it's interesting to see this statement without larger commentary.

if this is, on average, true for most workers, we're looking very quickly at the age of american decline. if our inflation rate is outstripping our wage gains, that has to indicate a negative change in productivity per worker.

think of it this way. if you made the company $100 per day last year, and this year that same amount of goods is worth $105, your pay should go up five percent, right?

but if instead, you only get a three percent raise, you are in fact less productive this year than last.

unless, that's all bullshit because what's really happening is that your company is screwing you for the difference by letting your wages stay the same while they take in more money from inflated prices.

you know...just two possibilities.

What they are saying is we will take slightly less of a raise if we can be disciplined less. Having worked around union shops in my youth, this has nothing to do with lowering job skills, and everything to do with job security for inept union members.

actually no, my company is a public company.

I am allowed to purchase stock to share in the profits that the company generates. I just have to divert some money towards it. My wife even gets a 15% discount from the quarterly average price on all purchases for her company stock.

Other people choose to buy new cellphones, Air Jordan sneakers, Tommy Hilfiger shirts, and 18" shiny rims.

Unions with the right leadership are very beneficial and keep workers recieving good pay and benefits.

A union will show that there is retribution for a company's actions.

However, under poor management, they become top heavy and the greed of the few begins to weigh more on the good of the many.

Both my grandfathers literally risked their lives to get unions in where they worked. And it helped them get paid better, gave them better benefits and safer working conditions.

Those are the good points.

The bad is that seniority allows laziness and hassles in order to fire those who abuse the system.

Unions, like government and industry, need to streamline, return to the sole purpose of protecting the worker, and cut the pork. If someone doesn't do the job, then the union needs to reprimand him and show that their loyalty is to getting the job done at a cost beneficial to both labor and corporation, while protecting the worker..... not protecting the worker and allowing the system to be so abused that the job costs far more than it needs to.

I grew up in a GM plant town, the stories of people who would go in work 15 minutes and then fall asleep holding a broom, or leave and not clock out, and so on because they had senoirity and were protected by the union ran rampant. Those are the things unions need to clamp down on and show companies and the public that those abuses will not be tolerated.

Shani Faye, you are certainly right Unions have their flaws, but so does Corporate America. If either is given too much power things get out of hand.

I have worked in negotiations for both Unions and Management. Ideally they should both be working for the same thing. For if they are both doing what they are designed to do then everyone benefits. That is, both should bring a unique perspective to the table and examine the issues and reach an intelligent compromise.

The problems come when one side or the other takes it personally and refuses to compromise.

I like unions because they allow unrepresented people to join together and bargain for better pay and benefits, but then again, some unions are bad because they are made up of criminals.